Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

14 to 19

19 (29.2%)

20 to 24

19 (29.2%)

25 to 29

7 (10.8%)

30 to 34

3 (4.6%)

35 to 39

1 (1.5%)

40 to 44

0 (0%)

45 to 49

0 (0%)

50 to 54

0 (0%)

55 to 60

0 (0%)

a different age range

0 (0%)

not interested

3 (4.6%)

none yet

8 (12.3%)

Sven is not a mooch

5 (7.7%)

Total Members Voted: 65

[SmilingCat]

As for the comic itself, there's something adorable about the way Clinton is fanning himself.

Though for some reason I was kinda hoping he wasn't interested in Elliot. Like I'd associated being unlucky in love with Elliot's character and it bothers me that his luck may change and no I'm not projecting because I'm lonely, you're projecting!

[BenRG]

Yeah, I have to agree that, if there is one thing Claire can teach her younger brother, it is this: Learning who you are and coming to terms with that fact isn't a destination, it's a never-ending journey. More importantly, if you wait until you're 100% sure before doing anything, then you'll never do anything!

[Cornelius]

They have every right to their opinion. They have no right to be an asshole about it.

Please do not take their behaviour as representative of how inclusive queer folk are generally.

I don't. It's really a minority reaction, in my experience. What is disturbing, though, is that it seems to be the standard reaction of LGBT organisations around here. So I cannot trust them.

[traroth]

 known heterosexual

sorry friend, but citation needed

there's been a helluva lot of ink spilled on cultural assumptions, so i hate to spill more, but... yeah.

Clinton is a man who dated or tried to date women before, and never expressed interest in men. I don't know what's your definition of heterosexual, but in mine, that matches pretty well.

Which doesn't mean he cannot realize he's actually interested in Elliot. Life is a process, not a state.

[traroth]

I find myself agreeing with Pintsize. Which is generally not a good thing.

Seriously, the narrative Claire spins doesn't do anything for me, because, y'know, I'm not at all attracted to men, or male sexual attributes like bulging muscles. Clinton's reactions make him out to be pretty gay.

I'm no longer sold on him being bi. Mainly because he didn't overheat that way over Brun or Emily. In fact, he had a conversation with Brun where he expressed uncertainty as to whether he was attracted to her. Which was a conversation I found decidedly weird at the time, since I've never had any doubts about who I found attractive. But then, I was never a gay male attempting to struggle against cultural programming telling me I should be interested in women.

You're assuming too much. Not being attracted by a woman (or even two, for that matter) doesn't mean not being attracted by women.

[Scarlet Manuka]

In fairness however, if most of your social circle is LGBT, and you are not, you're probably much more liable to be open to the possibilities than if everyone you know is cis/hetero and repressed as all hell.

What difference does it make if they are repressed? In fact it seems to me that it ought to be worse if they were outspoken about it, so I don't know why you added this clause at all (it comes aross to me as a little bit of gratuitously implying that cis/hetero people are just that way because they are repressed, but presumably that's not what you intended). If you do think that would make it worse I'd be interested to know why.

Who should Clinton go to for relationship advice?

Pintsize, of course!

Half serious and half because of the possible range of amusing consequences.

Can we just skip to the relationship we ALL really care about? Anthropomorphic French bread and Roko!

Maybe she should try going out with one of the toaster AIs (one who is willing to engage in conversation rather than just flinging toast at her à la Pintsize). Although we know she also has a weakness for Human Abs, and has fantasised about Clinton before.

... Now I kind of want to see Roko getting involved in the current arc.

[AfternoonGlory]

The ideal partner for Roko is a freshly baked loaf of french bread with abs

[ihaveavoice]

Quick note that being attracted to Claire does nothing to alter Marten's sexuality. He's no less hetero for falling for a trans woman.

Again, I'm not up on my modern terminology, but my understanding is that trans people are by definition under the queer umbrella.  Thus Martin/Claire is a queer relationship even though Martin himself might not be queer.

