alexseanchai | (no subject)

(no subject)

I have seen and am adopting "cisallohet" as a replacement for "cishet" in the usage of people who don't want to target queer folks when they use a word explicitly to mean only not-queer, because asexual and aromantic are queer dammit and "cishet" is often used to target aces (who happen to be cis and heteroromantic) and aros (who happen to be cis and heterosexual). (I have no idea whether "heterocis" is used similarly, but that's also in my experience a less angrily connoted word than "cishet" even though they denote the same thing.)

How would we fix up "heterocisnormative" to make the same point? "heterocisallonormative"? "cisalloheteronormative"? Someone in #dreamwidth-kvetch is suggesting "heterallocisnormative" or "hetallocisnormative", but I'm not sure those flow? But then I'm not sure my two thoughts flow either...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I've seen people using the term 'amatonormative', but... none of the combinations I can think of work well with that either.

*nod*

If using all three, I personally probably wouldn't try to combine them into a single word but just put up with the unwieldiness of using the separate versions: ie, heteronormative, cisnormative, and allonormative. Pick any two and it isn't awful to stick in front of normative, but the katamari approach doesn't seem to quite work when you throw all three in. *hands*

I see your point and I won't say you're wrong. I'm just thinking the same principle is in play that necessitates words like "transmisogynoir", which is itself (I think) an awkward word, but conveys the uniqueness of that oppression better than "transphobic anti-black misogyny" does.

Words are hard /o\

Yeah, I understand why you want the word. Which, I mean, sometimes you throw your hands in the air and live with an ugly kludge because it works and nothing else quite actually does.

I think hetallocisnormative is the easiest physically say of those options put forth, but it makes it harder to parse the meaning in both speech and writing. If we're going to for maximum clarity, I'd say heterocisallonromative manages that the best in part because it uses a partial form that people are at least more likely to have encountered before (ie, heterocisnormative).

*nodnod* :)

I definitely see your point, but I am just hissing at the word-sound of all of those options. Including cisallohet. Not that I have a better option. *Sigh*

Yyyeeeaaah. :(

♥

I'm not sure I understand the difference this seems to make between "hetero-" and "allo-", as these both mean other/different AFAIK. But that might be etymological fallacy at work, to the extent that one/both might have changed meaning since.

Folks have taken to using allosexual and alloromantic to describe normative sexuality and romantic attraction (normative as opposed to asexual and aromantic.) It makes for a clearer discussion than just using "sexual" and "romantic", in places where you don't want to assume hetero/homo/bi/pansexual (or -romantic) or where you want to avoid writing out that list I just used above.

Thanks.

idk the etymology but aris_tgd is right

Thanks.

*raises hand*

One problem here is that I'm aromantic and I'm not queer. Some of us aren't.

The problem is in nonspecificity in talking about axes of oppression--in most ways, I have all of the cishet privilege. In some ways my experience isn't normative. That doesn't mean those differences are unimportant or that they couldn't be queer, but they're different than when we're talking about queer narratives.

Sometimes abandoning shorthand is necessary when we want to be nuanced. I almost feel like attempting to kludge together more nuanced shorthand implies "There, we fixed it, we've taken care of all the nuances involved in asexual/aromantic relationships now" when those nuances are actually a huge confusing morass on their own, different between different combinations of asexuality and aromanticisity, and really not consistent even over those groups.

Fair statements all. I have more to say but it isn't wording properly rn, so I'll just say clear compassionate communication can be a damned tricky thing.

In your opinion, are these fair statements?

Aces and aros can be queer, just as gays and lesbians are.

Aces and aros are no more necessarily queer than gays and lesbians.

(Wish DW would fix mobile browser comment nonsense. More next comment.)

Edited 2017-04-07 20:57 (UTC)

Though of course individual self-identification is to be respected, aces and aros are generally queer, just as gays and lesbians are.

It is unfair, inaccurate, and disrespectful, especially when other queer folk do this, to treat aces and aros generally, and those who [are / want to be] queer by reason of that identity specifically, as not!queer.

Edited 2017-04-07 20:57 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm also just kind of exhausted by the world right now so I'm not parsing things as well as I ought to.

I think that aromanticism and asexuality are complicated by the fact that you can attach either to heterosexuality/heteroromantic attractions as well as to homo/bi/pan romantic and sexual attraction or none at all (asexual aros: still existing, still queering ur discourse.) And... like, as a heterosexual aromantic, my sexuality doesn't feel queer. My romantic attraction doesn't really feel queer because I don't have any. So while the experience of being an eternally single woman may be in some ways a queer narrative, it doesn't impact me on a day to day basis as people policing my sexuality.

But the bigger problem of people not making space for asexuals/aromantics in queer spaces is really important to challenge, and after sleeping on it I approve of the push in language--I just wish that we had room in our discourse for adding nuance, grumble mutter endless problems.

(I don't object to the label queer out of any discomfort in associating with queerness because queerness is awesome, I object because it genuinely feels wrong to apply it to me. So my initial objection was based less on rational argument and more on "WOAH that feels weird I am too privileged for that." I may feel different if I came from a culture where people asked me on a daily basis when I was going to start dating/settling down/getting married.)

Yeah, that all makes perfect sense. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

	
		OSZAR »