"Are Aces LGBTQIA+?" Masterpost

[Sarah-Sylvia]

10 minutes ago, Snao Zedong said:

There could be deeper discussions about the incompleteness of different concepts we have of "sexuality" as a very rich topic, especially since "orientation" is a recent concept that was designed to encapsulate it in a very restrictive way. But I don't think that this is the place for that, nor was the comment really framed that way.

 

I mean, Foucault's History of Sexuality series of texts covers the topic largely outside the notion of "orientation" and is certainly a different approach to the matter than what we generally take on AVEN or in LGBTQIA+ discourse as a whole. If such a discussion were to unfold (in a different thread than this) I would have to brush up on those texts, which means reading sentences that sometimes last longer than a single page. My life is too busy right now to be up to that challenge, unfortunately.

Haven't heard of it. And I do think if someone uses orientation then it's even more about it but anyway.
I just mean the term is about sexuality, even if saying someone doesn't have it, or on sexual attraction/desire.

 

I guess in a world where everyone was asexual, and nobody knew about sexuality, there'd be no point in the word xD

[The French Unicorn]

50 minutes ago, Snao Zedong said:

which means reading sentences that sometimes last longer than a single page

So Foucault is Proust but for philosophy ?

(I don't know if non-French people have the reference but I wanted to contribute to the miste interesting point of this discussion)

 

[Snao Cone]

Just now, Frenchace said:

So Foucault is Proust but for philosophy ?

(I don't know if non-French people have the reference but I wanted to contribute to the miste interesting point of this discussion)

 

I haven't read Proust, but if he is a big user of sentence extenders (commas, semi-colons, parentheses, em dashes) then yes. I have read translations of Foucault rather than the original, but as the grammar surrounding sentence structure is similar between the languages I would imagine it's just as bad in French. 

[The French Unicorn]

Yes Proust in known for doing never ending sentences.

[Forlover]

On 10/13/2022 at 5:35 PM, Snao Zedong said:

They are generally going to be used in different contexts. Some asexual people might also feel that non-sexual describes them (and I know some people even prefer it due to what they perceive as skewed usages of "asexual" but that is a very different can of worms) but some may not - perhaps because they have a libido that leads them to masturbate and feel sexual pleasure, perhaps because they are sex-favourable and willing to compromise with a partner who desires them, or perhaps because they're curious themselves and wish to engage in sexual activity to see what the big deal about it is.

 

But your initial statement of "asexuality is not about sex at all is" a) unrelated to the post you quoted, which is many years old and from an account that since has been deleted (but I suppose that's a separate issue) and b) implying that sexual orientation has nothing to do with sex - having sex, wanting sex, etc. Most people would strongly disagree with that. I have heard this argument either come from people who want to continue to pathologize asexuals who don't have sex (due to a very narrow interpretation of "sexual attraction" that attempts to completely divorce it from the motivation to pursue sexual activity) or from people of other sexual orientations who are morally opposed to everyone having sex outside of procreative situations, to argue that people who are of a minority orientation must still practice the very restrictive sexual activities that are prescribed by moral authorities (usually churches) as acceptable. I know nothing about you and so I can't presume if either of these categories of reasoning apply to you, but I decided on a whim that it would be simple enough to divert the off-topic direction in which your post may have steered this thread. Sexual orientation, including asexuality, is absolutely relevant to the sexual activity one would be inclined to pursue; not everyone interprets the same or takes the same actions, but to intrusively "correct" someone (who didn't even mention sex at all in the post) on a misguided matter of petty pedantry does not seem to be a good-faith attempt at preventing overly strict categorizations. Your follow-up response focusing on asexual vs. non-sexual is a nonsequitur; thus I am responding with some excessively decorative prose to ensure this dialogue continues as a lark for my own enjoyment. 

 

Hope this helps!

It was my mistake to write so short sentence.

Anyway, we have so many people with individual experience and opinion, which ideas born literally every day or even minute. So, I meant, a term of asexuality is quite far from another sexual orientations, because it at least is not similar things, if we compare it with heterosexual or gay person, who leads an active sex life. Asexualty is describes mostly sexual habits and sexual attraction in the minimum way, of course they can have a sex without any problem, because they are still the people, who have genitals, although this is not that sexual feeling, it's rather nothing.

The only thing I'm relying on is the scientific definition, and it's pretty similar, but not completely, to my behaviour.

