Do you think asexuality falls under the queer umbrella?

[HABIT]

I see constant fighting about this.

I'm aware technically it is a queer orientation,I just want to see your opinions.

[Celestine]

Okay, so my understanding is that "queer" simply means "different from the norm" and if we accept cisgender heterosexual as the norm (because that's the way our society has structured itself, not because that's how it should be) then yes, asexuality is queer because it's not "normal" to not desire sex at all or not be sexually attracted to anyone.

That being said, I don't apply the label "queer" to myself because I don't see any use in it. I've been told it's designed to be a catch-all for anyone who feels ostracized and not part of the "norm" but doesn't feel comfortable with any other label. But I do have a label: asexual. "Queer" is just too vague for me. I'm not going to call myself that because I don't know what it even means.

I understand there are some who feel heteroromantic, cisgendered asexuals are not "queer" enough. Well, that doesn't affect me whatsoever since I don't want that label anyway, but I don't think it's fair to deny that label to straight aces who do find some use in referring to themselves as queer just because other people think they aren't queer enough (we really don't need a queer police, IMO).

Regardless of whether asexual is "queer", though, I would like the letter A to be in the alphabet soup, and not just as "ally." We deal with enough erasure and silencing as it is and I think asking for representation alongside the other atypical groups of the world is reasonable.

[Phantasmal Fingers]

No. I think it's totally unhelpful and sends out the wrong message. I'm not protesting about not being able to do something that people say I shouldn't do and nor am I hypersexual.

[Zerο]

Well, queer is an umbrella term for any orientation that's not heterosexual so yeah asexuality would fall under it, but that's so vague I don't see why we'd use it (EG same reason someone whose bisexual or homosexual generally uses those terms instead of queer). Would I associate with the LBQT community because of my asexuality? Meh, nah.

[warrigan]

i like the term "queer" better than lgbtq, because having a general term for people who don't feel they fall within the norm seems more inclusive and just plain useful. for me, i identify as queer but not lgbtq. i don't think i'd ever really identify with the lgbtq organization because i don't feel like i personally have much in common with it, but i think that adding an "a" would be important for visibility and education. it also seems ridiculous to not give asexuals the opportunity to identify that way if they want to.

[SteveIkura]

I like to use 'queer' myself, though I think that's more to do with being homoromantic and genderqueer than being ace, per say.

I don't think it helps anyone to add A to LGBTQ. I've seen it get as long as LGBTTIQPA, and eventually, we might just as well write out the whole alphabet and be done with it. I've found people outside the LGBT community often find the acronym confusing enough without it getting changed all the time. I'm more a fan of GSM (gender and sexual minorities) myself, as a simple catch-all that won't require a new letter bolted on every time a new group gets loud enough to demand visibility, as they'd already be covered. It would also take away the perceived power of people who fall under the original 'LGBT' to decide whether or not groups like asexuals are allowed to be part of that community. In the case of aces who want to feel part of that community, they'd already be covered by GSM, so there'd be no use in anyone disagreeing with that.

[WhenSummersGone]

No for the first question and yes for the second question. I just prefer not to use the word queer because it has negativity attached to it.

[Philip027]

Well, yeah, technically it does. Queer essentially means strange. I think if we're really 1%, that's pretty strange.

I don't really want to be automatically associated with LGBT though, because our issues are somewhat different. Those people still have a sexuality, they just express it in a different way than the "hetero" people might. We kinda... don't. Or at least I don't.

[~Rikki~]

No to the term queer but yes to LGBTQA. I think, really, the only people that should use the term queer are those that deal with actual discrimination in regards to the term queer. So for example biromantic/bisexual people. That's just one example. Heterosexual/heteroromantic people aren't targeted for their attraction like that (yes they deal with crap being ace but not because they're still attracted to the opposite gender). If what I said doesn't make sense feel free to ask for clarification (I haven't been fully awake too long so I'm still a bit jumbled).

[littleheartsofjoy]

I said no for the first question, because I don't know if it is fair. Philip does have a great point but at the same time, I'm not sure if it is fair to call someone, such as myself, a heteroromantic ace as queer. If I wasn't asexual, I wouldn't even fit the popular "queer" definition.

As for the LGBT, I answered, not sure because I'm not sure. Not all the LGBT accept asexuals or asexuality as an orientation, so I'm not sure if I want to be grouped or included.

[Philip027]

I said no for the first question, because I don't know if it is fair. Philip does have a great point but at the same time, I'm not sure if it is fair to call someone, such as myself, a heteroromantic ace as queer. If I wasn't asexual, I wouldn't even fit the popular "queer" definition.

Obviously many things can technically count as queer by the textbook definition (such as the fact I don't like pizza), but the way I understand it, "queer" seems to typically be used to describe someone who's outside the norm regarding sexuality/gender specifically. In such a case, I still think heteroromantic aces still count.

But yeah, obviously YMMV on that one.

