You make some great points in your comment, but I think it's incorrect to say that celibacy is the natural or normal state of things, based on an understanding of what celibacy is generally taken to mean.

I would argue there's a distinction to be made between states like not having sex, asexuality, and celibacy. The state most of us are in prior to finding a sexual partner is the state of not having sex. This is also a state many asexual people are in, but I wouldn't conflate this with asexuality, since the latter describes a specific lack of interest or desire for sex. It's a sexual orientation, in other words, and not a choice.

Celibacy is different from asexuality because it is a choice. It's *abstaining* from sex, not simply going without it or having no desire for it. This is partly why different religious and philosophical schools have spoken about "practicing" celibacy for centuries. It's not a default state, but it isn't involuntary, either.

I think Traldi, Keithsbrown, and incels themselves choose to overlook this when they talk about involuntary celibacy. Drawing comparisons to homelessness is all well and good until you consider that there is no equivalent implication of abstinence tied to the concept of homelessness. To abstain from something is categorically different from simply not having or getting it; it's a willful restraint by definition.

What they're calling involuntary celibacy is more like involuntarily having no sex life. I think even that's debatable based on the various ways incels tend to express themselves and what they're "owed," but I'd say the above is the best reason for seeing involuntary celibacy as an oxymoron. They're repurposing a concept that has long held meanings and implications that are in direct conflict with involuntary action.