[SilenceRadio]

@Eliigh Not every gay or straight person leads an active sex life? Nor do all members of the LGBT+ community necessarily believe that their sexual attraction and habits are the core of their identities/sexual orientations (there are aces and aros who are also LGB+ or fall under the T in some way as well).

[Forlover]

On 10/15/2022 at 7:54 PM, SilenceRadio said:

@Eliigh Not every gay or straight person leads an active sex life?

 

[RileyA]

Foucault, as much as I love him and Bataille, was rumored to be a pedophile. The thing that makes it most believable is that his philosophy around sex and sexual exploration could be used to justify it.

[LeChat]

(Below is an official, green, mod message.)

 

Hi, everyone. Just a friendly reminder about staying on topic: "Are aces LGBTQIA+?"

 

The AVEN Terms of Service (ToS) - Site Info Center - Asexual Visibility and Education Network (asexuality.org)

Quote

2.11 Minor attraction and pedophilia topics

 

AVEN's core mission involves creating a safe space for people to explore asexual spectrum identities, including many people below the age of consent. We are not able to fulfill this mission while also serving as a space for those who experience attraction to minors. While many may agree that minor attracted people who have committed no harm towards minors, and are dedicated to avoiding doing so, should have places to openly discuss their experiences and seek support in dealing with their attraction, AVEN is not equipped to serve as such a place. As such:

 

1) Minor attracted people will be subject to banning from the site.

 

2) No links relating expressly to minor attraction, pedophilia or child sex abusers will be allowed on the AVEN boards.

 

3) No topics may be created that focus on minor attraction, pedophilia or child sex abusers. Topics that are created about other subjects but drift to focus on minor attraction, pedophilia or child sex abusers will be asked by mods to find a different focus. Small mentions of minor attraction, pedophilia or child sex abusers that don't redirect conversations to focus on that subject are still acceptable (for example, providing links to research that might include individuals with a range of sexual experiences, one of those experiences happening to be minor attraction or pedophilia)

 

4) This policy doesn't prevent members from discussing their experiences with child abuse. In such cases, we ask replies focus on support for the member, rather than become a general discussion about pedophilia.

 

5) This policy prohibits members from disclosing that they have intrusive MAP thoughts or posting about the details of such thoughts

Thank you.

 

LeChat,

Welcome Lounge, Announcements, and Alternate Language moderator

[DragonflytotheMoon]

I believe we all deserve a place at the table. As long as we're being respectful. I guess we're part of the +. Not everyone is going to be accepting of that. Some already have a problem with the B & the T. I identified as bi for a long time & one thing I heard was that bi's spread diseases. I guess because we, supposedly, are indiscriminately f'ing everyone. Honestly, as a pan (the same when I was bi), I think I'm even more particular than I'd be if I was straight.

 

I've started mentioning (not to the world at large) that I'm agender (AFAB), pan, demi & solo poly. I'm also grace. I don't mention that part unless there's the possibility of being intimate with someone. Even when there is, not everyone understands these terms. Though, I'm happy to explain. I say I'm more affectionate than sensual. I like light touching & kissing. I've done more. I think because I was trying to fit into a neat little box with a bow, instead of behaving as my true self. Learning about & better understanding my orientation, identity, desires are part of the inner work & healing I've been doing. 

[Yellow Rue]

    The root of the issue here, to me, seems to be the lack of any official authority on LGBT, LGBT+, LGBTQIA+, etc etc. The fact that the last two even exist is a clear indicator of the issue. There is no ruling entity defining who belongs to the LGBT community, or in present parlance, the queer community. So in practice we end up with every organization and group having their own differing definitions, their own in-group and out-group.

    So we end up with minorities regarding sexual orientation and gender identity struggling to make themselves accepted by the queer community at large, with varying levels of success. And not just orientation and identity, but even polyamorous and —I kid you not reader — transageists. It's a biiiiig tent party community, but without any clear entry requirements we have disputes on who should and should not be in, the bouncers don't know who to keep in and who to keep out.

    Funnily enough, queerness as a concept needs the social expectation and normalcy of cissexual, heterosexuality and heteroromanticism. For if it is founded on continually pushing against the limits of these expectations — with good reason,— then it couldn't exist without them. Needs it as a community too, enemy of my enemy is my friend, but even then there's still a lot of infighting and shit-flinging to go around.

 

    Personally I don't consider myself an LGBTQIA+, if someone considers me to be one, or not to be one, fine. But it's a part of me, and a community I am not too involved with. I understand if others here feel differently.  

