The idea of there being only one way to be queer, and that there is a hierarchy, where some people are better queers than others seems to permeate the LGBTQ+ community. It reminds me of the concept of “trueness” which is sometimes discussed in the Kink community (and of course no community exists as an island). True subs, or dominants, believe they have found the one and only way to do BDSM, and can often be found online telling everyone else where they are going wrong. I believe the label comes from the idea of there being “one true way”. One of my tutors, Olivier Cormier-Otaño recently used the word Queerarchy, and I recognized that process of exclusion, othering, and group forming which it seems even those communities which have direct experience of exclusion are not immune to. 

This kind of behaviour is not limited to kink or LGBTQ+ people however. Log onto mumsnet, or even just stand at the school gates, and the same critiques of others exist. Whatever the sphere there seem to be those who boost their self-esteem, and receive validation, by criticizing and excluding others. Gold standards are created, and used to exclude those who do not meet them. Of course this process of gatekeeping most often hits those who are already marginalised on one or more intersection. Consider looking queer, or queer “enough”. Any marker of community involvement which concerns how someone looks demands time, energy, lack of disability, and income. It is also conditional on someone not having to meet certain rules to be employed/remain in school. So even something as seemingly simple as a hairstyle is actually a representation of huge amounts of often unacknowledged privilege.

In a society which tells members of gender, sexual and relationship diverse communities that they are not good enough it is no surprise that people look for validation, for proof they are good enough. However the method so often seems to be to copy the methods of wider society. To say; “You are not good enough to gain group acceptability.”

Rules and definitions are imposed on people to belittle and berate. Thus asexuals are told they are not welcome, because having a sexual identity involves having sex, as if a gay person is not gay if they are a virgin. Or non binary people are pathologised by binary trans people, as being confused or mentally ill.

Each iteration of the “one true way” mode of thinking boils down to trying to maintain ones own precarious position by pushing others in the line of fire. The sad thing is that it does not even work (although it would be no excuse if it did). The only way not to be torn down ourselves is to not look for validation outside of ourselves. Looking at how others do queerness and hoping that accusations of doing it wrong protect us is based on the idea we will never be accused. However if we live our lives in eternal competition on who is the best queer, the one and only certainty is we will be accused. If we have raised the idea there is a standard, outside of our own self, then we will one day be measured against someone else’s and found lacking.

The fact is if you define as queer, or bi, or trans, or gay, or lesbian, or asexual, or aromantic, or non binary, or any other margenlised gender or sexual identity then you are, and you are enough.

This applies “even” if;

You have never had sex

You have never had a same gender relationship

You have never had a mixed gender relationship

You have never had a relationship

You look feminine

You look masculine

You look “conventional”

You look unconventional

You are monogamous

You are celibate

You are poly

You are a parent

You are disabled

You are not white

You are young

You are old

You are thin

You are fat

You are poor

We are all a combination of the  identities which make us unique. However they combine, you are queer enough if you identity as queer, and never let someone insecure in their own identity tell you otherwise.

A version of the post originally appeared on The Queerness