Do you think asexuality falls under the queer umbrella?

[A-listed]

Yes, some people bristle at the word queer. It is quite well established, however, even in academic contexts (think of "queer studies") in which it has absolutely no derogatory connotation.

Like you, I take no sexual interest whatsoever in anyone of any gender or non-gender, and I never have looked upon anyone as a potential sex partner (indeed, I've never had a sex partner and don't intend to do so). But I don't see why that doesn't make us queer. A sexual lesbian might say that the only difference between her and a sexual straight woman is the gender of the people in whom each takes a sexual interest, but that's quite enough to justify characterising the former as queer.

[NeroReaper]

Queer means strange, to most sexual people not desiring sex is strange. I personally don't call myself a queer, I like the term 'limited edition' ;)

Sure it is different, since humans are usually sexual beings, and most of the time social creatures. At first I thought it was strange, and odd. It can be under that umbrella if some want.

To classify it under the LGBTQ community, I kind of like our own little community. We don't need to be added to a larger community, I think it is best to stay on our own. I support the LGBTQ community, don't get me wrong. Our community is small and cozy ^_^

[A-listed]

Even some straight people—for example, swingers and fetishists—could legitimately consider themselves queer.

[Moon Ace]

Yes, some people bristle at the word queer. It is quite well established, however, even in academic contexts (think of "queer studies") in which it has absolutely no derogatory connotation.

Like you, I take no sexual interest whatsoever in anyone of any gender or non-gender, and I never have looked upon anyone as a potential sex partner (indeed, I've never had a sex partner and don't intend to do so). But I don't see why that doesn't make us queer. A sexual lesbian might say that the only difference between her and a sexual straight woman is the gender of the people in whom each takes a sexual interest, but that's quite enough to justify characterising the former as queer.

Because ( I only speak for me) absence of something is not the same as being interested in the same sex, which implies an active component... Absence doesn't. I'm not sure if that makes sense... Don"'t know how else to word it. I could use an analogy but it's late ;-)

From reading your last post I can tell that you have a different understanding to me... And that's fine.

[swim2thesun]

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. :)

Who's 'them' though? I there some sort of "queer committee" that decides what identities can and cannot be queer? Its up to individuals to decide weather or not they want to identify as queer or not. The term may be reclaimed but that doesn't mean that it's been reclaimed by all 'queer' people or that all of them identify as such.

there are LGBT(ect) people that don't identify as queer. As is mirrorable here, But queer is still the sort of catch-all non hetero(sexual)/cis normalizing term that is recognized by queer and non queer peoples.

"Them" - The current and established LGBT groups and LGBT communities and the leaders of said groups. I am certainly not going to go up to my local LGBT group and suggest they become the LGBTQA group instead, for example. It's up to them to invite me to join, if they feel I fit their agenda. And I would not be offended at all if they said I could only join as an ally. There is currently a generally agreed upon set of what fits under the LGBT umbrella and I would feel really weird trying to force myself under it before being invited. Not that I mind others using the A, but I personally will not fight that battle since I would feel very rude being cis and hetero and adding that A without permission from at least the group I was working with.

I didn't say anything about someone deciding on the "queer" label - I said I personally do not feel comfortable using it. :)

I don't quite understand the whole "Being invited to join a lgbt(ect) group" thing. The community support groups are out there to well... support the community and once one enters the space i don't see the purpose in one having to explicitly share their orientation because people who are questioning/ curious are still allowed into these spaces. LGBT groups are innately "queer groups" I suppose that making it more 'inclusive' but its still discriminating against other queer folks (weather personally identified as queer or not) to say that "only these queers are allowed here". It doesn't matter weather the A is 'officially' added to the acronym, that doesn't change what are and aren't queer identities.

I'm assuming that when you say that you do not feel comfortable using the term queer, that you mean in reference to yourself which is fine, but if someone identifies as queer you should still use it in reference to them. as It's their identity.

Even some straight people—for example, swingers and fetishists—could legitimately consider themselves queer.