[Olallieberry]

1 hour ago, Yellow Rue said:

Personally I don't consider myself an LGBTQIA+, if someone considers me to be one, or not to be one, fine. But it's a part of me, and a community I am not too involved with. I understand if others here feel differently.  

It's not one community, though.

 

Is an asexual community a queer community?

 

Some are going to say yes. Others no. Others, "it don't matter."

[FJO8]

7 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

Is an asexual community a queer community?

To me it is. In queer spaces, for example local LGBTQ+ groups, I have made the experience that asexuals are welcome and glad to meet other asexuals. A sense of community can battle the feeling of abnormality and otherness some have when they find out about their identity.

[Yellow Rue]

11 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

It's not one community, though.

 

Is an asexual community a queer community?

 

Some are going to say yes. Others no. Others, "it don't matter."

Good point. One might see queers as a single large community, a collection of loosely attached communities. Or a combination of the two previous, a large community composed of wildly diverging sub-communities. To reiterate, I believe a conclusive answer to the queerness of asexuals to be impossible, too many interpretations.

[avocato]

On 1/8/2023 at 8:30 AM, Yellow Rue said:

Good point. One might see queers as a single large community, a collection of loosely attached communities. Or a combination of the two previous, a large community composed of wildly diverging sub-communities. To reiterate, I believe a conclusive answer to the queerness of asexuals to be impossible, too many interpretations.

This is a good point, one I haven't considered. I do feel that asexuals belong under the queer umbrella, but perhaps not as it currently stands. Asexuality is a group unto its own, since many can avoid overt persecution (especially hetero asexuals). A few reasons for the LGBTQ spectrum is to remove the stigma of who you love, to fight for acceptance in all communities, and to fight for the right to merely exist as a human. Heterosexual asexuals may not be subject to the same persecution because they seem to fit the norm in society (or at the most "late bloomers", according to society).

 

But LGBT asexuals can and do face persecution - the same as any other LGBT person would. I still think, though, that lifting each other up together and not separately can help all of us thrive and protect one another. 

 

I suppose we could consider more persecution in the asexual community if one culture is seen as hypersexual, while a person within that culture is asexual. That could definitely breed more persecution. Maybe not overtly so, but  misunderstandings would abound (as well as the pressure to "be free" and have a family and settle down, etc). Certain cultures do have issues with asexuality, but not all. Most cultures have more issues surrounding other sexual cultures (i.e., LGBT). I'm not sure of the numbers of asexual peoples who get kicked from their homes for being asexual, but I have a feeling  it's not equal to other queer population groups.

[CincinnatiAsexual]

3 hours ago, avocato said:

Heterosexual asexuals may not be subject to the same persecution because they seem to fit the norm in society (or at the most "late bloomers", according to society).

 

But LGBT asexuals can and do face persecution - the same as any other LGBT person would. I still think, though, that lifting each other up together and not separately can help all of us thrive and protect one another. 

 

Probably many in the LGBTQ+ community would say that because heterosexual asexuality is a bit of invisible baggage, perhaps it's not under the umbrella. Perhaps a community alongside LGBTQ+ rather than in the same umbrella.

[Olallieberry]

5 hours ago, avocato said:

Asexuality is a group unto its own, since many can avoid overt persecution (especially hetero asexuals). A few reasons for the LGBTQ spectrum is to remove the stigma of who you love, to fight for acceptance in all communities, and to fight for the right to merely exist as a human. Heterosexual asexuals may not be subject to the same persecution because they seem to fit the norm in society (or at the most "late bloomers", according to society).

I see almost every day here on AVEN how hetero asexuals deal and live with asexuophobic stigma.

 

I grant you, it's not the same, and it is often easy to hide, pass or avoid outing, but sometimes it's impossible, especially for single asexuals, childless asexuals, and asexuals who reveal it in therapy, not expecting ignorance and bigotry in that environment.

[avocato]

3 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

I see almost every day here on AVEN how hetero asexuals deal and live with asexuophobic stigma.

 

I grant you, it's not the same, and it is often easy to hide, pass or avoid outing, but sometimes it's impossible, especially for single asexuals, childless asexuals, and asexuals who reveal it in therapy, not expecting ignorance and bigotry in that environment.

2 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

I see almost every day here on AVEN how hetero asexuals deal and live with asexuophobic stigma.

 

I grant you, it's not the same, and it is often easy to hide, pass or avoid outing, but sometimes it's impossible, especially for single asexuals, childless asexuals, and asexuals who reveal it in therapy, not expecting ignorance and bigotry in that environment.

