Who counts as queer?

[Ahriman]

Lesbians, gay people, bisexuals, transgender, not sure what else. Anything that isn't heteronormative.

Cool.

1) Does heteronormative, in your opinion, include allosexuality (so asexuals are lgbtq+)?
2) What about non-binary genders?
3) What about objectum/ficto- sexuality?
4) What about polyamory?
5) What about serious fetishism?

1) Not really, I mean the other categories are all different forms of sexuality and asexuality is just a lack of sexuality so it doesn't really fit in with the rest
2) They might not actually exist, so they might not belong
3) I don't know what that is
4) No
5) No

[brewer]

OK.  That's something we disagree upon.  

But what about your opinion on who/what belongs under the LGBTQ+ umbrella?  Now that I have clarified what I mean, do you have any thoughts on that issue?

I appears to me that you are overly concerned about what peoples perceptions are of the LGBTQ+ community, and therefore you.

My opinion, I don't care. Maybe you should care less about others opinions, it might make you happier/content.

[FrustratedFool]

Cool.

1) Does heteronormative, in your opinion, include allosexuality (so asexuals are lgbtq+)?
2) What about non-binary genders?
3) What about objectum/ficto- sexuality?
4) What about polyamory?
5) What about serious fetishism?

1) Not really, I mean the other categories are all different forms of sexuality and asexuality is just a lack of sexuality so it doesn't really fit in with the rest
2) They might not actually exist, so they might not belong
3) I don't know what that is
4) No
5) No

A common asexual response would be that they are not heteronormative noe allonormative and are therefore queer in a society dominated by heteronormative views of relationship (which results in their ostracisation and discrimination to various degrees). 'A' has been part of lgbtq+ for some time now based on this idea. What would your counter-response be?

I'm not sure what you mean by NBi genders not actually existing given gender is meant here as a social construct, rhus if people declare themselves NBi it exists. Can you clarify?

Objectums have attraction/love with non-organics (objects and concepts), fictos with fictional characters. Fictos are often included under the asexual umbrella, as are to a lesser extent objectums.

Polyamorous and fethish activists might argue that they are also outside heteronormative society, and face discrimination because of that. What would your response be?

[FrustratedFool]

OK.  That's something we disagree upon.  

But what about your opinion on who/what belongs under the LGBTQ+ umbrella?  Now that I have clarified what I mean, do you have any thoughts on that issue?

I appears to me that you are overly concerned about what peoples perceptions are of the LGBTQ+ community, and therefore you.

My opinion, I don't care. Maybe you should care less about others opinions, it might make you happier/content.

I'm curious as to why asking such a question has raised the idea that I am overly-concerned about this topic.  And also curious as to why if someone thinks that it is worth telling me.  As it is, it strikes me as simply a rude comment, especially if the person making it doesn't care about the topic.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is happening here.

Can you explain what the motivation and reasoning was for making a personal comment about what you perceive to be an inappropriate level of concern, and what you think is the appropriate level of concern on this topic?

[Ahriman]

1) Not really, I mean the other categories are all different forms of sexuality and asexuality is just a lack of sexuality so it doesn't really fit in with the rest
2) They might not actually exist, so they might not belong
3) I don't know what that is
4) No
5) No

1) A common asexual response would be that they are not heteronormative noe allonormative and are therefore queer in a society dominated by heteronormative views of relationship (which results in their ostracisation and discrimination to various degrees).  'A' has been part of lgbtq+ for some time now based on this idea.  What would your counter-response be?

2) I'm not sure what you mean by NBi genders not actually existing given gender is meant here as a social construct, rhus if people declare themselves NBi it exists.  Can you clarify?

3) Objectums have attraction/love with non-organics (objects and concepts), fictos with fictional characters.  Fictos are often included under the asexual umbrella, as are to a lesser extent objectums.

4) Polyamorous and fethish activists might argue that they are also outside heteronormative society, and face discrimination because of that.  What would your response be?

1) Yeah I don't think they belong because they are not "queer" in the same sense as all the others, being asexual isn't queer, it's just not caring about sex
2) Well I mean, there has to be a limit to what people identify as, otherwise the whole concept of "identity" becomes meaningless
3) Actually that sounds like me, I used to fantasize about having relationships with anime and video game girls, then I started becoming unhealthily infatuated with IRL girls 
4) They aren't outside heteronormative society, heterosexuals can have multiple partners or fetishes too

[Angrboda]

I appears to me that you are overly concerned about what peoples perceptions are of the LGBTQ+ community, and therefore you.

