[FelineHuggles]

I was thinking about this earlier, what makes Asexuality a part of the LGBT. I mean, Asexuality can be counted as queer, but LGBT is the group for sexual attraction to the same/both sex right? Where as Asexuality is a attraction to non.
So, should the LGBT really become the LGBTA, or not?

[GoAllyGoGo]

Kind of like how T is part of it. Transgender isn't about being attracted to the same/both sexes. But they are different from most people and far too often looked down on and looked at as if it's a choice. We, asexuals, also don't fall under the blanket of normal and (like people of the LGBT) are fighting for some acceptance in this world.

[FelineHuggles]

So the LGBT is really just a group for any sexuality other than Hetero?

[GoAllyGoGo]

Transgender isn't a sexuality though...

So I think it's beyond that.

[Marvin]

LGBT is, by name at least, for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans people. I don't think Asexuality is necessarily part of that. It should be a part of a wider sexuality... 'forum' (I dislike the word 'movement', it has too many unhelpful connotations), but, strictly speaking, it is not a part of LGBT.
LGB, as it was previously, I think worked, the three constituent groups all being very similar. The introduction of Trans-ness has caused a lot of difficulty because it lacks those similarities, and to an extent, whilst A is perhaps more suited to inclusion with LGB than T (it actually being a sexuality), I'm still not sure it's quite the same. The problem is, having already included the T, there's very little argument that can be convincingly made against the inclusion of everyone else. And by that I mean everyone.

What needs to be done, ideally (I think, anyway) is for the entire LGBTQWERTYUIOP acronyming system to be scrapped, because it's not helpful, and for it to be replaced simply by some form of general alternative-sex group (misread that should you so wish), which exists to promote equality and debate, and thus educate about issues of sexuality and gender, not a group which (in my experience, at least) seems merely to promote the pigeonholing of individuals into narrow and highly inflexible categories which often prove to be entirely inadequate, and defending the 'rights' only of those who ascribe to the characteristics associated with those categories. The main argument I've heard against this is that it's "stealing people's identities", but surely that's kind of the point. It's far better to move towards a system where the need for drawing lines and highlighting differences between people is lost than to stick to a system of definition which comes across as not just unhelpfully exclusive but also occasionally quite hostile to anyone outside of it.

[Amcan]

I have heard asexualoty described as 'queer' as it is not the norm ie hetero. Plus some asexual people are homo or bi romantic.

[FelineHuggles]

I think the term 'Queer' is used to describe anyone who isn't Hetero

[Sally]

So you have a group consisting of the "normals" (i.e., heterosexuals), and you form a group for everyone who's "alternative" (everyone except heterosexuals)?

That reminds me of the thankfully long-ago days when organizations had their main groups (men) and then formed "womens' caucuses" (women). And even further back, social clubs with womens' auxiliaries (who mainly cooked for banquets and raised money for events).

What's the point of being in an "alternative" group? It just means that you're not part of the main group and that's not a respectful connotation.

[Marvin]

Sally, on Aug 15 2009, 10:09 PM, said:

So you have a group consisting of the "normals" (i.e., heterosexuals), and you form a group for everyone who's "alternative" (everyone except heterosexuals)?

Which is effectively the way it is anyway. The idea is that it firstly not be segregated internally, which it is (horribly) currently, and secondly start being more inclusive (even if there is still some aspect of an 'us & them' attitude about it). It's not ideal, certainly, but as an interim setup before the majority of people become capable of actually being open minded it's as good as I can see happening. I think the naming of it ('alternative' being not the best of words to use, I'm trying to avoid 'Queersoc', which is the most common suggestion I've heard for the university LGBT here) is the main difficulty, really, since naming anything reinforces the perceived differences.

[Roy(Banned)]

Hopefully, nothing makes asexuality part of the LGBT. They're just as hostile to us as anyone else, so I see little reason for asexuality to be affiliated with them.

[mackat5]

Excuse me, please, but not all LGBT folks are hostile to asexuals!! The folks that I know are veeerrry accepting. I have been out to all my gay/lesbian friends.