I do agree; I don't mean to say that asexuals don't face any persecution, by no means. It's different, as you say.

 

It's especially problematic in Christian circles - I once went to a Christian therapist for one issue, but when I off-handedly mentioned that I didn't really have sexual feelings she suddenly wanted to focus on that exclusively (I quickly found a new therapist).

 

I am single and childless, and fortunately did not come from a family that pressured me to spawn or create some kind of family. Not everyone had that luxury growing up. Some people are obsessed with the family name continuing for whatever reason and that pressure can be ridiculous.

 

However, until the world we know it begins persecuting hetero asexuals as demonic and unholy creatures, the stigma won't (generally) be as problematic than for other groups. Mind you, this is only from my point of view and I don't want to step on anyone's toes.  The reason I'm adding this here and in this way is, maybe asexuals aren't getting involved with the LGBT fight because we don't feel personally affected; that it's easier to hide.

 

So, are we part of the LGBT community? Should we be? Do we deserve to be? Can we show that if one group suffers we can be involved in the healing of everyone? I wonder. If we want to be part of the LGBT community we have to be all-in, I think. That includes fighting for everyone, in my opinion.

 

But maybe I'm just an old fart.

[Olallieberry]

One can be queer without being L or G or B or T.

 

Do cishet-presenting asexuals "deserve" to be "part of" the LGBT community? I think individuals deserve not to be marginalized by and within that community if they want to be activists and aren't somehow failing to ally with the other demographics.

 

I also think asexuality on the whole deserves not to be actively marginalized by anyone, least of all those who are already activist over anti-cisheteronormative issues.

 

But, you know, I feel the same way about bisexuality even though the "B" is universally included. In that case it's not even a matter of whether someone's particular version of the acronym includes the "A" or "Q" or a "+". The "B" is already there and it's still a long row to hoe.

 

I also think asexual individuals shouldn't be told "you're part of that community." Not all of them agree and none of them deserve to be queersplained to.

[Yellow Rue]

55 minutes ago, avocato said:

However, until the world we know it begins persecuting hetero asexuals as demonic and unholy creatures, the stigma won't (generally) be as problematic than for other groups. Mind you, this is only from my point of view and I don't want to step on anyone's toes.  The reason I'm adding this here and in this way is, maybe asexuals aren't getting involved with the LGBT fight because we don't feel personally affected; that it's easier to hide.

 

So, are we part of the LGBT community? Should we be? Do we deserve to be? Can we show that if one group suffers we can be involved in the healing of everyone? I wonder. If we want to be part of the LGBT community we have to be all-in, I think. That includes fighting for everyone, in my opinion.

 

But maybe I'm just an old fart.

Whilst I do wish to avoid purity-spiraling and oppression olympics, I do have to agree that heteroromantic asexuals have an easier time in wider society, in comparison to other romantic orientations even if they're asexual. Their relationships are more easily hidden and are at a surface perfectly acceptable. 

 

In regards to your second paragraph, I did not quite understand "Can we show that if one group suffers we can be involved in the healing of everyone?", that would include the acceptance of asesexuals by queers as allies and not outright fellow members. All in all an admirable sentiment, but I find that as one group gets larger loyalty between fellow group members diminishes. Compare a family to a nation, a cult to a church, a mom&pop shop to a multinational's store. Can we be sure Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals will stand up for us?

 

9 hours ago, avocato said:

A few reasons for the LGBTQ spectrum is to remove the stigma of who you love, to fight for acceptance in all communities, and to fight for the right to merely exist as a human.

The crux of the issue, maybe even the entire LGBTQ/queer movement. It is a movement struggling for greater societal acceptance of non-hetero sexual and romantic orientations, and more flexible gender identity. I'd dare say it's quite a individualistic movement. Under the definition I've understood asexuals would be queer, but like you said, asexuals typically face less persecution than other orientations. Hence, the hesitancy and skepticism of so many queers to accept asexuals. 

 

59 minutes ago, Ollie415 said:

But, you know, I feel the same way about bisexuality even though the "B" is universally included. In that case it's not even a matter of whether someone's particular version of the acronym includes the "A" or "Q" or a "+". The "B" is already there and it's still a long row to hoe.

Funny thing really. Bisexuals aren't oppressed over their fondness for the opposite sex, it is only when they try to engage in same-sex relations —be they of a romantic or sexual nature. So why specify B? Perhaps it's a PR stunt with the hetero majority. Best to let it stay there.

