"The A is Here to Stay" on the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Blog

[kitchenwitch]

This is a piece I wrote for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's blog -- it's meant to engage those who don't identify as asexual on basic issues.

But... I'm really interested in what aces think of the language I'm playing with at the bottom of the first paragraph. It's really important to me to be inclusive of everyone in our community, so I'm trying out new ways to define asexuality to audiences who may have never heard of it before, or have only heard of it in passing. I'm straying from the short-and-sweet AVEN definition in an attempt to be much more inclusive.

(And for those of you who don't know, we've been working with the Task Force for several years to get them to become more asexual inclusive, and it seems like this year they've finally woken up. It's a great partnership to have in the LGBT community, for sure)

[ithaca]

You mean this part?

Asexuality is an umbrella term for those who experience a range of sexual attraction that is significantly less than the rest of the population. This orientation is very rarely talked about in our queer community — but that is starting to change.

[Nifgar]

Ehhh...I just don't really agree that asexuality is queer in and of itself, since asexual people can still be cis and straight...

[Guest]

Equivamp, I don't think asexuality is being labelled as queer. What I get from this article is that it can be part of the LGBTQA+ community acronym, that's all.

I appreciate the effort put in the article and like it :) Although perhaps you should specify that asexuals don't feel sexual attraction, ever, and that grey-A people might feel it under certain circumstances.

[Sennkestra]

I originally responded to this on tumblr, but I figured I might as well copy it over here too:

Cool piece!

Re: the language on the first paragraph (be warned, I like words a lot so this is going to be long and overly nitpicky):

Asexuality is an umbrella term for those who experience a range of sexual attraction that is significantly less than the rest of the population.

I’m not completely sure if the attempt here is to be inclusive of grey-A’s and demis, or just to give a broader definition of asexuality since not everyone who self-IDs ascribes to the same definitions?

If it’s the former, I personally am not sure about including it all under “asexuality” rather than something like “asexual spectrum” - the point of those identities is that while they share experienes with asexuals, they are not the same thing; it reminds me a bit of how LGBT is often lumped into “gay” in common parlance which is something that it’s better to avoid in order to avoid erasing lesser known identities (bisexual, or grey-A, as the case may be). Alternitives could include ace spectrum, asexual spectrum, “asexual community includes”, etc. Or define asexuality, then talk about how the asexual community also includes…)

If it’s the latter…personally, I think that rather than making the definition more ambiguous (and since someone will still always be left out), it would work better to have a more specific working or general definition, but at the same time emphasize the fact that not everyone will have the same experience. (something like: “Asexuality is generally defined as…[but the experience of what it means to be asexual differs for every individual])

I guess my other point would be that I prefer brevity, and “range of sexual attraction that is significantly less than the rest of the population” is just such a mouthful - it’s the kind of language that might be good for academic papers, but it’s a bit too unwieldy for everyday conversation. In addition, the attempt to be more inclusive also makes it very vague, which doesn’t help people understand any more - while inclusivity is important, so is clarity. Which is why I do still prefer things like “asexuals are people who do not experience sexual attraction to any gender” or maybe “who experience little or no sexual attraction to any gender” if you want to be broader.

In addition, I also like keeping the focus on “lack of attraction to any gender”. First, because it makes it more parallel with other sexual orientation constructs, which are all based around the gender of the target of attraction, not the level of attraction. In addition, I prefer focusing on the target gender because it helps keep the focus away from the “level of sexuality” idea, which can be misleading - when people start to imagine asexuality as people who are just “less sexual”/”have less sex”, that’s not what asexuality is like - or at least, not for me. I still consider myself a very sexual person, in some ways - I just don’t have interest in other people. And I prefer a definition that reflects that.

Admittedly, this is a lot of nitpicking for one sentence; and in general I think you can still work with a lot of variants. But I do think that having a clear, easily understandable definition that can be conveyed in just a few words is something that is important in activism.

[ithaca]

What Clea said

[sinisterporpoise]

What people are missing, and it's not a small point, is that you need to use different language when talking to people who are not familiar with asexuality. Most of the people who have responded don't deal with the particular problems of trying to explain to people concepts that are already well-known. (Even if some of those concepts, like 'squish' make little sense and should be abandoned.)

Kitchenwitch did a good job here, and keep in mind she is talking to people who are not part of the asexual community. She, unlike many of the posters here, has put herself out there to raise awareness and visibility.

[sound_the_bugle]

I do agree with saying "the asexual spectrum" - if I were to pick one of the "big four" (hetero, homo, bi, ace), I would pick hetero for myself, but I identify more with the ace community than I do with the hetero one, so I'm on the asexual spectrum, because I am not strictly sexual, and, compared to most sexuals, I am ace. Does that make sense?