[odayakanaumi]

I don't think that the term queer refers exclusively to those who are not heterosexual because would a transgender person who identifies as heterosexual not also be considered queer? I think it more refers to [in this instance] anyone who goes against the norm of society [which would admittedly include those who are heterosexual]. Anyone who has a sexual orientation or gender identity that does not conform to society's "norm" would be considered queer. Thus we have the LGBT, and seeing that asexuality does differ from the "norm", I don't see why we shouldn't be included in the LGBT.

[KingOfCookies]

One could say it fits in to LGBT simply because it doesn't fit into the norm. Considering the huge spectrum of sexual and gender identities, I don't think one acronym can cover it. We need to find a word that includes everyone, even straight allies.

[Quarky]

GoAllyGoGo, on Aug 15 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

Kind of like how T is part of it. Transgender isn't about being attracted to the same/both sexes. But they are different from most people and far too often looked down on and looked at as if it's a choice. We, asexuals, also don't fall under the blanket of normal and (like people of the LGBT) are fighting for some acceptance in this world.

I agree, except we don't have to fight for acceptance nearly as much, yet we have to fight for recognition far more often. We aren't flambuoyant like gays of bisexuals, we're less "out there" and probably don't seem as interesting or strange as the LGBT movement.

I happen to agree that name (LGBTQWERTYUIOP) needs to be replaced with a better name that just says that they are open to anyone who is "queer."

I also think that AVEN should just be more advertised. I know that is one of the goals here, but I really wish they got as much attention to LGBT......

[rahuls]

I don't think it's so much necessary to label people as queer, GLBT etc. At the end, being asexual is against social norm but is not non-human stuff.
But how do we know really if this is being indeed queer? Have all the apparently normal (hetero) people in this world acknowledged that they are indeed always attracted to opposite sex and don't have any capacity for homosexual attractions? Or all the cis people mentioned that they always feel 100% male or female? Maybe asexuality is more common and prevalent than it's made out to be?

[Jazmin]

On one hand, we fit in because we, like them, are not part of the 'norm' and are searching for support and acceptance. On the other hand, we don't fit in because they are technically still sexual, whereas we aren't (and at the end of the day that's quite a major difference). So yeah. Asexuals don't really 'fit in' anywhere, really. Not completely anyway.

[alittle_iron]

I thought the whle point of the LGBT movement was nothing to do with recognising alternative sexualities - hence the inclusion of the trans folk - but about saying "this is my body and I have the right to be who I am whoever that may be with regards to my gender/sexuality" Of course asexuality should be included, as should anyone who stands by that message - you have hetero-normative folks here who consider themselves part of the movement and are as active about spreading awareness and acceptance as many people who aren't - and I would include them as part of the movement. The acronym is there because it's something people recognise and that's been hard fought for, everyone knows it's not alphabetically accurate, nor all-encompassing.

We don't use LGBT round here very much however, usually everyone just calls it the Pride movement after the Pride festivals because that does stand by the message behind the movement and whoever wants to support it, rather than appearing to define who it does and does not include.

Personally I dislike the term queer; it blatently sets up a case of us against them. In an ideal world your sexual/non-sexual identity would carry no connotations whatsoever and frankly there's a really bad tendancy on this board to consider the straight folk as ignorant, predjudiced etc... and now some of you want to exclude the Pride people too? What incentive does it give them to accept us if we stand over here saying oh nooo we're different, we're special, you can't define us like you define ourselves, we're far more complex and inclusive than you are, we're never going to fit in with you guys.
Foolish, very foolish.

[Cicero]

There are, of course, similarities and differences between LGBT and AVEN; both want acceptance and visibility for minority sexualities, so there is plenty of scope for working together. As for where asexuality fits in, many asexuals identify with LGBT in terms of their romantic orientation. This would bring an asexual membership into LGBT societies, which I imagine attracts hetero- and aromantics in turn.

Roy-Nilsson, on Aug 15 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

Hopefully, nothing makes asexuality part of the LGBT. They're just as hostile to us as anyone else, so I see little reason for asexuality to be affiliated with them.

Some LGBT groups and individuals can be, yes, but I'd like to think that was changing as we achieve greater visibility, and of course most LGBT folks (certainly in my own experience) are perfectly accepting and are a natural support base for asexuals. Likewise they already have a history of visibility ideas that we can tap into. The recent inclusion of asexual groups in Pride parades has been really successful, for example.