Concerning the queerdom of asexuals. It's a futile endeavor in my eyes. In the physical, what matters, is whether queers accept asexuality or not. And that? You won't know until you give it a shot.

[Olallieberry]

.

[avocato]

I'm actually quite invested in this conversation, on all sides. Not to upset the applecart, but to answer the question of the original post.

 

Perhaps the deeper question is, what does it mean to be part of the LGBTQIA section of society? If someone chooses not to be involved that's absolutely their right. If so, then I think the answer is settled for them. But is it a clear yes or a clear no for those who do want to be a part of the larger community? Perhaps that's my question. Beyond existing, what does it mean to be part of the queer community as an asexual? I have homosexual friends who don't engage in pride parades often, but I know they have more fear than I do about being outted against their will - and I will support them.

 

It's valid to ask if that same community supports us, and I'm not sure if the answer. We may have to become more invested, if we want that inclusion and respect, that's all I mean.

[Olallieberry]

1 hour ago, avocato said:

what does it mean to be part of the LGBTQIA section of society?

It's not one single thing, so it doesn't mean one single thing.

 

1 hour ago, avocato said:

But is it a clear yes or a clear no for those who do want to be a part of the larger community?

Is what yes or no? Are asexuals queer, is that what the yes-or-no question here is?

 

1 hour ago, avocato said:

Beyond existing, what does it mean to be part of the queer community as an asexual?

In my opinion, it's worthwhile to consider that non-queer people who are vigorous allies are part of queer communities. With this in mind, asexuals who might not regard theirselves as queer but who are invested in allying with queer causes and queer-identified people can't possibly be turned away or tarred with the "not queer enough" brush. (Naturally the same goes for queer-identified cishet asexuals, and asexuals with other explicitly queer identities.) This also provides a talking point for conversations, should they ever come up, about why an individual is allied or activist for queer-adjacent visibility and causes. "I (do or don't) consider myself queer, (and/but) consider myself allied, because..."

 

1 hour ago, avocato said:

It's valid to ask if that same community supports us, and I'm not sure if the answer. We may have to become more invested, if we want that inclusion and respect, that's all I mean.

It's valid. I don't know where expectations should fall. Speaking as a sexual bisexual rather than as an asexual, but on the subject of asexuality, I'd be satisfied with sincere recognition and acceptance, and an end to the erasure, deflection, armchair psychologizing, and all the other things sexual people of various orientations do regarding (bis and) asexuals, which are among the same things straight people used to do to gays and lesbians.

[avocato]

1 hour ago, Ollie415 said:

It's not one single thing, so it doesn't mean one single thing.

That was more of a rhetorical question, but it could be more specific; in general it's a question that begs an answer for each individual, sure. It is a single answer for each individual. But as a community, it's may be an unanswered question per the original post: Are we, as asexuals, part of the LGBTQIA community, or not? I could ask if Lesbians or Gays or Bisexuals are, and people could point to the letters in the acronym. But if "A" stands for either  "Ally" or "Asexual" depending on the person who says it then I think it may be an issue of understanding if we (as asexuals) want to be included, or not. It's not an individual question I'm asking; I mean this as a collective question. Not everyone who fits the acronym need to be included in the doing, but most would say whether or not the acronym applies to them. 

1 hour ago, Ollie415 said:

 

Is what yes or no? Are asexuals queer, is that what the yes-or-no question here is?

No, I was generalizing. I'm asking the question as if I were asking the collective as a whole.

 

1 hour ago, Ollie415 said:

 

In my opinion, it's worthwhile to consider that non-queer people who are vigorous allies are part of queer communities. With this in mind, asexuals who might not regard theirselves as queer but who are invested in allying with queer causes and queer-identified people can't possibly be turned away or tarred with the "not queer enough" brush. (Naturally the same goes for queer-identified cishet asexuals, and asexuals with other explicitly queer identities.) This also provides a talking point for conversations, should they ever come up, about why an individual is allied or activist for queer-adjacent visibility and causes. "I (do or don't) consider myself queer, (and/but) consider myself allied, because..."

You're getting closer to my question, and more of the discussion I'd like to have. Are we (collectively) doing enough? I get that not everyone should be involved or wants to be involved - I understand this. But some should be. The queer card won't be taken away if we aren't (because we are who we are) but I wouldn't mind going to an asexual rally in my city, depending on the direction "we" (collectively) go.