The T is part of LGBT, yes, but there's this really harmful "but they aren't REALLY that gender" cultural line of thinking that leads to all sorts of messed up conversations, and I wanted to make sure to pop that in as a note that we might not want to stumble into those implications. It really takes the harmlessness away from any well-meant statement that could possibly imply a heterosexual man is no longer het if he's attracted to a transwoman. And the original comment was about the sexuality of individual characters, not the perception of relationships as queer, so it is relevant enough that I felt the quick correction would be helpful.

For a pop culture example of writers fucking this sort of thing up, see the show Big Mouth having a pansexual character explain her sexuality as being into men, women, men transitioning into women, and women transitioning into men (using tacos and hot dogs or something - idk, I don't watch it, just saw a clip back when this was a thing). Holy unfortunate implications and inaccurate definitions, Batman! They were rightfully slammed for their dialogue promoting the harmful, unfortunately prevalent assumption that either trans people aren't REALLY that gender or they are only REALLY that gender once they can "pass." Probably felt pretty shitty to be a trans fan of the show.

[Gnabberwocky]

For a pop culture example of writers fucking this sort of thing up, see the show Big Mouth having a pansexual character explain her sexuality as being into men, women, men transitioning into women, and women transitioning into men (using tacos and hot dogs or something - idk, I don't watch it, just saw a clip back when this was a thing).

In addition to the offensive statement about trans* people's genders "not counting," they also completely left out nonbinary, agender, gender-fluid, etc. from under the pansexual umbrella.

[snufflebottoms]

For a pop culture example of writers fucking this sort of thing up, see the show Big Mouth having a pansexual character explain her sexuality as being into men, women, men transitioning into women, and women transitioning into men (using tacos and hot dogs or something - idk, I don't watch it, just saw a clip back when this was a thing).

In addition to the offensive statement about trans* people's genders "not counting," they also completely left out nonbinary, agender, gender-fluid, etc. from under the pansexual umbrella.

I've seen that episode and it was a weird food metaphor. She ends it by saying "and anything else on the menu." I think it would have been better to skip the taco transitioning to a burrito (yes that's what she says) but they do acknowledge more than two genders and that the pansexual character can be attracted to any of them.   

ETA: Also at least one thing right about that episode is that they address that just because she's pansexual doesn't mean she wants to be with everyone. It's big mouth so it's during a weird ass wedding between two middle schoolers. 

[cybersmurf]

The way I perceive it, homo-, hetero- and bisexual are "just" points on a gradient. The question is: how far towards one end are you, actually? Too far out to ever consider it? Far enough inward to fantasise about it? Not enough for something serious? Or, like Faye and apparently Clinton - if you met the right person, you realise you're not that far off to one end?

I hope, my late night rambling makes enough sense to you, and doesn't offend anyone. It's just how it makes most sense to me, personally.

[tbodt]

I have the perfect analogy: gender/sexual identity is a vector space with infinite dimension

[cesium133]

I have the perfect analogy: gender/sexual identity is a vector space with infinite dimension

So if someone masturbates, then they're a unitary operator.
Someone who has a conjugal visit with someone just like them is Hermitian.

Clinton seems to be finding traces of bisexuality. Clinton and Elliot can have a good time together if they're determinant to do so. 

I was going to make more awful puns, but it's been at least ten years since the last time I've taken a class in linear algebra. 

[cesium133]

Also, in response to the poll at the top of the thread, I don't know if any relationship I've ever been in was "serious", but my first was when I was in high school, and looking back on it years later, it was pretty fucked up. 

[Zebediah]

The ideal partner for Roko is a freshly baked loaf of french bread with abs

So, Elliot? [emoji16]

[Farideh]

Comic's up.

Renee is absolutely correct. Elliot should be proud of himself, and he should save the moping until he gets a definite 'no'.

[Tova]

Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.

[Gnabberwocky]

The way I perceive it, homo-, hetero- and bisexual are "just" points on a gradient. The question is: how far towards one end are you, actually? Too far out to ever consider it? Far enough inward to fantasise about it? Not enough for something serious? Or, like Faye and apparently Clinton - if you met the right person, you realise you're not that far off to one end?

