labingi

I actually learned about this term from a student of mine, who wrote an AMAZING paper on being socially invisible as an asexual aromantic person (some experiences similar to those of mind I share in the comments here). They eventually settled on "queerplatonic" as a good way to describe the relationships they were comfortable with.

Maybe it's related to generation (Gen X vs. Gen Z), but I personally don't identify with that label as my student does. I'm glad it exists as a concept for people it works for, like my student. But for me, "queer" suggests outside the norm, marginalized, minority. (I think we'll eventually move away from that word/concept for that reason), and I resist the idea that having life-defining platonic relationships is an atypical thing.

I think if you look cross-culturally and across history, it's not atypical at all. Tolkien himself sure saw it as mainstream. I don't think he ever imagined people would feel a need to read Sam and Frodo as gay, or Legolas and Gimli, etc. It just seemed normal to him that people could platonically love each other in huge, life-defining ways. History erases women's relationships, but there's no shortage of examples of men with towering friendships with no sex implied.

That said, the category is helping a lot of people like my student, and that's wonderful!