1 hour ago, Ollie415 said:

 

It's valid. I don't know where expectations should fall. Speaking as a sexual bisexual rather than as an asexual, but on the subject of asexuality, I'd be satisfied with sincere recognition and acceptance, and an end to the erasure, deflection, armchair psychologizing, and all the other things sexual people of various orientations do regarding (bis and) asexuals, which are among the same things straight people used to do to gays and lesbians.

Yes. 100% agreed.

 

[Olallieberry]

2 hours ago, avocato said:

I wouldn't mind going to an asexual rally in my city

Depending on how such a rally were positioned, this could attract pushback or controversy from whoever the (I say this tongue in cheek but you get the idea) LGBT "authorities" are in your area. So if you wanted to create bonds rather than invite wedges, as well as maximize visibility and promotion for the ace representation, then I wonder if it would be more productive and less alienating to tag on to the events they're already planning.

 

The above might only matter if the ace rally were presented as a queer-identified event. If it were, then I fully predict that not all but at least some minority of the local LGBT crowd could vocally accuse the asexual event organizers and participants, if cis and nominally het, of appropriating and fabricating their queerness, of failing to include the "real" queers at their rally, and all sorts of other hogwash. On the other hand, if it were presented as asexual-identified without reference of any sort to queerness or any other queer-aligned identities, then I think it's less likely there would be this backlash from the local LGBT "not enough goodwill to go around so stop trying to steal it from us" schmucks. On the other other hand, you wouldn't have numerous LGBT allies helping raise visibility to benefit the ace rally either.

 

And so if it were me, and I wanted to organize an ace rally, I might get involved with the local LGBT activists and events first, then volunteer to work on creating and promoting an asexual presence like a table or a parade contingent or some other distinct ace representation, attached to a planned LGBT+ event. Visibility would be high, and I don't think that it would alienate very many aces who wouldn't already be disinclined to go out and be out at a queer-identified event.

 

Some would be disinclined to show up or to seek such an event, regardless of whether it were an ace event or a LGBT event. Some aces who don't see themselves as gay or as marginalized or as underprivileged (or even some who do) . And I say this based solely on my exposure to the attitudes of some aces here on AVEN, but a lot of the aces who would seek out such a thing wouldn't be deterred by being under or adjacent to a queer umbrella. Many of them are already queer-identifying for other reasons. Some might be queer-identified solely on asexuality alone. Some of the cis and nominally het ones would be fine with the "LGBT ally" positioning.

 

2 hours ago, avocato said:

Are we (collectively) doing enough? I get that not everyone should be involved or wants to be involved - I understand this. But some should be. The queer card won't be taken away if we aren't (because we are who we are)

I'm not convinced asexuality has an irrevocable queer card to be taken yet in the first place. The reason I'm not convinced of that is because I don't think the LGBT establishment is convinced of that. I don't think they're unaware of ace existence. I don't think they're unaware of a debate about cis and nominally het aces being queer, queer-adjacent, or not queer. But it's not clear, it's a debate - and probably not even a very active one when queer-identifying aces aren't around to push it forward. And that's why I think aces using allying as a way to gain recognition and assert ace identity is potentially powerful.

 

My thoughts on this are from my experiences as a bisexual who lived in San Francisco for seventeen years, did a variety of activist activities on a variety of queer and queer-adjacent issues worked at a LGBT service organization, and refused to be erased by straights and gays alike. It's not easy to get bisexuals to be activist about bisexuality specifically, though we do have other things to be activist about, and I wonder if the same is true of aces.

 

Why am I focusing on activism? Even a simple get-together is activism. Maybe not primarily, but whether the organizers intend it as such or not, it's activism. If there is any visibility at all, then there will be outsiders who perceive it so, which means they're prepared with their counter-activism and it could be painful if the aces aren't prepared with their activism.

 

I'm not sure if this is a direction you anticipated, but I sort of think you'd be mistaken not to, even if you have different sorts of events or activities which you're trying to brainstorm.

[Snao Cone]

An ace rally might make sense if there was a specific issue in current politics (like if LGB all got recognized as valid, but asexuality was still medicalized and/or not protected against discrimination in employment, housing, services, etc), but in a general "we exist and we want it to be known to help people like us" sense, joining broader efforts like Pride events makes more sense.

[avocato]

16 hours ago, Yellow Rue said:

Whilst I do wish to avoid purity-spiraling and oppression olympics, I do have to agree that heteroromantic asexuals have an easier time in wider society, in comparison to other romantic orientations even if they're asexual. Their relationships are more easily hidden and are at a surface perfectly acceptable. 

Sorry, I absolutely missed your post; I'm still understanding the system.