I hope, my late night rambling makes enough sense to you, and doesn't offend anyone. It's just how it makes most sense to me, personally.

I get what you mean, and I like the analogy, but where would something like pansexuality fall on the scale?

Or, is it more like a series of gradients? Like, this is where I fall on the bisexuality scale, this is where I fall on the demisexuality scale, etc.

[shanejayell]

One wonders what Renee's ANGRY bread tastes like? 

[Farideh]

For Brun, it would probably taste like raisins

[tbodt]

The way I perceive it, homo-, hetero- and bisexual are "just" points on a gradient. The question is: how far towards one end are you, actually? Too far out to ever consider it? Far enough inward to fantasise about it? Not enough for something serious? Or, like Faye and apparently Clinton - if you met the right person, you realise you're not that far off to one end?

I hope, my late night rambling makes enough sense to you, and doesn't offend anyone. It's just how it makes most sense to me, personally.

I get what you mean, and I like the analogy, but where would something like pansexuality fall on the scale?

Or, is it more like a series of gradients? Like, this is where I fall on the bisexuality scale, this is where I fall on the demisexuality scale, etc.

Infinite dimension vector space, like I said. Maybe ℝ^ℵ₀

[SmilingCat]

Prediction!

Despite Renee's advice, Elliot is going to get more and more dejected. Eventually he will reach that state of depression known as "completely out of fucks".

This will actually feel strangely liberating to Elliot, like a nirvana made of screaming obscenities at pressmen (your experiences may vary).

So the next time he see's Brun, he'll ask her out, bluntly, without hesitation, expecting a refusal because he figures that's all he deserves.

She'll say yes.  This will eventually register with Elliot.

Then Clinton will show up to discover that Elliot is now going out with Brun. He will also lapse into depression.

Except Brun tells him that it's okay if he also goes out with Elliot, because she's normalized the behavior of casual relationships from watching Renee, and will consider it perfectly reasonable for a person to try dating multiple people before settling on one person. Jumping into a commitment right from the get go is stupid, after all.

This will cause Clinton to ask if... maybe... it would be okay if they also went out. Brun will reply sure.

This is the point where Elliot wakes up to his cat sitting on his chest demanding brekky. 

[sitnspin]

Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.

Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.

[Gnabberwocky]

Prediction!

Despite Renee's advice, Elliot is going to get more and more dejected. Eventually he will reach that state of depression known as "completely out of fucks".

This will actually feel strangely liberating to Elliot, like a nirvana made of screaming obscenities at pressmen (your experiences may vary).

So the next time he see's Brun, he'll ask her out, bluntly, without hesitation, expecting a refusal because he figures that's all he deserves.

She'll say yes.  This will eventually register with Elliot.

Then Clinton will show up to discover that Elliot is now going out with Brun. He will also lapse into depression.

Except Brun tells him that it's okay if he also goes out with Elliot, because she's normalized the behavior of casual relationships from watching Renee, and will consider it perfectly reasonable for a person to try dating multiple people before settling on one person. Jumping into a commitment right from the get go is stupid, after all.

This will cause Clinton to ask if... maybe... it would be okay if they also went out. Brun will reply sure.

This is the point where Elliot wakes up to his cat sitting on his chest demanding brekky.

That made my head hurt.

I'd be okay with the final outcome of that, but the journey there might kill me. Clinton, it's on you to stop this. Please hurry.

[Farideh]

We'll probably go back to May next week

[cesium133]

'Round these parts we've been stuck in March for a while.

Oh, you're talking about May the AI.

[Gyrre]

I agree with Renee. Elliot should be proud of himself for 'laying his cards on the table'.

As a shy guy, I can relate with the difficulty of putting oneself out their like that.

[Gyrre]

I find myself agreeing with Pintsize. Which is generally not a good thing.

Seriously, the narrative Claire spins doesn't do anything for me, because, y'know, I'm not at all attracted to men, or male sexual attributes like bulging muscles. Clinton's reactions make him out to be pretty gay.

