AnonymousCan you not compare exclusionists to authoritarians? You can be an inclusionist, fine, but do you know how ignorant and tone deaf it is to liken exclusionists to a dangerous political ideology with a body count in the hundreds of millions of people? For you to even make a claim to exclusionists being authoritarian for some stupid tumblr discourse is wildly disrespectful to marginalized groups who have actually suffered under the hands of authoritarian states.
I understand why you’re uncomfortable. You’ve got this idea that authoritarianism is only something that appears in totalitarian regimes that tend to target queer people like myself, so you don’t think it’s appropriate to compare exclusionists to authoritarians.
Only, I’m not presenting a tone deaf or ignorant analysis of the problem. The problem is actually that you don’t understand what authoritarianism is, and in your ignorance you send me a message like this.
Authoritarianism isn’t a political ideology, it’s a cognitive flaw that exists in all human cultures. Here’s a quick primer, pulled from similar things I’ve already said on my blog before:
Authoritarians are people who create a social power structure that requires obedience to a core authority, usually an individual but sometimes an ideology. They exhibit the following three behaviors as a core part of what they do.
Establish an in-group and then police it. People don’t just have to look like you, they also have to talk like you. If they don’t, they’re the enemy and you have to push them into the out-group.
Identify an out-group. These people are the enemy and must be attacked to keep the community safe.
Take your biggest, meanest, most violent person and put them in charge. They are now mom/dad and they will keep you safe.
Authoritarianism is, at its root, a cognitive flaw created by emotional immaturity. People who are emotionally immature build power structures that they think will keep them safe, and those power structures work by hurting other people. That’s why they have to imagine that they face an existential threat from people who pose no threat to them. To conservative Christians, it’s everything from leftists to Muslims. To TERFs, it’s trans women. And to exclusionists, it’s aces.
That’s why we keep pointing out that exclusionists talk like TERFs. Because they do. Because both groups are an expression of authoritarianism in the LGBTQ+ community.
Not satisfied? Neither am I, let’s go further.
Exclusionists are absolutely authoritarians. Here’s a short list of reasons why:
They have an in-group and they police it. To exclusionists, there is only the LGBT community. Anyone among those groups that don’t agree with exclusionists are policed in an attempt to exclude them from the community.
They have an out-group that they attack. Asexual people. And before that, bisexual people and trans people.
Their in-group doesn’t match reality. Asexual people have been a recognized part of the LGBTQ+ community for more than 50 years, but since that pokes a hole in exclusionism, they need to lie about it and claim that asexuality was a trend started by David Jay when he founded AVEN.
People in the LGBTQ+ community have been calling themselves queer for longer than I’ve been alive, but to exclusionists queer is a slur that must never be said by anyone.
Their out-group directly attacks people in the LGBTQ+ community in an effort to invalidate them, erase them, and deny them resources that they have every right to access.
Their fear of the out-group is entirely imaginary. Aces don’t take anything away from the LGBTQ+ community. Diversity is not a threat. Exclusionists just think it is because they’re authoritarians and authoritarians are always fearful and xenophobic.
This is not rocket science. Exclusionists argue that aces are a threat to the community because they take resources away from us. When we demonstrate how faulty that reasoning is, they fall back to claiming that aces aren’t actually oppressed. When we demonstrate how faulty and immoral that is, they fall back to their actual position.
Aces are the enemy, so exclusionists are going to label them as cishets and drive them out of the community for the sake of everyone’s safety.
And when we point out how that last argument isn’t just faulty, but also immoral and disgusting? Their true colors show and slurs and insults abound. Scratch an exclusionist and a hateful bigot bleeds.Your position is ignorant and tone deaf. You don’t understand what authoritarianism is and I find it personally insulting that you’d try to shame me into silence because you’re either too ignorant of the facts or too uncomfortable to acknowledge them.
Exclusionists are authoritarians. Learn to deal with it.
This is a good post.
I just want to add this:
When establishing an ‘out-group’ to harass and blame for all their problems, authoritarians frequently - maybe always - aim at people of similar or less social power than themselves, but claim that the designated out-group is more powerful than them.
This paints the authoritarian group as an underdog fighting a great foe, which encourages internal solidarity. But the bonus is doubled because the ‘great foe’ is actually fairly easy to gain political or legislative victories over; pretending this is nigh-impossible makes every victory a huge morale booster.