[Dwaynesha]

To me "queer" means "men chuffing men" so if anything asexuals are the complete opposite of queer

[littleheartsofjoy]

I said no for the first question, because I don't know if it is fair. Philip does have a great point but at the same time, I'm not sure if it is fair to call someone, such as myself, a heteroromantic ace as queer. If I wasn't asexual, I wouldn't even fit the popular "queer" definition.

Obviously many things can technically count as queer by the textbook definition (such as the fact I don't like pizza), but the way I understand it, "queer" seems to typically be used to describe someone who's outside the norm regarding sexuality/gender specifically. In such a case, I still think heteroromantic aces still count.

But yeah, obviously YMMV on that one.

That's true, and a good point to make. I just wouldn't feel included by other people who do call themselves "queer".

[sen]

I would consider myself queer given that I'm homoromantic. I think if I were heteroromantic then I may not feel that I was queer; that if it weren't for my asexuality I'd be identical to all my heteronormative peers. Due to my homoromantic nature, I've had a different set of challenges to face than someone who is heteroromantic may have had to face (but not necessarily).

Ultimately, I think it's up to each ace whether or not to include themselves under the queer banner. The very nature of asexuality should allow an ace this freedom.

I don't think it helps anyone to add A to LGBTQ.

I rather like the acronym QUILTBAG: QUeer, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans*, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay. But I like the simplicity of the word "queer" because it can easily encompass all the letters and shades and colours of what could fall under it.

[Man_Friend]

That sounds gross.

[MarieAntoinette]

I voted yes for both. I mean, asexuals definitely aren't of the heterosexual "norm". But we don't seem to be completely accepted in the queer community nor in the straight community so I dunno where we belong tbh.

[swim2thesun]

asexuality is a queer identity, being that it differs from the cisgender, hetero normative expectations of societies around the globe but it's still up to individuals to decide weather or not they want to be apart of any LGBT community or Queer community/ identify them self as queer. It's all up to you as to what you want to do/ how you want to identify.

[Lenika]

No because the last thing we need is religious nuts going A wonkers about aces any more than they do now. I don't want to be associated with butt fucking. And that's what the label queer means in my area. Seams that label has taken a description so far off from the definition. I want nothing to do with it for that reason. And the fact it widely mean gay. I'm not gay either.

I think it should be part of lgbt. As a support. But no I'd never call it queer.

Its a lack of atraction. Not an attraction. So no it does not fit.

Lgbt would be nice for visibility. That I would call OK.

Personally I do not believe in a norm for sexual orientation. All species have gay animals. My roosters fuck each other several times a day when hens are readily available.

Its a preference not a disorder or abnormal. Its not bad. Lgbta is all a preferance. Its normal to have a preference. Its rude to label people as broken for not having the common preference.

[hugger]

I'd say yes to identifying as queer, but don't care if they add an A to the alphabet soup they have already. Plus many floaters in said soup would try to deny our right to a place in the bowl anyways !

[Mona Lisa]

I absolutely hate the term "queer." It's a loaded term, not at all a neutral expression, and generally derogatory. I would not apply this term to myself or anyone else (gay, bi, trans or otherwise). That people are trying to use it as an overarching term for alternative sexualities or LGBT pride makes me cringe.

Here's a controversial example:

That would be like people in the black community calling themselves and other black people a certain "N" word. No matter who says it, even within the black community from one to another, it's still a racial slur. There is a long history of negative associations and psychological subjugation that no amount of cultural spin can erase.

"Queer" to most people means gay. Not all asexuals are homo(sexual/romantic/etc), and that association can be harmful to the public understanding of asexuals. Stop trying to make "fetch" happen.

Now to answer the intended question, asexuality would fall under an umbrella of orientations/gender identities that are not mainstream cisgender heterosexuality. It would be nice if the LGBT community were inclusive, and I think a name change is in order. I like GSD (Gender and Sexual Diversity).

[R_1]

Wished you added a "depends" option. Whether asexuality falls under queer depends on meaning and criterias being used. As for whether the 'A' should be added, that would depends on area location as there are some asexuals that does not want to deal with hatred out of association.

[HABIT]

Wished you added a "depends" option. Whether asexuality falls under queer depends on meaning and criterias being used. As for whether the 'A' should be added, that would depends on area location as there are some asexuals that does not want to deal with hatred out of association.

Just added that,thanks for the feedback!

That sounds gross.

What?

[HABIT]

In case you're wondering my opinions,yes to both

[oopgoo]

I don't know about the first one for reasons already stated. I liked Mona Lisa's reason in particular, although I don't agree 100%. (not critisising it, though; I certainly can't think of an example which explains it accurately) There doesn't seem to be a totally politically correct term for 'not the norm' to be used instead of 'queer', though, so it's a tricky one. As asexuals are definitely a minority, then I guess they should be under the minority umbrella, but I think the word 'queer' can easily be manipulated and used as an abusive term. (it certainly is where I live)

Personally, I wouldn't be offended if someone said that asexuals should go under the queer umbrella and thus I am queer, but I also wouldn't be offended if someone said that asexuals don't go in that group.