I'm no longer sold on him being bi. Mainly because he didn't overheat that way over Brun or Emily. In fact, he had a conversation with Brun where he expressed uncertainty as to whether he was attracted to her. Which was a conversation I found decidedly weird at the time, since I've never had any doubts about who I found attractive. But then, I was never a gay male attempting to struggle against cultural programming telling me I should be interested in women.

You're assuming too much. Not being attracted by a woman (or even two, for that matter) doesn't mean not being attracted by women.

I wonder if it's more a matter of personality for Clinton?
(I think that's pansexual, but not sure. Online searches are unhelpful.)

[Tova]

Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.

Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.

I take it, then, that you're not a fan of fermented foods in general?

[jesslc]

As a tangent, it comes to mind that I seriously don't think that the comic has yet depicted an AI-to-AI romantic relationship -- but then again, there was that one strip of Winslow being stunned speechless over Roko, of which absolutely nothing has resulted since.

There was Seven and the previously-just-an-arm AI whose name I can't remember for the life of me, and my archive-fu is not very good.

Jeremy - the former assembly arm - has been one of my favourite minor characters ever since he spoke up to help Bubbles way back then... I'd love to see more of him and Seven, and how they're going with the new robot fighting gym.

[St.Clair]

Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.

Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.

I take it, then, that you're not a fan of fermented foods in general?

Different poster, but I'll chime in:

Pretty much.  Like, I actually like artichoke hearts and some other things in a mix of oil and vinegar; and you could probably coax a few other examples out of me if I thought about it for a while.  But overall, I'd rather have, e.g., grape juice over any sort of wine.  And definitely not sourdough.

[sitnspin]

Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.

Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.

I take it, then, that you're not a fan of fermented foods in general?

Does Scotch count as food? 

[cybersmurf]

The way I perceive it, homo-, hetero- and bisexual are "just" points on a gradient. The question is: how far towards one end are you, actually? Too far out to ever consider it? Far enough inward to fantasise about it? Not enough for something serious? Or, like Faye and apparently Clinton - if you met the right person, you realise you're not that far off to one end?

I hope, my late night rambling makes enough sense to you, and doesn't offend anyone. It's just how it makes most sense to me, personally.

I get what you mean, and I like the analogy, but where would something like pansexuality fall on the scale?

Or, is it more like a series of gradients? Like, this is where I fall on the bisexuality scale, this is where I fall on the demisexuality scale, etc.

I must admit this is very simplified. Linear gradient, one-dimensional. I also have to admit, I probably am not aware of all the possibilities. In reality, this is more likely to be like a cube, and one's sexuality is a point within three dimensional space within that cube {and that's probably still not considering everything). And I was just looking at one edge of said cube.



And concerning today's comic: Elliott, if people could taste your sadness, they would've complained while you were brooding over Padma!

[Tova]

Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.

Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.

I take it, then, that you're not a fan of fermented foods in general?

Does Scotch count as food? 

YES 

Maybe the distillation step makes the difference. Or maybe the alcohol.

[BenRG]

Okay: So it seems that, like some forumites, Elliot has assumed that 'let me think about it' was code for 'no' and has gone to a dark and sad place as a result. Which makes me think I know where this may go next.

If there is one thing that makes you vulnerable to making snap decisions its feeling down like this. So, when someone walks into the bakery (Roko?), sees sad Elliot and starts trying to cheer him up in way that could be interpreted as flirting with him, he's going to grab the chance with both hands. So, Clinton is going to come in to say 'yes' to find that the boat has sailed. Then he'll be the one feeling bad and likely to make a snap and poor choice and so on. So, we're going to have a chain of interim relationship choices which may or may not turn out to be long-term but with this unfinished business always hovering in the background.

If I'm right, Jeph has basically given himself about 3,000 strips of material as everything slowly works itself out.

[Farideh]

I hope Renee manages to talk Elliot out of his slump.

[ZoeB]

Quick note that being attracted to Claire does nothing to alter Marten's sexuality. He's no less hetero for falling for a trans woman.