Clearly not every asexual will identify with LGBT, and personally I'm not bothered about adding an A to the acronym, but I do think there are many benefits to some sort of affiliation. There is a lot of interesting discussion going on in the asexual community about sexuality in general and different forms of attraction, that could also be of interest to the LGBT community, so I think that we have things to offer too.

[Pineta]

It seems quite a few asexual arrive here via the LGBT community. After working their way through the LGBT alphabet, they realise the reason their sexuality is so difficult to classify is because they haven't got one.
As a student, I read the students' union LGBT handbook cover to cover. I really wish there had been just a brief paragraph on asexuality, as it would have helped me understand myself at a time when things were not very clear. So even if we're not an integral part of their community, I think we still need some representation.

[thecoldground]

In the UK it was LGBTA for a while (the A was "allied") - now it's LGBTQ (Q for "Queer").

"a re-appropriated term used to describe a sexual orientation and/or gender identity or gender expression that does not conform to heteronormative society."

That's from wikipedia, and it's a fair point. By this definition, we seem to be clearly queer.

Queer just means anyone who isn't heteronormative - and as asexuals aren't heteronormative, it makes sense, really, I don't really see how we aren't part of it? Also, in the UK the national Queer Youth Network has accepted and is supporting asexuality, which is a big plus to younger people in the UK, and on a few university websites LGBTQ section, asexuality has a section. This can't be a bad thing - let's face it, we're not part of mainstream sexuality, by any definition, and the visibility will help when it comes to the isolation that virtually every asexual lives in.

Also, in a sense, we experience prejudice, on both a societal basis (no media presence, the assumption that you're ill, being treated as just weird people trying to change us,) or even perhaps a legal basis (marriages can be annulled on the basis on non-consummation, for example). None of this is as bad as what gay people have gone through over the years, but then again, this isn't a competition.

[henshin]

I like the term queer. Its not exclusive its just for anyone who isn't "normally" heterosexual. Theres no value judgement there its just having a way to celebrate the myriad differences of human sexuality, and lets face it, we're kind of in a minority here so we're never going to be mainstream, people are going to have a harder time than usual accepting us, and a lot of us will have experienced negative attitudes and behaviours from other people because of who we are. We are different. We may well be more accepting because of this. And to be honest, if 'normal' hetero peopel feel excluded because they're not queers, then I think they need to think about how privileged they are a little bit more and how queers have been excluded from the rest of society for many hundreds of years and often face violence and harassment on a daily basis.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Sally, on Aug 15 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

What's the point of being in an "alternative" group? It just means that you're not part of the main group and that's not a respectful connotation.

Right now, awareness is an incentive to be part of an "alternative" group. Eventual acceptance into the melting pot of human sexuality (i.e., scrapping of the "alternative group" idea) won't come unless awareness comes first.

[Sally]

Unless we promote our awareness campaign as what we are -- asexuals -- I'm afraid that we will be considered stepsisters/brothers to the LGBT movement.

Here's what I'm afraid of, which the gay community has faced and is still facing (and pardon me if I've brought this up before on this thread or another thread).

The civil rights movement in America is always understood to be an African-American issue. It has been for 40+ years now; everyone equates those two terms. Everyone meaning most people, and definitely African-Americans do. But recently gays have pointed out that their inability to legally marry, etc. is a civil rights issue, which it is. However, the African-American community generally has been upset at that because they feel that gays--not being obviously branded by their skin color--don't face automatic prejudice. Leaders of the two movements have a very uneasy relationship, especially the African-American churches.

The gay community, although focused on many different kinds of civil rights, have had as a cornerstone of their issue the right to love/have sex with whoever they choose. I can't see that community being that interested in cooperating with our community, when as far as they're concerned, we're not really having any problem: nobody's claiminng we can't marry anyone and nobody's saying we can't have sex with other people and nobody's refusing to rent houses to us or sell houses to us or let us adopt children (single people can do all of those without inquiry into their sex lives or lack thereof).

I just can't see that we'd gain any traction by being part of the LGBT community, no matter how great they are. It seems to me like it would be kind of a detour.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Sally, on Aug 19 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

Unless we promote our awareness campaign as what we are -- asexuals -- I'm afraid that we will be considered stepsisters/brothers to the LGBT movement.