This is incorrect. Being a swinger or fetishist is not a queer identity in the terms of how queer is used within the broader queer community. It is to mean 'other than being Cisgender or Heterosexual'. Meaning that Cisgender and/or Heterosexual peoples cannot identify with the label queer. There are queer fetishists and swingers but then being fetishists and/or swingers doesn't make them queer.

[joana1]

I'm really exercised about this...

So many people claim the queer umbrella, but I don't think it should belong to anyone. I don't think anyone should have the 'keys' to say whether any person or group falls under the queer umbrella. Who gets to define 'queer' anyway.

But, I prefer the term 'gender and sexual diversity' because it is a description rather than a name, and is value free (I think).

I never ever ever understood why the T was added to the LGB, and indeed many LG people seem to be pretty dismissive about B people.

However many letters we add there will still be those who feel 'out' rather than 'in'.

Cannot hetero-sexual cis-gendered people also come under gender and sexual diversity? See, then we are all included!

[Sally]

I'm really exercised about this...

So many people claim the queer umbrella, but I don't think it should belong to anyone. I don't think anyone should have the 'keys' to say whether any person or group falls under the queer umbrella. Who gets to define 'queer' anyway.

But, I prefer the term 'gender and sexual diversity' because it is a description rather than a name, and is value free (I think).

I think that's a great solution.

[A-listed]

Who are you to police the boundaries of queerness and decide who "cannot identify with the label queer"? If a person considers herself queer, I accept that. And there are straight, gender-normative swingers and fetishists who do regard themselves as queer—probably because they, like other queer people, are socially and politically marginalised and oppressed on account of sexuality or gender. Contrariwise, there are gay people and transgendered people (among others) who do not consider themselves queer. And that too is fine. It is they, not others, who decide whether to deem themselves queer.

I am asexual and, yes, queer, whatever anyone else may say.

[elainetta]

Queer - could be. As the first responder said, that basically means not straight. Though it depends on the person. If they're heteroromantic, that person may identify in a place closer to straight. Yet a homoromantic ace definitely falls under the umbrella. In my mind, even when I didn't know for sure I was asexual (but I knew it existed), I considered the two categories (queer v. Ace) as overlapping and not mutually exclusive. Whereas if a person is queer, they therefore can't be straight, as that would negate the labels' respective definitions.

Added to the alphabet? I said not sure, but I lean a bit closer to yes. That group is highly visible, and if they'd help us to be seen, tiny sliver of the pie chart as we are, then I'm for it. I'm only not completely at a yes because some aces might dislike being grouped with LGBT+. It'd be another hurdle for the straighter aces to have to jump. Not picking a side.

[Phrenicos]

First question - Assuming "queer" is just short-hand for "different from the norm/majority/whatever" then sure, I think "queer" works fine for asexuality.

Second question - No. Associating with the LGBT community just because I'm "not straight" makes as little sense to me as associating with the straight community just because I'm "not LGBT". As far as I'm concerned, asexuality is it's own thing; "straight" and "LGBT" together all form a community ("sexuals") of which I'm not a part.

And, off-topic, but would it be possible for the LGBTTIQPAwhatever community to come up with an actual acronym, rather than just a constantly-expanding string of letters?

[swim2thesun]

Cannot hetero-sexual cis-gendered people also come under gender and sexual diversity? See, then we are all included!

I'm pretty sure the creation of the LGBT alphabet soup and the reclamation of the term queer was a way to distance themselves from the larger CisHet society. Not in the sense of elitism, but as a way to make ones label or way they define themselves noticed as being one of the many important pieces of them as individuals which the larger Cisgender and heterosexual world often completely erases and denies and ignores.

[A-listed]

The T in LGBT is not sexual; it's about gender. There are asexual transgendered people. And a lot of the other noodles in the "LGBT…" alphabet soup are also not necessarily sexual.

[Cayce]

I stumbled on a video that I found to be quite helpful in sorting out some of this for me, especially the last 4 or so minutes.

It discusses the ideas around adopting a GSD/GSM vs. LGBT......

[ALongWayAway]

Yes to LGBTQA - because let's be frank, we need the visibility, although it is a bit unwieldy and awkward to say, and will eventually get so long that you'll need memory techniques to remember it all. Yes to 'queer' as well, because we are. We are a little bit strange, because there are so few of us when compared with heterosexuals. However, being a bit odd doesn't have to be a bad thing.