Examples:
TWERFs target trans women as the outgroup, but claim they are really fighting cis men.
SWERFs target sex workers as the outgroup, but claim they are fighting sex traffickers/the porn industry.
Exclusionists target ace people as the outgroup, but claim they are really fighting straight, cis people.
White nationalists target non-white refugees as the outgroup (& many others), but claim they are really fighting invaders who want to commit white genocide.
Gatekeepers need excuses for gatekeeping, after all, or they’re out of a job. But it’s not fun to gatekeep when you’re facing real enemies that might hurt you, so keeping busy with the ones you can kick around easily is a common pastime.
Almost everyone I know who is on meds they need every day to stay healthy and functional spends a significant share of every month on logistics related to continuing to have access to their meds. Pharmacies are out of stock when they go in, or stop carrying it, or the copay has risen dramatically and they need to find a pharmacy that’s cheaper, or the pharmacy doesn’t think they have a refill on file even though they should, or the pharmacy thinks it gave them two months’ supply when they’re sure they only got one. The nearest pharmacy that carries their meds is across the city and closes early on weekends.
If they have multiple prescriptions, they spend a significant chunk of their free time and energy on trying to ensure next month they’ll still have access to them. If they don’t have enough time and energy, they run out of meds, and then have to go through the same rigamarole to get back on them while tired and unfocused and struggling.
I’m not talking about drugs that people frequently abuse, here. I’m mostly talking about SSRIs, which as a nasty bonus will really screw you up if you try to quit them cold turkey. I’ve heard it’s infinitely worse if, god forbid, you need painkillers.
I’m lucky. The thing I need every day to stay healthy and functional is a nutritional shake that can be bought on Amazon or Costco. If I notice I’m running low, I order more. I can buy as many months’ worth at a time as I want. I can order them overnight if I am late in noticing that I screwed up and ran out. If I’m very late, I can swing by a store and buy them.
If the nutrition shakes I need were prescription-only, I would be dead.
And I can’t help but think that a lot of people are dead who’d be alive if the meds that let them be healthier, happy and functional were available in the corner store, or on Amazon, or were frequently prescribed in larger doses with some slack for complications. And a lot of other people would have hours of pain and anxiety every month replaced with things they enjoy and value and care about. I know there are tradeoffs; probably some people would take SSRIs who don’t need them or aren’t informed about interactions with other medications. But I’m suspicious that the best possible tradeoff on this front can’t be the one that has disabled people having regularly scheduled fights for their lives.
I was scrolling through my dash on mobile and I saw this drawing by Rob Liefeld and I was like
“Hey this doesn’t look too bad.”
“oh”
“oh god.”
“she’s like fucking long cat”
“enough”
“thou misunderstands me, my lord”
this makes me feel so much better about the way i draw anatomy
Sometimes I think maybe I’ve set my commission prices too high, but then I remember this, and I remember that he got paid for this, and suddenly I don’t feel like my prices are high enough after all
Once upon a time there was a city called Omelas, where everyone lived good and happy and fulfilling lives.
And in time it came to pass that a young man by the name of Outis came of age in that city; and, as with all who lived in that city, he was taken to a secret place where a wise elder showed him a small cold dirty room. And in that room there was a small cold dirty child, naked and hurt and starving, who had never known the least human kindness.
And the wise elder said to Outis, “In our city, everything is good and no one suffers. But it all depends on this child. If the least kindness is shown to him, our city will become like all other cities. There must always be such a child in Omelas.” …
…And Outis said to the elder, “If our city becomes like all other cities, many children will suffer.” And so he became a citizen of Omelas. And Outis led a good and happy and fulfilling life; and the child continued to suffer.
…And Outis said to the elder, “I will have no part in this evil thing.” And he walked away from Omelas. And Outis led a cold and short and brutish life; and the child continued to suffer.
…And Outis said to the elder, “I will have no part in this evil thing.” And he took the child and bathed him and cared for his wounds. And the city of Omelas became like all other cities; and many children suffered there.
…And Outis said to the elder, “I will have no part in this evil thing.” And he took the child and bathed him and cared for his wounds. And the city of Omelas carried on as it always had; and from that day forth no child suffered there.
