Heteroromantic and Ace

[KittyColor]

I’ve been posting a lot, but that’s because I have a lot of questions! I’m so happy I found this forum because it’s really helping me explore and understand myself more. 

I have been looking around and seeing a lot of opinions about whether asexuals and aromatics are part of the LGBTQ+ (And i personally believe that they should be included, at least the biromantic/homoromantic/etc. people) community and I had a specific question pertaining to myself; is someone who identifies  as heteroromantic and asexual a part of the LGBTQ+ community? This issue is really complex and if this question has already been answered or discussed, please show me where I can read up on it. I am really deeply interested in all of this. 

[AcornCarvings]

Hi KittyColor, thanks for asking!  (and I'm glad that AVEN has been a good place for you!!!)

This is a question that people like to argue about. A lot. So expecting a little bit of an explosion on this thread would probably be a good idea.

 

You are right that this is a very complex issue, partially because it calls for spaces to have a balance of inclusivity and specificity to the groups that they were created to help. And there has definitely been a lot of discussion about this. (IDK how to link threads but there have been at least a few

I personally define the LGBTQ+ community as the community of people whose experiences and identities go against heteronormativity (kinda a gross word-basically the set of what is ok and not ok when it comes to gender and sexuality in our society). I know that there are many different ways that people define the term, but I think that since it is an umbrella term, there is no need to try and exclude people from it when they have experiences that would make the community helpful and supportive for them. So if a heteroromantic ace person feels they should belong in the LGBT+ community, then I think it would be weird not to count them.

When making LGBT+ spaces more inclusive in this way, I think we need to make extra sure that we still have good spaces for people who share more specific sets of experiences. (like how AVEN is for ace/aro folks and people who are looking for info and support, there are spaces for trans people, lesbians, etc.)

 

I know there are other viewpoints on this issue, and that is just mine. I have limited experiences and knowledge, so this definitely is not the end-all be-all answer. Just my opinion on it.

[AcornCarvings]

Here's some threads discussing the same issue (there have been a lot of them, these are just some that I found)

 

 

A little less directly about the topic but still relevant:

A poll on this, (unfortunately does not include anything other than a blanket yes or no)

 

And here are some other sources that have talked about this:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/lgbt-asexual_n_3385530.html (huffington post article)

http://www.asexualityarchive.com/the-comment-section-youre-not-one-of-us/ (arguing for inclusion)

http://www.asexualawarenessweek.com/docs/ASEXUALITY-and-LGBT-AAW-2011-version.pdf (arguing for inclusion)

https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/what-does-it-mean-to-say-asexuals-are-queer/ (less one way or the other than some of the other sources I think) <-- I kinda like this one. It brings up some interesting points

 

p.s. I forgot to mention it in the last post I did, but I think a big part of this is that it might not be every het-ace person, but sort of a thing that varies person-to-person, instead of a blanket yes or no.

[Ceebs]

So, my take is that if someone is a cisgendered, heteroromantic asexual, they're not LGBTQ+. They're a minority in terms of not desiring sex with anyone, since the majority of people do, but they don't share the same history that LGBTQ+ folks do -- and, let's not forget, that's an acronym whose origins are in a political movement intended to fight systemic discrimination, hatred, violence, etc. As a group, those are generally not things faced by cisgendered people who desire relationships with those of the opposite sex but don't particularly want to bump uglies with their partner.

 

Which is not to disparage the validity of asexuality or the importance of asexual visibility.

[ChemicalCat59]

I believe that all asexuals should be included in LGBT+, and I also like the idea of replacing "LGBT" with "GSD" as to not exclude anyone. Maybe asexuals haven't historically faced any major conflicts with heteronormative society, but I'll bet you it's hard to find an ace (aro, hetero, or other) who hasn't lost friends, made relationships extremely awkward, or been told they "don't exist" by people near them when they come out. Personally, I'm scared to tell my parents because they really want grandchildren soon and so they would try to "fix" me. Studies have been done that show that heterosexuals not only have a bias against asexuals, but that "out of all the sexual minority groups studied, asexuals [are] the most dehumanized" (Gordon Hodson Ph.D., psychologytoday.com). We are constantly compared to machines, animals, plants, and even single-celled organisms because of our lack of sexual desire. We are portrayed as cold, emotionless, and impulsive by ignorant people (both straight and LGBT+), when this could not be further from the truth. Other parts of LGBT+ may have big political debates over acceptance, but the asexual community's invisibility leaves it vulnerable to all kinds of hate and dehumanization that other people just don't receive.

 

Basically, I don't think the LGBT+ community should be defined by the borders of historical discrimination, because that's not what the group is about. It's not about "reaping benefits" or feeling sorry for yourself. It's about accepting those that heteronormative society doesn't fully accept in any way, and I think we can all agree that every ace has had their fair share of micro-inequity and intolerance, whether they are aro, SGA, or hetero, and whether they are cis or trans.

 

Speaking of which, why should cis/trans or romantic attraction even matter for our inclusion? Anyone who believes that a heteroromantic asexual isn't worthy of inclusion in the community should by the same standard exclude a cisgendered gay person or a heterosexual trans person because they're "not LGBT enough". Asexuals are included in LGBT+ on the basis of going against the traditional heterosexual norm; being trans or homoromantic on top of that can "count" as an extra way of being included in LGBT, but being cisgender or heteroromantic should in NO WAY "discredit" anyone from being in the community, just as being heterosexual doesn't "discredit" a trans person from being in the community.

 

(If you have the time, I strongly recommend reading Hodson's work; it's very enlightening and reveals a lot of prejudice towards the asexual community that many people are not aware of.)