Again, I'm not up on my modern terminology, but my understanding is that trans people are by definition under the queer umbrella. 

I disagree. Not that that's your understanding, only you get to say what that is, but that trans is necessarily a subset of queer, that there are no trans people who are not queer.

I mean, why are they "queer" by definition? What does "queer" mean in context?

Is a man who has had a vasectomy "queer" by definition? What about one who has been circumcised? Or *not* circumcised, if circumcision is "standard", "usual", *normal* in that society?

Something to ponder: are Guevedoces "queer" by definition?

. Science 1974 Dec 27; 186 (4170): 1213-5

    In an isolated village of the southwestern Dominican Republic, 2% of the live births were in the 1970's, guevedoces ... These children appeared to be girls at birth, but at puberty these 'girls' sprout muscles, testes, and a penis. For the rest of their lives they are men in nearly all respects. Their underlying pathology was found to be a deficiency of the enzyme, 5-alpha Reductase

5ARD for short. 17BHSD is similar. 3BHSD can cause such a "natural sex change" in either direction.

Many Trans people identify as queer. Some do not. Technically, I'm Intersex (see 3BHSD above) rather than Trans, and thus biologically far more different from the normal than the usual, common or garden cis or trans person. I did transition, and psych evaluation showed no significant difference from the more usual trans women, so close enough.  I don't identify as being queer myself, though acknowledge that many people would say I must be by definition. I just deny that they know what they're talking about, and ask them to logically examine their definitions, assumptions, and conclusions, why they think that.

Claire is a woman with an unusual history. I have no idea whether she identifies as "queer" or not, but there's no evidence that she does. To assert that what apparently is a fairly standard het relationship has to be queer because of her past history seems unsafe.

How do we know that, for example, Sven wasn't born mildly Intersex, and had genital reconstruction as an infant to match the medical team's  best guess as to his sex? Some syndromes there's a 99% chance they're correct, others it's a coin toss. Such situations are a heck of a lot more common than Trans. Would that make him "queer", and thus any girl who had a relationship with him be in a "queer" relationship? If (as is considered best practice today) there had been no surgery without informed consent, so his anatomy would be mildly unusual , would he be "queer" then?

We don't know Sven's operative history, and inquiries about his, or Padma's, or Hanners' exact genital configuration current or past would be severely creepy, no?

TLDR: Claire is a woman. Martyn is a man.

Now let's get back to Elliot and how he doesn't deserve to be hurt. Kudos to Renee and all good hearted people like her.

[ihaveavoice]

Okay: So it seems that, like some forumites, Elliot has assumed that 'let me think about it' was code for 'no' and has gone to a dark and sad place as a result. Which makes me think I know where this may go next.

If there is one thing that makes you vulnerable to making snap decisions its feeling down like this. So, when someone walks into the bakery (Roko?), sees sad Elliot and starts trying to cheer him up in way that could be interpreted as flirting with him, he's going to grab the chance with both hands. So, Clinton is going to come in to say 'yes' to find that the boat has sailed. Then he'll be the one feeling bad and likely to make a snap and poor choice and so on. So, we're going to have a chain of interim relationship choices which may or may not turn out to be long-term but with this unfinished business always hovering in the background.

If I'm right, Jeph has basically given himself about 3,000 strips of material as everything slowly works itself out.

One thing I really like about QC is how Jeph will often have a character take what could have been one of those spiraling stupid "just open your mouth and SPEAK, dummy!" problems to a friend to talk it out, and then they get a different perspective and adjust their actions accordingly. It would be really disappointing and annoying to have this play out with Elliot completely ignoring these and any other words of encouragement that Renee offers him and then doing something reckless as a result. And frankly, I'd say it's out of character. For all his mooning over unrequited crushes, Elliot has never seemed unreasonable or unwilling to listen to his friends.

I also don't really see him being in a "dark and sad" place right now. He's sad, sure, but it's an acute sort of pang from going straight from butterflies to uncertainty and having his insecurities flare up as a result. Not every strong emotional fluctuation is a descent into the abyss.