[That asexual guy]

I consider myself queer

[Mal Makalaster]

My answers are No and Depends. I feel it should be seperate from the "queer" umbrella. It should be it's own Sexuality with it's own terms and definitions like Straight, Gay, Bi, Asexual. I do think it should be added to LGBT because it's not in the norm just like being lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans. Asexuality is just so different from any other sexuality, it has so much twists and turn that it should be defined as it own.

I guess I do consider myself queer (not in a gay way) because I am part of the genderqueer part of Asexuality or at least at this moment I am.

[C8H7N3O2]

I always thought that Asexuality was included in the super long acronym - LGBTQQIAAP or something like that. It's not? There's even a flag.

[Hsj22]

I don't identify myself as queer, because in my mind, being queer still means having a sexual attraction to another person that is outside "the norm". So even though asexuals are outside "the norm" I feel like we are still outside the definition of queer because we don't feel sexual attraction to anyone.

It all goes back to labels and how pointless they are. We should create a whole new umbrella separate of the "queer umbrella". So yea, I voted no on both questions.

[~Rikki~]

I'm actually starting to think "non-straight" is the best, most inclusive term to use.

How so? That part only talks about sexuality not gender.

Even some straight peoplefor example, swingers and fetishistscould legitimately consider themselves queer.

This is something that legits bothers me.

The T in LGBT is not sexual; it's about gender. There are asexual transgendered people. And a lot of the other noodles in the "LGBT" alphabet soup are also not necessarily sexual.

I'm glad someone pointed this out.

I guess I do consider myself queer (not in a gay way) because I am part of the genderqueer part of Asexuality or at least at this moment I am.

Could you please explain what you mean by this statement?

[Robin L]

I define "queer" as "not heteronormative", so asexuality fits.

As for the acronyms? Why not? I mean, visibility.

[Guest FlamesofFire]

First no second not sure. Im straight without the sex and dont belong in that gay lesbian etc. category.

[Xilia]

LGBT+ is anything not heterosexual, so yes, asexual falls under that umbrella (including heteroromantic). I'm in a Queer Art Theory class now (for my major) and my teacher constantly puts emphasis that queer can include pretty much anyone that isn't heterosexual xD Some people find the term offensive, so it's one of those "use with caution" words, at least in my mind. Originally the word "queer" just meant "odd". I'm not a fan of the term for that reason, but I don't care if someone uses it as an identity. I would never use the term to define a sexual identity for myself.

These are the ways I generaly see the LGBT acronym

LGBT+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, + is everything else)

LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)

LGBTPQA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, pansexual, queer, asexual)

I've always heard "A" can stand for allies.

[Manly Ace]

NO WAY !!!

Asexuality itself has nothing to do with the queer "umbrella".

Queer is defined by strange sexual practices and a questioning of gender concept, which invalidates, according to this theory, the concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality. It's not just "different from heterosexuality". Because the definition itself doesn't consider the existence of asexual people.

I have nothing to do with these persons, that's crazy !!!! I'm 100% man, I cannot be queer just because I don't engage in heterosexual sex, it's stupid.

Most heterosexuals are definitely more "queer" than I can be.

The will to falling into the queer category is so stupid. Maybe some asexuals may identify themselves to the queer identity, but because of other factors, not by the sole asexuality.

[thatotherguy57]

The term "queer" has too many negative connotations to it. Honestly, I don't think I've ever used it verbally; I have used it in writing, but only in the context of its original definition "strange or abnormal".

As far as us identifying with LGBTQ, in the short term, I think it is to our advantage, as we are focused on recognition and education, and attaching ourselves to their coattails will help with this.

[Ultimate Truth]

It could just be me, but personally I don't feel persecuted in any way that would justify saying that asexuality should be a part of LGBT. If anything, when I tell people they are almost envious, and society in general doesn't seem to have many issues with asexuality because in their minds "abstinence" isn't such a bad thing.