As Mona Lisa and Stevelkura already mentioned, I think that it would be nice if another term could be used for the LGBTQQIAAP community. (that's the longest 'abbreviation' I've seen) I would prefer it if we all switched to GSD or some other term instead of adding more letters and throwing a hissy fit because we're not included in a string of letters, especially considering the fact that human sexuality and gender identity can't really be slotted into exact groups for everyone and trying to define EVERYONE as a letter in an abbreviation seems a bit silly. You either use lots of letters and make it confusing, or just go back to calling it LGBT and have people get offended/discriminated against because they are not part of the letter group.

[Pangali]

Personally, no.

Because queer normally means something along the lines of 'not normal', and to me, there isn't a 'normal' sexuality.

[ceg_2002']

I really don't think we belong in the group. Personally I feel you get two types of people - sexual and asexual. Two different sides of the coin. Homosexuality can exist on both sides, as can transgender people. There is a sexual group of LGBT and an asexual group of LGBT. I guess I could say I have never through of asexuality as been a division of sexuality - it is the opposite so therefore a different construct.

[swim2thesun]

I really don't think we belong in the group. Personally I feel you get two types of people - sexual and asexual. Two different sides of the coin. Homosexuality can exist on both sides, as can transgender people. There is a sexual group of LGBT and an asexual group of LGBT. I guess I could say I have never through of asexuality as been a division of sexuality - it is the opposite so therefore a different construct.

Yes but what about the demi and gray folks that are still apart of the ace community? Asexuality isn't "the opposite" of sexuality. It's a sexual orientation that is the lack of sexual attraction, not a lack of sexuality.

Personally, no.

Because queer normally means something along the lines of 'not normal', and to me, there isn't a 'normal' sexuality.

which is technically correct..... and incorrect. Being that no sexuality is really normal but then on the other hand they're all normal, but unfortunately thats not how our world works. what's perceived as "normal" is: Cis, White, Heterosexual, and Male.In terms of queer sexuality (and gender) anything that deviates from the perceived norm of Cisgender, and Heterosexual, can be perceived as queer. Thus asexuality seems to fit right in, in it's non-heterosexuality. However, its still up to individuals to decide if they personally identify with the queer umbrella.

[S.Kobold]

I think asexuality falls under the queer umbrella.

Many years ago, way back in high school - I once argued with someone that I could freely call myself "Gay" after they got over the initial confusion "but you're a woman - how does that work?" (it was high school) the person then launched into a long tirade about reclamation of words... Where I come from gay is used as an insult a lot more than queer, but no one really blinks (apart from in high school) when someone uses that term for themselves.

Later in life, when I found out a little bit more about myself, experimented and largely ignored the sexual sphere, I started calling myself queer. It fit better - I wasn't gay, I wasn't bi - I was different. When I came across the definitions listed on AVEN for asexuals, that fit even better.

Different people probably attach different labels to me - my boss thinks I'm gay, some friends think I'm bi, some think queer, and a few (apparently before I realised) think asexual. Labels are important for a lot of different reasons, and I'm not going to reject one or another because of the connotations it has for people I don't interact with. (And for the record, the people I interact with who need to label my sexuality in any meaningful way are vetted by means of being my friend).

So far as changing acronyms of already misunderstood support groups - I would have my misgivings.

I don't think that we should shoehorn an A in there just to raise awareness that we exist - I think it would be counter-productive to try. There should be better ways to ensure that these groups are able to help asexuals in the same/similar ways as they help other people in the community.

We are in that community. If we weren't we would not have felt the need to seek out like minded people to compare our experiences with here on AVEN. Yes, our experiences differ significantly from others in the community - just as many trans peoples experience differs from gay peoples. And, lets be honest, just as within this community there are many differing experiences.

[~Rikki~]

When people say they won't call people queer, I tend to get a tad annoyed. My sexuality: queer. My gender: genderqueer. In both those cases, it's okay to say I'm queer if done in a positive way (ze identifies as queer or ze identifies as genderqueer). Just a pet peeve of mine.

[Guest]

When people say they won't call people queer, I tend to get a tad annoyed. My sexuality: queer. My gender: genderqueer. In both those cases, it's okay to say I'm queer if done in a positive way (ze identifies as queer or ze identifies as genderqueer). Just a pet peeve of mine.

I won't call people queer UNLESS they want me to. But someone I don't know if they use that label or not? No way would the word come out of my mouth.

I do not feel "queer" fits me - I have no problem being confused for being gay (if someone cares about that, they aren't someone I am going to be associating with anyway) but being cis and heteroromantic, I just don't think it fits me. Should we be a part of the LGBT? If they want us to. I will let them decide if they want to add A to their group though. It would be beneficial for support and visibility, but I can understand if they say no too. :)