Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is asexuality part of the LGTB community?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of debate over whether or not it counts. Some argue that asexuality falls under the title of a "queer" orientation/identity and that it should therefore be part of LGBTOMGWTFBBQ, and others argue that it should be kept separate altogether. There's a bit of both from ace and non-ace contributors alike.

I personally don't feel like it is a part of the LGBT, but my opinion is by no means definitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's an individual thing.

Not all asexuals feel like a member of the LGBT personally.

Hetero-romantic asexuals may feel that they are not different enough from heteronormative society to need the LGBT.

Many feel that asexuality, as the lack of sexuality, does not have a place in the LGBT, which is about sexual expression (albeit in a non-hetero way). Some asexuals who have attended LGBT events have reported feeling very out of place.

Some asexuals feel that there is no actual need for us to be part of the LGBT, we can just be our own movement.

Not all LGBT people acknowledge asexuality or want us to be a part of their movement.

LGBT events are good for visibility (such as attending Pride parades) and some LGBT people might be asexual and not know it.

When an asexual person, especially at school/college, needs support, often the only related support group around is LGBT.

Asexuals may experience similar issues as members of the LGBT- such as homo or biromantic issues, homophobia (either from homoromanticism or perceived homosexuality... don't forget, apparently not hetero = auto-homo!) and being transgender.

LGBT is the biggest non-hetero sexuality group and they would be valuable allies on side.

I'm sure there are loads more. I may edit later if I can think of one and can be bothered.

In short, we are not an OFFICIAL part of the LGBT but we have interacted with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

Its perhaps a personal choice. Like asexuals that can strongly associate with the LGBT for their gender, Homo/bi-gray area and/or romanticism. I personally can associate with the LGBT for my bisexual aesthetic attractions and that gray area including demi-potential/romanticism in said area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suspect that homoromatics feel more a part of it that heteroromantics simply because if we want to have a partner other people will perceive us as homosexual and therefore our issues are their issues.

Also have to diagree with the person above who said that aseuxality is an orientation. I don't believe that at all.

I see two reasons for allying with the LGBT spectrum:

1) many asexuals are either homoromantic, biromantic or trans*

2) by not enaging in the mainstream depiction of traditional relationships or sexuality we are somewhat against the norm and therefore marginalised

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest member25959

It's not conventionally recognized as the LGBT. It's not really recognized as the LGBT by the majority of people outside of the LGBT, and there are even some within the LGBT that don't recognize it as the LGBT.

A considerable amount of people within this community do consider themselves LGBT though, it's all up to personal choice.

I see it this way, anything that isn't 'heteronormative' can fit into the LGBT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do believe that asexuals have something to gain from being a part of LGBTQ communities (with asexuality falling under the Q), even hetero-romantics and cisfolk. We, as a community of our own, do not have the type of visibility that other sexual/gender minorities have, and often get our identities policed/denied/questioned, so I feel we need support from the rest of the LGBTQ community to keep us afloat/help with visibility/education.

I personally am a hetero-romantic asexual, and a genderqueer person, both of which are often ignored/denied by greater hetero/cis-normative society, but not by the inclusive LGBTQ community at my school (I am one of very few aces in the queer alliance on campus, and do my best to spread that awareness, and they accept me as one of them).

My point is, in a nutshell, that the LGBTQ community is (or at least should be) inclusive, and thus anyone who feels themselves "different" or not hetero/cis-normative who wants to align themselves with the community has every right to. Most of society looks at me, and sees a straight guy vying for attention; the LGBTQ community sees me for who I really am, and that's what counts, hetero-romantic or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are at least two ways to view the question. Should asexuality be part of LGBTQ? And regardless of whether they should, are they in fact part of LGBTQ?

For the "should" question, that's something you can decide for yourself. Note that even if you think asexuals should be part of LGBTQ, that does not mean that you as an individual need to identify as queer or pay any attention to LGBTQ communities.

For the "in fact" question, the answer is quite mixed. Asexuals have done a lot of visibility work in LGBTQ communities, which I think tends to make them safer (but not always safer). There have been many instances where LGBTQ organizations acknowledge and include asexuals as part of their scope. I believe this occurs most frequently with college student groups, but it also happens with national orgs. For instance, there were workshops in NGLTF's Creating Change conference, which led to asexual inclusion in the Trevor Project. It's also useful to compare to other groups such as trans people. Trans people are almost always nominally included, but in practice they frequently get sidelined.

Edit: Oh, you should also see question 13 here, which says how many people in the internet asexual community consider themselves part of the LGBT community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like LGBT as an acronym. In retrospect, using a more inclusive term would have been a better choice. Now they're constantly adding letters to avoid excluding people, and the Q basically umbrellas everybody anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

I don't like LGBT as an acronym. In retrospect, using a more inclusive term would have been a better choice. Now they're constantly adding letters to avoid excluding people, and the Q basically umbrellas everybody anyway.

The Q normally stands for Questioning or Queer where I've seen it used. Perhaps a term most mentioned is QUILTBAG that includes all gender/sexual minorities.ย 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you "Perfectly...". "Quiltbag" it is, for me anyway!!! It is all-encompassing, and the "Q" can represent 'questioning', which I truly prefer!

