We are more than halfway through May, which means we are almost in June, which means that Pride is quickly approaching, and Pride discourse has already started.
Whew!
There’s gonna be a lot of garbage takes in the coming weeks, some of which I’m sure I will wind up dissecting here, but I want to cut one burgeoning Discourse™️ off at the pass, the one that basically asks if there are any cishet people who maybe, maybe, should get representation at Pride on account of their own marginalized sexual identities, which we can also just sum up as “Should LGBTQ be LGBTQAKP?”
I want to begin this by saying that “Should the interests of these parties be represented during Pride discussions?” is a different question from “Are these groups oppressed?” Because, like, yes: ace people and poly people and kinky people are oppressed, even if they are cishet. And not even just in the “we’re all oppressed by the cisheteropatriarchy sense” (although sure): there are very concrete ways that society is set up to police and punish people whose sexuality is considered non-normative.
Off the top of my head, there’s the fact that being kinky or poly can be used against you during divorce and even custody proceedings, single family home zoning regulations prohibiting polycules from buying homes in certain neighborhoods (read that linked paper, it’s great), and even the fact that being non-monogamous can lead to you being barred from becoming a naturalized citizen. That last one sounds nuts, but I’ve seen my great-grandfather’s declaration of intent to become a US citizen (he never became one, just declared the intent), and it required him to state that he was not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy:
And while yes, that was over 100 years ago, the laws are still on the books.
(I am less familiar with the structural ways that ace folks are oppressed but I’m sure there are some! Feel free to chime in in the comments with examples.)
So. We are not debating whether or not people are marginalized or oppressed because of non-normative sexual identities because, yes, people are, even if they are cishet.
But what we are discussing is this broader discussion of the purpose and intent of Pride, and whether, again, broadening LGBTQ to LGBTQAKP is the move. And I —
Well, look, let me give you a little context for my opinion first. I get the impression, when these discussions are had, that people who are advocating for Pride to be for all sexual minorities, even the cishet ones, see being tacked on to that acronym as a sign of legitimacy and cred. If your sexual identity is brought in under the LGBTQ umbrella, then it’s been fully recognized as marginalized; more to the point, it will be taken seriously, and you’ll have a team of people advocating for your rights.
As a bisexual, I — I have to laugh, guys.
The thing about even just throwing gays and lesbians and trans people and bisexuals into one bucket and calling it a day is that it has… not really worked out great for trans people and bisexuals. Not even for lesbians, some days! “Solidarity” primarily results in everyone under that umbrella being asked to focus on the desires of the most socially acceptable group (white cis gays), often at their own expense. And while it sometimes leads to group actions that are useful, it frequently doesn’t: even now, as trans people are coming under attack, the primary people standing up for trans people are… trans people. The cis LGBs? We’re not showing up anywhere near as strongly as we should. And as for bi rights I mean — on a good day the most you can get from the majority of queers is an acknowledgement that the B in LGBTQ stands for bisexual.
On a good day.
So, like, what would be gained by cishet poly people or ace folks or kinksters being tossed into the LGBTQ bucket, you know? I certainly think queer and trans poly people and ace folks and kinksters should advocate for their own visibility within the queer community and at Pride (#YesKinkAtPride), but that’s different from saying that straight poly people should automatically be included in the community. Because I mean — you can’t even argue that cishet poly folks and queer folks are fighting the same battles! Many monogamous gays are actively working against the interests of poly folk, seeking to be accepted into (and thus further legitimize) the institution of monogamous marriage rather than dismantle it entirely.
Anyway.
I get it though. I get this fantasy of joining a pre-existing community and having them on your side. It would be lovely for Pride to be an open celebration of and advocacy for all sexually marginalized people, for it to be a collective undoing of all the expectations and legal mandates that limit how people can conduct their private lives. It would be great if Pride were just one big “Leave Us the Fuck Alone” fest.
But it’s not. And the more people who get shoved in the bucket, the more people there are to get trampled on as a tiny select group claws their way to the top.
I mean, seriously: why do you think I became interested in bi-specific activism? It’s primarily because LGBTQ activism was leaving my people ignored and undiscussed. I don’t want that for me. I don’t want that for anyone.
Leave a Reply