Here's what I'm afraid of, which the gay community has faced and is still facing (and pardon me if I've brought this up before on this thread or another thread).

The civil rights movement in America is always understood to be an African-American issue. It has been for 40+ years now; everyone equates those two terms. Everyone meaning most people, and definitely African-Americans do. But recently gays have pointed out that their inability to legally marry, etc. is a civil rights issue, which it is. However, the African-American community generally has been upset at that because they feel that gays--not being obviously branded by their skin color--don't face automatic prejudice. Leaders of the two movements have a very uneasy relationship, especially the African-American churches.

The gay community, although focused on many different kinds of civil rights, have had as a cornerstone of their issue the right to love/have sex with whoever they choose. I can't see that community being that interested in cooperating with our community, when as far as they're concerned, we're not really having any problem: nobody's claiminng we can't marry anyone and nobody's saying we can't have sex with other people and nobody's refusing to rent houses to us or sell houses to us or let us adopt children (single people can do all of those without inquiry into their sex lives or lack thereof).

I just can't see that we'd gain any traction by being part of the LGBT community, no matter how great they are. It seems to me like it would be kind of a detour.

I stand thoroughly corrected. I have always thought that since aces have such a different agenda from others in the LGBTQAlphabetSoup, we shouldn't actually be part of that forum...yet it seemed like the only way to get us on the map. We'll just have to be creative, I suppose.

[henshin]

Sally, on Aug 20 2009, 04:38 AM, said:

Unless we promote our awareness campaign as what we are -- asexuals -- I'm afraid that we will be considered stepsisters/brothers to the LGBT movement.

Here's what I'm afraid of, which the gay community has faced and is still facing (and pardon me if I've brought this up before on this thread or another thread).

The civil rights movement in America is always understood to be an African-American issue. It has been for 40+ years now; everyone equates those two terms. Everyone meaning most people, and definitely African-Americans do. But recently gays have pointed out that their inability to legally marry, etc. is a civil rights issue, which it is. However, the African-American community generally has been upset at that because they feel that gays--not being obviously branded by their skin color--don't face automatic prejudice. Leaders of the two movements have a very uneasy relationship, especially the African-American churches.

The gay community, although focused on many different kinds of civil rights, have had as a cornerstone of their issue the right to love/have sex with whoever they choose. I can't see that community being that interested in cooperating with our community, when as far as they're concerned, we're not really having any problem: nobody's claiminng we can't marry anyone and nobody's saying we can't have sex with other people and nobody's refusing to rent houses to us or sell houses to us or let us adopt children (single people can do all of those without inquiry into their sex lives or lack thereof).

I just can't see that we'd gain any traction by being part of the LGBT community, no matter how great they are. It seems to me like it would be kind of a detour.

I can't help but feel you're missing the point of identifying as queer/LBGTQ. Its not about the material or legal benefits you might gain from having a unified pressure group representing your interest, its about self-identification, belonging and support. As lots of LGBT people have experienced problems because of their sexuality, they are perhaps more accepting of the wide variety of human sexuality than would be someone who's never had to question their sexuality, be forcedto defend it, or come into contact with a bunch of peopel who don't fit the mold. This is why asexuals can feel a part of the queer community, acceptance and understanding, especiall in more radically political queer communities where its incredibly important that people are not judged whatever their sexuality but offered support from those aruond them.

[4thquad]

Because of the pain some of us feel from being accused of being gay, I hate the idea of being in the same boat as LGBT groups.

On the other hand I have not recieved any bad treatmeant from a LGBT person.

I don't like labels. But if someone wanted to put me in that group, and they do, I can just focus on the good people who happen to be GLBT who have never done anything to hurt me.

[Pay it forward]

As a hetro Asexual ( As I suspect the majority are) I cannot see the link to lgbt being a valid positive and I have never understood or felt comfortable with it

However I do understand gay,lesbian or transexual individuals who happen to be Asexual feel that they have a foot in both camps so to speak.