[eskazula]

In my LGBTA club (A standing for "Alliance"), most people identify as "queer" because they are non-binary, polysexual, so they just want to explain it using one word, instead of pretty much, a gender identity that can only be explained using slam poetry.

They use it as a catch-all term for non-cis-het. So by that definition, asexuality/aromanticisim would be "queer". And by me, the word "queer" carries a neutral/positive connotation, and is different from "gay".

I do see why some people, regardless of orientation, might want to not associate with the word, because it does have a history as a slur against gay and trans people.

But I generally use the term "GSRM" (Gender, Sexuality, and Romantic Minorities) instead of the alphabet soup thing because it is much more inclusive. But if I do use the alphabet soup, I make sure to type out the whole thing: LGBTIAP+.

First question - Assuming "queer" is just short-hand for "different from the norm/majority/whatever" then sure, I think "queer" works fine for asexuality.

Second question - No. Associating with the LGBT community just because I'm "not straight" makes as little sense to me as associating with the straight community just because I'm "not LGBT". As far as I'm concerned, asexuality is it's own thing; "straight" and "LGBT" together all form a community ("sexuals") of which I'm not a part.

And, off-topic, but would it be possible for the LGBTTIQPAwhatever community to come up with an actual acronym, rather than just a constantly-expanding string of letters?

GSRM.

Gender, Sexuality, and Romantic Minorities.

There you go. 83

[marki]

No.... I don't think being asexual automatically makes one fall under the queer ( how is this term not offensive?) umbrella.

If you are hetro romantic or aromantic it doesn't seem like it would make sense to automatically assume you are queer. Also, many of my gay friends really have nothing in common with me, and I don't personally feel like I'm a part of that community at all. So it seems odd to associate my orientation with that.

[Manly Ace]

No.... I don't think being asexual automatically makes one fall under the queer ( how is this term not offensive?) umbrella.

If you are hetro romantic or aromantic it doesn't seem like it would make sense to automatically assume you are queer. Also, many of my gay friends really have nothing in common with me, and I don't personally feel like I'm a part of that community at all. So it seems odd to associate my orientation with that.

Yes, how a platonic and sexless relationship between a man and a woman could be considered as "queer" ? That's crazy !!!

[Heart]

No.... I don't think being asexual automatically makes one fall under the queer ( how is this term not offensive?) umbrella.

If you are hetro romantic or aromantic it doesn't seem like it would make sense to automatically assume you are queer. Also, many of my gay friends really have nothing in common with me, and I don't personally feel like I'm a part of that community at all. So it seems odd to associate my orientation with that.

Yes, how a platonic and sexless relationship between a man and a woman could be considered as "queer" ? That's crazy !!!

Some people DO find it odd that relationships can exist without sex. For some people, sex is so important that it is THE defining feature of a relationship. This is such a widespread notion in my experience that a good number of people ask me what the difference between a platonic relationship and a "just a friend" friendship is! To me, there's a difference, and it is clear as day. But I know that, for someone who experiences the world differently, it might not be so easy to understand.

That's why I associate myself with the term queer. It's a personal choice, not something I think should be imposed on anyone else. Anyone is free to choose their labels; not all aces will identify as queer, and that's their prerogative just as much as it is mine to choose to label myself as being queer. However, to me, I will be queer until and if the general populace understands me enough that I can interact with society seamlessly, like heterosexuals tend to be able to do now. I think that's also why some straight cis people can find that the label queer applies; if they, for any reason whatsoever, feel that society doesn't understand them, and doesn't allow them to be themselves without unreasonable effort (like, in my case, having to explain my orientation EVERY SINGLE TIME I come out... much more than a straight person would have to) then perhaps "queer" is a good way of describing that state of feeling "othered".

In fact, that's all "queer" means to me. When I hear someone else call themselves queer, I feel that we share an experience of feeling othered by society, of not quite fitting in to the stereotypes, and of having to go through a period of figuring that out.

[Verb]

No. I honestly believe that assimilating asexuality into the "Queer" umbrella would do more harm than good. I'd feel really uncomfortable with people using that term to describe me, and I never use it to describe others.

This is, of course, only my opinion.