terflies:

cunninglingus:

terflies:

@jamais-sans-couleur reblogged your post and added:

“cishet ace” and “cishet aro” are oxymorons; ace/aro people cannot be cishet, by any meaningful definition,

Has the historical definition and understanding of heterosexual not been something along the lines of “exclusive amourous attraction to the opposite sex/gender”?

An asexual person can still experience that attraction and therefore be straight.

Something along those lines, but meaningful definitions for ‘cishet’ and ‘straight’ are explicitly in reference to the societal norm—heterosexual and heteroromantic—from which both asexual and aromantic people deviate, and on deviation from which oppression is based.

To call asexual or romantic people ‘cishet’ or ‘straight’ is to erase their being asexuality or aromantic.

This is some serious revisionist bs. “Cishet” refers to a class of people who are not same gender attracted or trans and therefore do not experience homophobia or transphobia… So meaningful definitions of cishet and straight are in reference to not experiencing transphobia or homohobia and not being same gender attracted respectively.

Calling cishet aces and aros cishet is not erasure and not doing so would defeat the purpose of the term.

The bar for revisionism has never been so low. These are contested definitions of a word, and yours does not hold a position of primacy or orthodoxy.

Moreover, defining cishet only as [a class of people not trans and not experiencing same-gender attraction] is arbitrary. Arbitrary not just in depending only on these two traits but in why to consider sexuality and gender together.

Defining it as [not experiencing homophobia and transphobia] fails to correspond with gay and trans. (Gay does not mean [experiencing homophobia]; trans does not mean [experiencing transphobia].)

There are problems, too, in negative definitions that define (classes of) people by what they are not, rather than what they are.

Neither case engages with the underlying social phenomenon of homophobia, biphobia, aphobia, transphobia etc. That is what I mean when I attest such a definition is meaningless—it has no purpose but the arbitrary dilineation of “us” and “them”.

9 months ago / 37 
via: terflies
  1. androgynousblackbox reblogged this from terflies and added:
    The whole idea of “only experience same gender attraction making you Oppressed Enough™ to enter the LGBT club” is...
  2. cunninglingus reblogged this from cunninglingus and added:
    Thats all, folks
  3. tharook said: @cunninglingus Wrong, irrelevant, and wrong.
  4. cunninglingus said: @tharook ace/aro people aren’t systemically oppressed for being ace/aro. Some, however, may be oppressed for other things or experience micro-aggressions, which would be discrimination, not oppression. Cis LGB people cannot benefit from homophobia, whereas cishets are a class of people who opress all LGBT people. Meaning LGBT spaces are not safe if cishets are included.
  5. tharook said: @cunninglingus Well, thereโ€™s your problemโ€”ace/aro people *are* oppressed. Meanwhile, cis people oppress trans people, yet theyโ€™re not excluded, so donโ€™t give me that.
  6. cunninglingus said: @tharook I truly have no idea what you mean by “address opression itself”. It defines “us” as all of the people oprressed, not an arbitrary subset? All LGBT people are oppressed by all cishets… Even ace/aro cishets.
  7. tharook said: It is when failing to address oppression itself, and instead defines โ€œusโ€ as an arbitrary subset of the people oppressed.
  8. tharook said: @radical-eirini the entire โ€œthe reason you feel like aphobia is so adjacent to these things is because it doesnโ€™t exist, what youโ€™re describing is misogyny and homophobiaโ€ What things? Why do you think thatโ€™s the reason? (Why so confidently?) How do you claim aphobia doesnโ€™t exist? What am I describing? and why do you think itโ€™s misogyny and homophobia?
  9. terflies reblogged this from radical-eirini and added:
    Not everyone experiencing “split” attraction does not mean it is an invalid description for those who do.The value...
  10. radical-eirini said: @tharook i can clarify if you have a specific question
  11. tharook said: @radical-eirini I have no idea what youโ€™re referring to or what sense youโ€™re trying to make, sorry.
  12. nicomrade reblogged this from terflies
  13. radical-eirini said: @terflies the reason you feel like aphobia is so adjacent to these things is because it doesnt exist, what you’re describing is misogyny and homophobia
  14. radical-eirini said: @terflies ….yeah its a historical definition lmao idk why you’re saying its meaningless
  15. radical-eirini reblogged this from cunninglingus and added:
    the split attraction model is bullshit and the word “cishet” wasn’t just made to include “”“"normal”“” people lmao thats...
  16. trans-angel reblogged this from terflies
(c)