16 hours ago, Yellow Rue said:

 

In regards to your second paragraph, I did not quite understand "Can we show that if one group suffers we can be involved in the healing of everyone?", that would include the acceptance of asesexuals by queers as allies and not outright fellow members. All in all an admirable sentiment, but I find that as one group gets larger loyalty between fellow group members diminishes. Compare a family to a nation, a cult to a church, a mom&pop shop to a multinational's store. Can we be sure Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals will stand up for us?

This is an important point; what would it take to stand up for each other, I wonder? It's a conversation that may need to happen sooner than later. No one can be sure that anyone will stand up for anyone. But what I did mean to say is, if we are part of the whole (LGBTQIA), then we need to accept the postives and the negatives that come along side that. We may need to show that being involved means standing up for the marginalized and mistreated folks who aren't necessarily asexual. But I understand this can be uncomfortable for some.

16 hours ago, Yellow Rue said:

 

The crux of the issue, maybe even the entire LGBTQ/queer movement. It is a movement struggling for greater societal acceptance of non-hetero sexual and romantic orientations, and more flexible gender identity. I'd dare say it's quite a individualistic movement. Under the definition I've understood asexuals would be queer, but like you said, asexuals typically face less persecution than other orientations. Hence, the hesitancy and skepticism of so many queers to accept asexuals. 

It is an individual enterprise; everyone needs to know who they are and where they stand. But again, I'm on two sides of this issue. If asexuals (we) are to be part of the LGBTQIA acronym then we have to know that there will be blow back and uncomfortable moments. But we may need to push through that to have legitimate acceptance within the entire LGBT community.

 

Also, as myself, I'm panromantic; I would face a lot more criticism if I settled down with a partner who was female-presenting and I know this. I would lose a lot of support in all aspects of my life. But I think I'd be willing to do so, if it meant protecting what we'd have together. 

 

But I'm already marginalized and I'm used to fighting for a seat at the table. It wouldn't be new to fight; only the arena would change. 

16 hours ago, Yellow Rue said:

 

Funny thing really. Bisexuals aren't oppressed over their fondness for the opposite sex, it is only when they try to engage in same-sex relations —be they of a romantic or sexual nature. So why specify B? Perhaps it's a PR stunt with the hetero majority. Best to let it stay there.

Concerning the queerdom of asexuals. It's a futile endeavor in my eyes. In the physical, what matters, is whether queers accept asexuality or not. And that? You won't know until you give it a shot.

Hmm, I suppose this is true. I think there may be begrudging acceptance, but that's also something considering. Wouldn't it be interesting if Bi-folk and Asexual folk created a stronger compliment with one another? Not to separate from the LGBT alliance per se, but to have a stronger willingness to bring up the unique issues involved within the LGBT community.

[avocato]

10 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

Depending on how such a rally were positioned, this could attract pushback or controversy from whoever the (I say this tongue in cheek but you get the idea) LGBT "authorities" are in your area. So if you wanted to create bonds rather than invite wedges, as well as maximize visibility and promotion for the ace representation, then I wonder if it would be more productive and less alienating to tag on to the events they're already planning.

I think you're correct; the whole view of asexuality is still very new in many circles. Having visibility with other LGBT groups is important, and having their trust is equally important. To do so would mean joining them at different junctions, not just at the "we're here" events.

10 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

 

The above might only matter if the ace rally were presented as a queer-identified event. If it were, then I fully predict that not all but at least some minority of the local LGBT crowd could vocally accuse the asexual event organizers and participants, if cis and nominally het, of appropriating and fabricating their queerness, of failing to include the "real" queers at their rally, and all sorts of other hogwash. On the other hand, if it were presented as asexual-identified without reference of any sort to queerness or any other queer-aligned identities, then I think it's less likely there would be this backlash from the local LGBT "not enough goodwill to go around so stop trying to steal it from us" schmucks. On the other other hand, you wouldn't have numerous LGBT allies helping raise visibility to benefit the ace rally either.

Indeed. Which is why, I think, being a part of the LGBT community and being more actively involved - whether "approving" of us or not - may be important. Maybe the other side of this question is whether or not the LGBT community wants asexual inclusion at all. Each local organization may have their own criteria of inclusion and there are probably LGBT groups that are separate from the main city chapters. Some may be POC and Indigenous LGBT groups who deal with unique issues, and so forth. So having  different groups which align with the whole isn't necessarily a bad thing. As long as a concensus can be made that all show up together, in solidarity, at some event.

