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.
no subject
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.