That said: SAD CRUMPLY ELLIOT FAAAAAAAAACCCCCEEEEEEEEE *collapses*

[marbledmurrelet]

@ZoeB: As far as I'm aware, 'queer' can be used both as an umbrella term for LGBTQ+ (i.e. including the T) and more generally but also more specifically for people who challenge society's norms and binaries around sexuality and gender. I can see how it doesn't necessarily make sense to call a heteronormative trans person queer, though. And I absolutely agree that one partner having a different gender than the one assigned at birth doesn't make their relationships queer - that just reeks of the old "not a real woman".

I still think it's weird to call relationships queer or straight or gay in general, just because one or more of the people involved are. Or, think about this: you'd call a relationship queer because ONE of the people involved is - but wouldn't it just as well be straight because one of the people involved is? Hmm? Unless that one person somehow taints the whole relationship with their queerness...

[oddtail]

I still think it's weird to call relationships queer or straight or gay in general, just because one or more of the people involved are. Or, think about this: you'd call a relationship queer because ONE of the people involved is - but wouldn't it just as well be straight because one of the people involved is? Hmm? Unless that one person somehow taints the whole relationship with their queerness...

On the one hand, I share the sentiment that calling a relationship queer on the basis of e.g. sexual orientation of a person in it is a bit weird. I don't consider my marriage a queer one, even though both my wife and I are bi.

On the other hand, it's not about "tainting" anything with queerness. Queerness is a concept that exists in contrast with the cultural idea of straightness. It's unfortunate perhaps, but that's how it works. Similarly to how you're likely to see Barack Obama called a black man, but you'd be hard-pressed to see him called a white man, even if logically, he should be about as white as he is black, based on his family history. But that's not how it works.

Whiteness is an idea built around a default and an absence of a perceived characteristic. As harmful as that idea historically was, that's how it's still used, including by non-white people.

Similarly, if we say a relationship involving a queer person is queer relationship, I don't think it *automatically* follows that a relationship involving a straight person is a straight relationship.

I continue to wonder if the "queer" label for a relationship should be metonymic for the people in it, or a description of something about the relationship itself. Is there any semi-broad consensus on that?

[Case]

I have the perfect analogy: gender/sexual identity is a vector space with infinite dimension

So if someone masturbates, then they're a unitary operator.
Someone who has a conjugal visit with someone just like them is Hermitian.

Nope, someone who masturbates is (applying) the unity operator.

Unitary operators are forgettable one-night stands.
Anti-Unitary operators, otoh, are one-night stands you wished you'd already forgotten.

...OhGodShaddapCase!

Clinton seems to be finding traces of bisexuality. Clinton and Elliot can have a good time together if they're determinant to do so. 

https://youtu.be/ETNRfcNIl2w?list=PLbtJeG28_QO-jUu-njThh0p_sA-AEsTSJ&t=62

I was going to make more awful puns, but it's been at least ten years since the last time I've taken a class in linear algebra. 

Quantum theory is the continuation of linear algebra by other means.

[Tova]

Risky click of the day.

[marbledmurrelet]

Whiteness is an idea built around a default and an absence of a perceived characteristic. As harmful as that idea historically was, that's how it's still used, including by non-white people.

Similarly, if we say a relationship involving a queer person is queer relationship, I don't think it *automatically* follows that a relationship involving a straight person is a straight relationship.

I'm not an expert on racial matters, but someone whose (more immediate, visible) ancestry includes non-white people will be subjected to racism and treated much more like a POC than like a white person. Relationships between people who appear to have different racial heritage are also treated accordingly, so it makes sense to me to call them "interracial". I don't even know if this comparison is any good, as the whole concept of race is pretty much Western colonial bullshit as far as I've understood it. Though... the concept of straight vs. gay or queer seems to be quite recently made up Western bullshit as well, so... sigh. I digress.