10 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

 

And so if it were me, and I wanted to organize an ace rally, I might get involved with the local LGBT activists and events first, then volunteer to work on creating and promoting an asexual presence like a table or a parade contingent or some other distinct ace representation, attached to a planned LGBT+ event. Visibility would be high, and I don't think that it would alienate very many aces who wouldn't already be disinclined to go out and be out at a queer-identified event.

True. I'll have to see if we have a local Ace chapter that may have interest in doing something. The chapter may already be in existence; I'll have to do some digging near by.

 

10 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

 

Some would be disinclined to show up or to seek such an event, regardless of whether it were an ace event or a LGBT event. Some aces who don't see themselves as gay or as marginalized or as underprivileged (or even some who do) . And I say this based solely on my exposure to the attitudes of some aces here on AVEN, but a lot of the aces who would seek out such a thing wouldn't be deterred by being under or adjacent to a queer umbrella. Many of them are already queer-identifying for other reasons. Some might be queer-identified solely on asexuality alone. Some of the cis and nominally het ones would be fine with the "LGBT ally" positioning.

And I agree; I don't think this would be something for everyone, and not all people need to be involved. But I'd be willing to be one of the few, even though it could cause a lot of issues in the long run. I'd rather not  be alone, but there may not be a choice.

 

10 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

 

I'm not convinced asexuality has an irrevocable queer card to be taken yet in the first place. The reason I'm not convinced of that is because I don't think the LGBT establishment is convinced of that. I don't think they're unaware of ace existence. I don't think they're unaware of a debate about cis and nominally het aces being queer, queer-adjacent, or not queer. But it's not clear, it's a debate - and probably not even a very active one when queer-identifying aces aren't around to push it forward. And that's why I think aces using allying as a way to gain recognition and assert ace identity is potentially powerful.

Bingo. 

10 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

 

My thoughts on this are from my experiences as a bisexual who lived in San Francisco for seventeen years, did a variety of activist activities on a variety of queer and queer-adjacent issues worked at a LGBT service organization, and refused to be erased by straights and gays alike. It's not easy to get bisexuals to be activist about bisexuality specifically, though we do have other things to be activist about, and I wonder if the same is true of aces.

I have a feeling it may be around the same, if not worse. It's still very new, and if they say you can "pass" then there's less risk. Unless you decide to take the risk for the sake of everyone fighting for equality. I see similarities in communities of color. We have women feminists who are white, and women feminists who are Black. But each sees the feminism fight very differently and there has been some harm because of focusing on separate threats, and not understanding the threats of those in the most danger.

10 hours ago, Ollie415 said:

 

Why am I focusing on activism? Even a simple get-together is activism. Maybe not primarily, but whether the organizers intend it as such or not, it's activism. If there is any visibility at all, then there will be outsiders who perceive it so, which means they're prepared with their counter-activism and it could be painful if the aces aren't prepared with their activism.

 

I'm not sure if this is a direction you anticipated, but I sort of think you'd be mistaken not to, even if you have different sorts of events or activities which you're trying to brainstorm.

I'm absolutely in favor of activisim, especially in my community. I suppose one voice is better than no voice at all. Getting that recognition may be a hard hill to climb, but I'll put on my cleats.

[avocato]

23 hours ago, CincinnatiAsexual said:

Probably many in the LGBTQ+ community would say that because heterosexual asexuality is a bit of invisible baggage, perhaps it's not under the umbrella. Perhaps a community alongside LGBTQ+ rather than in the same umbrella.

That's still an idea; but I'm not 100% sold that "separate but equal" would be an acceptable stance if we do want to be recognized as a valuable resource to the LGBTQIA community. But I don't know; I'm still figuring this out for myself.

[avocato]

5 hours ago, Snao Cone said:

An ace rally might make sense if there was a specific issue in current politics (like if LGB all got recognized as valid, but asexuality was still medicalized and/or not protected against discrimination in employment, housing, services, etc), but in a general "we exist and we want it to be known to help people like us" sense, joining broader efforts like Pride events makes more sense.

I agree with this, but we may need to do a little more volunteer work with the LGBT community to have even that crumb. I think finding the causes that align with both groups may be something worth fighting. For example, women who don't want children and want to have hysterectomies in their 20s. Asexuals may know they won't get pregnant, and they may want that option. It's a women's right issue, but Lesbians may also have a stake in that fight.

 

The rights that affect all of us would be the rallying point, but we may have to find those causes and then get involved with them.