#thereallyreallylatebird

Some people think of certain identities as universally giving privilege (we'll say these have a value of +1) and some as universally taking privileged/causing discrimination/bigotry/etc. (we'll say these have a value of -1).

And what I've seen is that people will add these values and decide how hard someone has it based on the value of the product.

For example: A white (+1) Christian (+1) gay (-1) man (+1) would have a score of 2, since 1+1-1+1 is 2. (Keep in mind I'm not saying people literally do this sort of math, though I have actually seen charts that do, it's more of a way of illustrating a way of thinking I've seen.)

The problem with this, of course, is that this isn't how the world works at all. Depending on where he lived and his situation in general, that white Christian gay man could be bullied severely, called slurs, or even beaten and killed--all things you wouldn't expect going off a score of 2--because intersectionality is not like math. And because, in some places, this man's gayness would overshadow all his other identities.

Also, this mathy way of looking at things fails to consider how identities interact with each other. For instance, (and this is something several of my mutuals, but especially @dysphoria-things, have discussed in the past) a trans man's identity as a man does *not* serve to "cancel out" his being trans in the eyes of society. First, many won't even view him as a man. Second, even if he is viewed as a man by a certain group, he still may be subject to less explicit forms of transphobia. Not to mention the expectation many hold that he perform his man-ness in order for them to keep seeing him as a man. There's a lot more to unpack here specifically, but the previously mentioned mutual has already done many many posts on this, and is more qualified to speak on this than I am as a cis person, so I suggest you go check that blog out if you want to hear more on this topic.

Another example would be one of *my* identity intersections. That of being aromantic and allosexual. Now, being allosexual (not asexual) is not a minority identity. However, it by no means "cancels-out" my aromanticism. In fact, the specific combination of this majority identity (allosexuality) with my aromanticism actually leads to some seriously nasty assumptions and stereotypes. Because what do you think goes through the majority of people's (especially conservative's) heads when they hear "Oh I'm attracted to people sexually, but not romantically." Nothing flattering.

But also,

Daily reminder that using "asexual" as an umbrella term for ace *and* aro-spec identities is not.

Aromanticism is not a subset of asexuality, and should not be grouped under the term asexual as if it is. Doing so erases aromantic allosexual people by making being asexual a barrier to entry to being aromantic.

No, it doesn't matter that's how it's been used in the past. Terminology changes. No, it doesn't matter if you don't mean it that way, people trying to figure out their identity will still see that you're grouping aromantic under asexual and assume they can't be aromantic because they're not asexual (partially why it took me so long to figure out I'm aro).

Orpheus and Eurydice just have such a sweet, beautiful relationship that is so cute some small part of my brain lights up and goes "are you experiencing romantic attraction by proxy? Do you want that kind of relationship?"

And like. I don't feel that way towards either of the characters individually, it's specifically their *relationship* that is adorable.

I see this in a lot in media actually, a surprising number of movies have drama about people being made to "choose" who's most important to them. Their boyfriend or their friend, their friends or their family, their parents or their wife, their mother or their sister, etc. And the kicker is, usually this is solely the result of interpersonal drama.

What's stranger is most of these seem to have right answers! Usually it's depicted as romantic partner first, other family (even distant family) second, friends third. Not always, but when it's not it's notable enough that I'd consider it a subversion.

The only way I could see this in day-to-day life is if it's for practical reasons, like having a child. Someone who depends on you totally would obviously have to be your first priority. But other than that, I don't get this at all. Different people fill different needs for me, and because of that ranking them would be like ranking a chair, an apple, and a sport. They're not really comparable most of the time.