As pointed out many members already are accused of being Gay when they are not and the association as an organisation with lgbt will only re-enforce that stereo type that Asexuals are gay

[Siggy]

Probie, on Aug 21 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

As pointed out many members already are accused of being Gay when they are not and the association as an organisation with lgbt will only re-enforce that stereo type that Asexuals are gay

I don't think so... Did the inclusion of bisexuality into LGBT ever reinforce the stereotype that bisexuals are really just gay? Bisexuals, too, experience a lot of bad treatment and prejudice from gay and lesbian people, but that doesn't stop them.

henshin, on Aug 21 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

I can't help but feel you're missing the point of identifying as queer/LBGTQ. Its not about the material or legal benefits you might gain from having a unified pressure group representing your interest, its about self-identification, belonging and support. As lots of LGBT people have experienced problems because of their sexuality, they are perhaps more accepting of the wide variety of human sexuality than would be someone who's never had to question their sexuality, be forcedto defend it, or come into contact with a bunch of peopel who don't fit the mold. This is why asexuals can feel a part of the queer community, acceptance and understanding, especiall in more radically political queer communities where its incredibly important that people are not judged whatever their sexuality but offered support from those aruond them.

Exactly. We shouldn't always be thinking "how does this benefit our political goals?" Sometimes, it's not about our political goals. Sometimes, it's about knowing where we fit in. I don't think it's necessary for asexuality to be included in the standard LGBT acronym, and I don't think it's necessary to emphasize the connection at all times. But I certainly think we fit somewhere in the queer spectrum.

[Pay it forward]

Siggy, on Aug 21 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

Probie, on Aug 21 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

As pointed out many members already are accused of being Gay when they are not and the association as an organisation with lgbt will only re-enforce that stereo type that Asexuals are gay

I don't think so... Did the inclusion of bisexuality into LGBT ever reinforce the stereotype that bisexuals are really just gay? Bisexuals, too, experience a lot of bad treatment and prejudice from gay and lesbian people, but that doesn't stop them.

henshin, on Aug 21 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

I can't help but feel you're missing the point of identifying as queer/LBGTQ. Its not about the material or legal benefits you might gain from having a unified pressure group representing your interest, its about self-identification, belonging and support. As lots of LGBT people have experienced problems because of their sexuality, they are perhaps more accepting of the wide variety of human sexuality than would be someone who's never had to question their sexuality, be forcedto defend it, or come into contact with a bunch of peopel who don't fit the mold. This is why asexuals can feel a part of the queer community, acceptance and understanding, especiall in more radically political queer communities where its incredibly important that people are not judged whatever their sexuality but offered support from those aruond them.

Exactly. We shouldn't always be thinking "how does this benefit our political goals?" Sometimes, it's not about our political goals. Sometimes, it's about knowing where we fit in. I don't think it's necessary for asexuality to be included in the standard LGBT acronym, and I don't think it's necessary to emphasize the connection at all times. But I certainly think we fit somewhere in the queer spectrum.

I would have to disgree on the first part Siggs, imagine the following

At school a boy is asked did I see you in a lgbt meeting the other day, the boy replies yes, then they are asked are you gay? to which the reply would probably be no of course not, then the questioner would say so you don't date girls and you go to a gay association...yeah right. this situation I feel would be the majority rather than non existent

The part were you say..As lots of LGBT people have experienced problems because of their sexuality I think hits the nail on the head in that Asexuals don't have a sexuality so why join a group that does something we do not? I certianly do not fit in any queer spectrum in that I am hetro and do not have sex

[GoAllyGoGo]

You obviously don't agree, Probie, but I believe asexuality is a sexuality. I believe I fit the queer spectrum beautifully as my lack of sexual attraction is rather queer by it's very definition. Sure, I'm heteroromantic, but I feel queer as hell (and I love it!). Perhaps I like to include myself (as an asexual) in the LGBT because I've been a lifelong supporter and lover of it and upon coming across asexuality and identifying as it, for me, it was kind of like "Yes! I'm finally one of them!" My queer friends are immensely supportive of my asexuality. My friends who are strong allies of the queer community are immensely supportive of it as well. I've gotten more positive feedback from there than anywhere else and have been accepted more readily from that community (the people in it I know at least) so naturally I would put my sexuality amongst theirs.

I am asexual. It doesn't get much more queer than that.