My opinion, I don't care. Maybe you should care less about others opinions, it might make you happier/content.

I'm curious as to why asking such a question has raised the idea that I am overly-concerned about this topic.  And also curious as to why if someone thinks that it is worth telling me.  As it is, it strikes me as simply a rude comment, especially if the person making it doesn't care about the topic.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is happening here.

Can you explain what the motivation and reasoning was for making a personal comment about what you perceive to be an inappropriate level of concern, and what you think is the appropriate level of concern on this topic?

[FrustratedFool]

1) A common asexual response would be that they are not heteronormative noe allonormative and are therefore queer in a society dominated by heteronormative views of relationship (which results in their ostracisation and discrimination to various degrees).  'A' has been part of lgbtq+ for some time now based on this idea.  What would your counter-response be?

2) I'm not sure what you mean by NBi genders not actually existing given gender is meant here as a social construct, rhus if people declare themselves NBi it exists.  Can you clarify?

3) Objectums have attraction/love with non-organics (objects and concepts), fictos with fictional characters.  Fictos are often included under the asexual umbrella, as are to a lesser extent objectums.

4) Polyamorous and fethish activists might argue that they are also outside heteronormative society, and face discrimination because of that.  What would your response be?

1) Yeah I don't think they belong because they are not "queer" in the same sense as all the others, being asexual isn't queer, it's just not caring about sex
2) Well I mean, there has to be a limit to what people identify as, otherwise the whole concept of "identity" becomes meaningless
3) Actually that sounds like me, I used to fantasize about having relationships with anime and video game girls, then I started becoming unhealthily infatuated with IRL girls 
4) They aren't outside heteronormative society, heterosexuals can have multiple partners or fetishes too

1) But I can't see the consistency here.  If the criteria is about sexual proclivity, that would eliminate transfolk.  If the criteria is being outside heteronormativity that would seem to include asexual folk.

2)  The limit would usually be set at (within many progressive queer communities): sincere, with some reasoning, in a way that doesn't contradict objective external reality.  All social construct identities, especially gendered ones, would therefore be valid.

3) OK.

4) I think that depends on what is meant by 'normative' as opposed to just 'heteosexual'.  Heteronormative often seems to include more, and is a more expansive term, than just heterosexual.

[FrustratedFool]

I'm curious as to why asking such a question has raised the idea that I am overly-concerned about this topic.  And also curious as to why if someone thinks that it is worth telling me.  As it is, it strikes me as simply a rude comment, especially if the person making it doesn't care about the topic.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is happening here.

Can you explain what the motivation and reasoning was for making a personal comment about what you perceive to be an inappropriate level of concern, and what you think is the appropriate level of concern on this topic?

Well, yes.  Like this post.  I don't really see the reason for it.

[Ahriman]

1) Yeah I don't think they belong because they are not "queer" in the same sense as all the others, being asexual isn't queer, it's just not caring about sex
2) Well I mean, there has to be a limit to what people identify as, otherwise the whole concept of "identity" becomes meaningless
3) Actually that sounds like me, I used to fantasize about having relationships with anime and video game girls, then I started becoming unhealthily infatuated with IRL girls 
4) They aren't outside heteronormative society, heterosexuals can have multiple partners or fetishes too

1) But I can't see the consistency here.  If the criteria is about sexual proclivity, that would eliminate transfolk.  If the criteria is being outside heteronormativity that would seem to include asexual folk.

2)  The limit would usually be set at (within many progressive queer communities): sincere, with some reasoning, in a way that doesn't contradict objective external reality.  All social construct identities, especially gendered ones, would therefore be valid.

3) OK.

4) I think that depends on what is meant by 'normative' as opposed to just 'heteosexual'.  Heteronormative often seems to include more, and is a more expansive term, than just heterosexual.

I've always been in love with things or people that don't love me back. It isn't healthy at all.

[Angrboda]

Well, yes.  Like this post.  I don't really see the reason for it.

"If someone is an asshole, they're an asshole, if everyone is an asshole, you're the asshole"