#and for that matter ive seen asexuality blamed for erasing transness

[variousqueerthings]

I have seen otherwise queer-positive blogs get really angry when asexuality is used as a lens through which to look at historical figures, as if aceness negates being gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans or stands in contradiction to those terms somehow. and I think it's a shame, because there are so many interesting nuances in asexuality that aren't really considered, I think, that is for example that asexuality can walk hand in hand with kink, with sex, with same-gender attraction, with being flirtatious, and for that matter can be a temporal thing, can be related to trauma, or to repression, or to some other outside force (is it a hot take that celibacy and asexuality overlap idk, but i think celibacy has been used to describe many an experience of which asexuality is definitely a major one), and yes, some figures appear to never have had an interest in sex at all and been fine with that, while either still having close romantically read relationships or perhaps arguably being aromantic as well (or indeed, the other way around).

it comes back around I think to the idea that some queer people have that asexuality is a bit.. boring really. a bit less cool and groundbreaking than other ways of challenging the status quo, and (let's be real) a bit less queer. all of which is false of course, and a symptom of ones own internalised queerphobia and policing of acceptable queer behaviours, but I do get a bit sad having followed history nerds in queer spaces, at seeing that unchallenged reaction again and again. it's recreating the need for boxes, as if a. history was ever clear cut enough for modern concepts around the labels we have (if they even used those labels to being with) and b. we're not that clear cut and that's part of the point

let asexuality into your heart and learn its philosophies, the same as any other chapter of queer philosophy enriches our understanding of ourselves and histories