Anyway, back to Claire. She's most certainly hurt by transphobia even if it's not directed at her personally, but that's purely her as an individual. She's a woman, she's perceived as a woman by everyone around her, and she's with a man who's perceived as a man. Their relationship - between a man and a woman, monogamous and everything - is perfectly conventional. Calling it a "queer relationship" would make zero sense.

I continue to wonder if the "queer" label for a relationship should be metonymic for the people in it, or a description of something about the relationship itself. Is there any semi-broad consensus on that?

Is there any good reason to use the "queer" label for a relationship that's not even visibly challenging any norms? The only reason I can see for saying "queer relationship" in a metonymic way would be having a shorter term for "relationship that's not between a man and a woman". Other than that, what's the point?

[Case]

Risky click of the day.

Maybe so, but don't tell me you aren't wide awake now ... 

[Perfectly Reasonable]

Mood breads! A whole new field for bakers!

[eschaton]

Going back to my original point about "queer relationships" - I understand the argument that relationships can't be queer or straight.  However, we talk about queer politics, queer art, queer music, queer fashion, queer culture., etc.  Does queerness inhabit everything queer people do, except for interpersonal relationships if the other person happens to be cis and of the (perceived) opposite gender?

If you're going at it with the presumption (which is what the comic suggests) that Claire "passes" I do agree on a day-to-day basis Martin's lived experience is pretty conventional.  However, if Claire did not pass he would deal with transphobia and (wrongly assigned) homophobia as part of his everyday life. Sort of like how if you're white and date a black person (as I have in the past) you become much more aware of casual racism that you would otherwise have been blind to.  It wouldn't make Martin himself queer of course, but it would make the "personal political" for him. 

[sitnspin]

Does a person need to be "visible" in order to be queer?

That being said, whether a relationship (or an individual) is considered queer is really up to them.

[eschaton]

That being said, whether a relationship (or an individual) is considered is really up to them.

I thought about saying this, but I was afraid of getting people upset.

I mean, if people can self-identify their gender whatever they wish, they can also self-identify their sexuality however they wish.  So if someone who is in a relationship with a transwoman wants to call themselves queer, that's kinda up to them. 

[oddtail]

Going back to my original point about "queer relationships" - I understand the argument that relationships can't be queer or straight.  However, we talk about queer politics, queer art, queer music, queer fashion, queer culture., etc.  Does queerness inhabit everything queer people do, except for interpersonal relationships if the other person happens to be cis and of the (perceived) opposite gender?

That is a good point, I didn't think of that.

On the other hand, queer fashion, music or culture are, well, cultural things. They're broader categories, and I don't know if any piece of music composed by a queer person is queer music. And if it is, it's different than queerness of music that forms, and is explicitly and implicitly informed by, queer culture. I think?

If you're going at it with the presumption (which is what the comic suggests) that Claire "passes" I do agree on a day-to-day basis Martin's lived experience is pretty conventional.  However, if Claire did not pass he would deal with transphobia and (wrongly assigned) homophobia as part of his everyday life. Sort of like how if you're white and date a black person (as I have in the past) you become much more aware of casual racism that you would otherwise have been blind to.  It wouldn't make Martin himself queer of course, but it would make the "personal political" for him.

I'm uncomfortable with this line of reasoning because it (kind of) feeds into a notion that implicitly equates oppression with queerness. Queer identities derive a sense of solidarity from a shared oppression, but I'd argue they've grown beyond that base? I think? So I don't know how I feel about determining queerness on the basis of outside world's reactions to the relationship. I'm not saying it's not a factor, but... I dunno.

[sitnspin]

My queer identity is not defined by how the outside world perceives me. It is who I am. I would still be queer even if no one could tell.  Much of queer culture, like any culture, is about shared experience and perspectives, which are of course partially shaped by the oppression and othering we get from non-queer culture, but there is much more to it than that. There are a lot of experiences that are unique to us that growing up and living cishet people just don't go through. But we are a diverse lot, with a lot of different cultures tucked within, and like everyone else, a lot of individual unique experiences as well.

Again, queer is a self ascribed label and shouldn't be thrust upon anyone from the outside.