Link to post
Share on other sites
BaronTheCat

Quiltbag! I liked that one. :cake:

..Haven't heard of it before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When people talk about if we fit into the LGBT community often there is talk about how it's all about sexual expression and so on, and then get onto being outside the hetero-normative. All the while forgetting about the T.

I tend to view the LGBT(Q) thing as an umbrella term for gender and sexual minorities (GSMs, though even that term leaves out Intersex folk) in a similar but far larger way sometimes we say 'asexual community' but also mean the demis and graces. And so we fit. Not everyone may feel a part of it which fair enough, to each their own. But we aren't heterosexual. We're outside the mainstream experiences of sexuality and/or gender. So treat that as you will.

I do like Quiltbag, only problem is that it doesn't have a P for pansexual

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like Quiltbag, only problem is that it doesn't have a P for pansexual

I think this is the main issue. I mean, not accusing you specifically of this, but for some people it seems more like the want their letter to be on the acronym, rather than focusing on the point, i.e. opening up society to non-heteronormative things. Because asexuality isn't the standard, so it fits in that respect, but it's still different.

Basically, some people spend too much time focusing on what we should call ourselves, rather than fighting the fact that the 'normal' people don't accept us, no matter what name we use.

Hetero aces don't fit in with the LGB. And really, though, hetero transsexuals don't fit in with the LGB either, if you're talking about sexuality, but the umbrella isn't just about sexuality, it's about nonstandard gender issues too, so you already have two distinct but connected concepts in the acronym, so I don't see why people who lack sexual attraction can't be a part of that either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Quiltbag" includes 'asexuality', which in itself includes 'pansexuality'. Do I have this right? I hope so, because I thought that the important feature was getting 'asexuality' formally recognized as an orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Quiltbag" includes 'asexuality', which in itself includes 'pansexuality'. Do I have this right? I hope so, because I thought that the important feature was getting 'asexuality' formally recognized as an orientation.

Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction.

Pansexuality is the possibility for sexual attraction regardless of sex/gender.

As far as I can tell, QUILTBAG is

Q: Queer, Questioning

U: Unidentified

I: Intersex

L: Lesbian

T: Transsexual/gender

B: Bisexual

A: Asexual

G: Gay, Genderqueer/fluid/etc

It IS missing pansexual. But honestly, I think the distinction of pan/bi veers into some of the overlabeling craz. Especially when "bi" no longer means "man and women" but "any two sexes" and they invent polysexual to go with that and... really, eh. I don't even know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, I get that sometimes we can be too focused on getting everything and everyone in that it becomes silly. That's why I tend to think of LGBTQ as a nice umbrella for all for pretty much the reasons stated a few posts above.

But Quiltbag was supposed to be this easy and all encompassing thing that, it isn't entirely. Was my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so much for "quiltbag" because it is not all-inclusive. Does the "Q" in LGTBQ represent 'questioning' or 'queer' or both/either? I can live with that as long as asexuality is considered an orientation, and 'queer' is not the only operative word. It grates on me, the wrong way! :angry:

Also, a question for the archivist among us: Why does "L" precede "G"? I am in my late 60s, and remember 'being queer' was the expression used by hetero-folk in the 1950s, then 'being gay' was whispered about later on, but not very much mention of 'being lesbian' throughout all this time. This is what has piqued my curiosity. I hope it is remaining 'on Topic'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, in some areas it still is GLBT. I think it was an east coast/west coast USA thing? Not sure.

And Q is for both queer and questioning as I understand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, in some areas it still is GLBT. I think it was an east coast/west coast USA thing? Not sure.

And Q is for both queer and questioning as I understand it.

So, if I were to use "GLBTQ", that would be understood. I do appreciate your input, "bristrek". Thanks! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original question, I know it's been stated that it's mostly an individual choice whether they feel a part of the LGBTQ community for their asexuality, but I think you could say that about heterosexuals too, considering they'd be "allies."

I, personally, fall into the LGBTQ community regardless of my sexuality because I'm transgender (specifically, agender) and panromantic (and therefore if I were sexually inclined, I would fall under the more "mainstream" LGBTQ umbrella regarding sexuality).

But am I LGBTQ because of my asexuality? I think so. No, no one's going to tell me I *can't* get married if I don't plan on having sex with my S.O., but it will be expected, and isn't there a thing where if you don't have sex in your marriage it's not technically a legal marriage? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's a thing. Not only this, but some religious people feel that someone completely "ignoring" the amazing pleasure, or whatever the frell, God blessed us with when enjoying the body of another human, we're some sort of sinful creature. Something something not being grateful to God's power/creations something. So yeah. Aces have both the legal AND the religious thing against them. It's just not as interesting to talk about in the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am new to this whole labeling of what I am. The word asexual didn't enter my vocabulary until just recently. So if this comes out wrong, I mean no disrespect. The LGB as I understood was about the understanding and informing of sexual orientation outside of the hetero lifestyles. Within that I would say no, because as asexual, or nonsexual as I thought of myself prior, I would say I was sexually unoriented. When the T was added I am not sure, and I am also not sure if they would consider themselves hetero or homo. I suppose that depends on the person. But then if they could consider themselves as straight, what I thought about the original LGB would have changed to just sexually different than your "normal" hetero person. And with that then yes asexuals could and possibly should be involved. And on yet another note, if one finds sex revolting do they want to be represented by a group that is heavily based on sexual preference?