…And Outis said to the elder, “I will have no part in this evil thing.” And he took the child and bathed him and cared for his wounds. And the city of Omelas became like all other cities; and many children suffered there.
But Outis, who would leave no child to suffer, worked tirelessly to save each one of them, and to build with his own hands a city in which everyone lived a good and happy and fulfilling life; and so in time it came to pass that the latter days of Omelas were greater than the former. And for ten trillion years Omelas carried on, and no child ever suffered there again.
…And Outis said to the elder, “Nevertheless, this child is my son, and I will not leave him to suffer.” And he took the child and bathed him and cared for his wounds. And the city of Omelas became like all other cities; and many children suffered there. But Outis did not care, because he valued the well-being of his son over all of them.
…And Outis asked the elder, “Why?” And the elder showed him to a library filled with books. And Outis studied the books for many years. And when he was an old man with a gray beard, Outis went out of the library and returned to the child and took the child out of the room, and in the child’s place he put a stone. And the stone was naked and dirty and cold; and the child Outis took and bathed and cared for. And Omelas carried on as it always had; and from that day forth no child suffered there.
Once upon a time there was a city called Omelas, where everyone lived good and happy and fulfilling lives; except for one child, who suffered so that the city might prosper. And all who lived there knew of this…
…And each citizen of Omelas, having looked into himself and seen that he would stand by while a child suffered in abject misery, found in himself a new willingness to do dark and evil deeds. And in time, all those who lived in Omelas suffered.
…And each citizen of Omelas lived with the gnawing guilt of his complicity, and the abiding terror that his own child would be chosen as the next to suffer. And in time it seemed to them that they could take no joy in any of the glories of Omelas.
…And one night, the child rose up and went out of his room and killed all the people of Omelas in their sleep.
Once upon a time there was a city called Omelas, where everyone lived good and happy and fulfilling lives. And each morning, each citizen of Omelas was taken to a small cold dirty room, and shown a small cold dirty child, and told that the child must suffer so that his day might be filled with all good things.
And all in Omelas agreed that it was better that one child should suffer than many; and none of them ever asked if it was the same child they saw each morning. And after all, one small cold dirty child looks much like another.
Once upon a time there was a city called Omelas, where everyone lived good and happy and fulfilling lives; except for ten thousand children, who suffered so that the city might prosper. And all who lived there knew of this…
…but none of them were ever taken to see the children in person, so none of them ever did anything about it.
…and whenever anyone saw such a child and “shouldn’t we rescue that suffering child?”, the other citizens of Omelas laughed and replied to them, “Naïve fool! Don’t you know that a child must always suffer in Omelas, so that the city may prosper? Otherwise it would become like all other cities, and many children would suffer.”
And everyone nodded wisely and went along with their days; and so ten thousand children continued to suffer where it might have been only one.
Once upon a time there was a city called Omelas, where everyone lived good and happy and fulfilling lives.
And
in time it came to pass that a young man by the name of Outis came of
age in that city; and, as with all who lived in that city, he was taken
to a secret place where a wise elder showed him a small cold dirty room.
And in that room there was a small cold dirty child, naked and hurt and
starving, who had never known the least human kindness.
And the
wise elder said to Outis, “In our city, everything is good and no one
suffers. But it all depends on this child. If the least kindness is
shown to him…”
“…the city will continue on as it always has, only your internet will be slightly slower.”
And Outis went back up into the city, and on that day he became a citizen of Omelas; and the child continued to suffer.
“…the best predictions of our scientists suggest that there will be a slight average decrease in various hard-to-measure kinds of happiness, which nevertheless in total adds up to more suffering than this child experiences.”
And Outis said to the elder, “I will have no part in this evil thing.” And he took the child and bathed him and cared for his wounds. And the average happiness increased in some ways and decreased in others, and the net effect might have been negative, but the best results on the matter had p > 0.05, so the scientists of Omelas could not rule out the null hypothesis.
Once upon a time there was a city called Omelas, where everyone lived good and happy and fulfilling lives.
And in Omelas there was a naked dirty child in a small dirty room; because the child was agoraphobic and was making mudpies.
Once upon a time there was a city called Omelas, where everyone lived good and happy and fulfilling lives.
Very few people told stories about Omelas, but it was a very nice place to live in.