I guess if one is homoromantic it could be beneficial. But heteroromantic or aromantic I don't see the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,"toj": I was under the impression that asexuality (AVEN), was interested in being included under the 'umbrella' of GLBTQ, because they had clout in society and we were fairly new to the scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair. This may seem slightly off topic and rather uninformed, but apart from not being understood or recognized really by society are we as a community being mistreated in any way? I mean I don't lose any rights by not having sex. Being as I am, as we are, I have never cared for people gay or straight shoving their sexual orientation in my face. I don't know I guess I just never understood taking pride in sexuality. It just seemed weird being that I don't understand the joy of sex. And I think it would be more weird to parade about expressing the lack of enjoyment I have for sex. But the more I think of it, it would be a heck of an amusing rally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so much for "quiltbag" because it is not all-inclusive. Does the "Q" in LGTBQ represent 'questioning' or 'queer' or both/either? I can live with that as long as asexuality is considered an orientation, and 'queer' is not the only operative word. It grates on me, the wrong way! :angry:

Also, a question for the archivist among us: Why does "L" precede "G"? I am in my late 60s, and remember 'being queer' was the expression used by hetero-folk in the 1950s, then 'being gay' was whispered about later on, but not very much mention of 'being lesbian' throughout all this time. This is what has piqued my curiosity. I hope it is remaining 'on Topic'.

I think it stands predominantly for Questioning, like, as the reason it was added (since 'queer' applies to all of these). Just as a catch-all I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so much for "quiltbag" because it is not all-inclusive. Does the "Q" in LGTBQ represent 'questioning' or 'queer' or both/either? I can live with that as long as asexuality is considered an orientation, and 'queer' is not the only operative word. It grates on me, the wrong way! :angry:

Also, a question for the archivist among us: Why does "L" precede "G"? I am in my late 60s, and remember 'being queer' was the expression used by hetero-folk in the 1950s, then 'being gay' was whispered about later on, but not very much mention of 'being lesbian' throughout all this time. This is what has piqued my curiosity. I hope it is remaining 'on Topic'.

I think it stands predominantly for Questioning, like, as the reason it was added (since 'queer' applies to all of these). Just as a catch-all I suppose.

Thank you for the info!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair. This may seem slightly off topic and rather uninformed, but apart from not being understood or recognized really by society are we as a community being mistreated in any way? I mean I don't lose any rights by not having sex. Being as I am, as we are, I have never cared for people gay or straight shoving their sexual orientation in my face. I don't know I guess I just never understood taking pride in sexuality. It just seemed weird being that I don't understand the joy of sex. And I think it would be more weird to parade about expressing the lack of enjoyment I have for sex. But the more I think of it, it would be a heck of an amusing rally.

The T, as you know, stands for trans* people. Trans* people can have every sexual orientation, from heterosexual to asexual and all the ones in the middle, just as every romantic orientation. So not being included in the LGBTQ (to make it short) group would mean for many people (also homoromantic, biromantic, panromantic, and others) to be half in and half out and not knowing where they belong. Like their gender or their romantic orientation only is supposed to be welcome in the LGBTQ group, but their asexuality isn't. There's also genderqueer asexuals.

Second of all, let's talk about legal discrimination. You know that, in many countries, if you get married and never have sex, marriage can be canceled like it never existed? Not divorced, canceled. Just to make an example. Bue let's not confuse too much asexuality with celibacy, since many asexuals do have sex.

Asexuals, especially aromantic, can be noticed on AVEN for having, or especially having named, lots of kinds of relationships. Queerplatonic are an example. In a long term, it would be one of my (utopic) purposes to see this kind of relationships get the same recognition and rights as marriage, if the people involved want them. Just like homosexual people are fighting for gay marriage.

Let's talk about social discrimination: heteroromantic asexuals are, sometimes, cornered and bullied for being prude or weird, if they don't have sex or show they are not so comfortable with it, even if they have it. All other romantic orientations have this, plus the discrimination from heteronormative people.

Ao yeah, I could add more I think, if needed, but this could give an idea of why I think asexuality should definitely be in the LGBTQ group :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand and agree with the points you made, but what I have learned of the asexual community in only the past couple days is that it is so diverse. Would the LGBTQ group be able to properly (or adequately) represent all of us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand and agree with the points you made, but what I have learned of the asexual community in only the past couple days is that it is so diverse. Would the LGBTQ group be able to properly (or adequately) represent all of us?

The asexual community is so diverse, it's true. The LGBTQ community is just as (if not more) diverse as it includes different groups, and each group is very much diverse on its own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...