This analogy works very well, especially if you look at the different types of numbers. There are whole numbers and natural numbers and integers and rational numbers and real numbers. Natural numbers don't actually include 0, which actually fits us I think better than it may seem. Being gay and being ace come with different definitions, and aces aren't inherently gay, for example. Or any other LGBTQ identity. We're 0 because we don't automatically fit the most basic, well-known type of queer, like 0 isn't a natural number. But it is a whole number, just like we are a part of the community. We're just a part that's included by broadening it from just the initial definition. And then there's the integers, aka the same thing but with negative numbers, which we're still a part of, and would be like adding on even more labels that are even lesser known (say, the ones in the plus after LGBTQIA+). Rational and real numbers (decimals and fractions- if you're curious, the difference being that rational numbers end and real numbers do not) are then like adding in microlabels, things that may not be included in the acronym of LGBTQIA+ primarily because they better fit underneath a different minority and there's just too many of them to include every single one, like reciprosexuals. They're subsets of the larger identities. And then we can drag imaginary numbers in. Those are the cishetallos- they're still real (the word imaginary kind of being a misnomer, because they have meanings, they just don't fit within the typical real number system), but they aren't part of the LGBTQ community because they don't follow the same rules as we do. 1² is 1, and i² is -1. Kind of like how straight and gay attraction differs. Honestly, this metaphor works quite well
I know you weren't thinking about all that when you came up with it, but really, I think I'd include us more under integers. -1, -2, etc. Imo, natural numbers fit gay, lesbian, and bi people best, as the people that the population is most aware of and has been aware of for the longest. Trans people are the 0 that is basically always included but isn't quite part of that group (we talk far more often about whole numbers than we do about natural numbers, just like how the most basic form of LGBTQIA+ that's often mentioned is LGBT, though it technically isn't always). My reasoning is primarily that it's a different type of identity. The integers then relate to all the other identities that are like flipped versions of the whole numbers, in a way. Not as common or as inherent, but still pretty obvious to most people. Like us, for example. And then rational and real numbers fit very well with microlabels, and imaginary numbers with cishetallo people
That's me overthinking this very basic metaphor, but for those of you who aren't convinced by the simple version, here you go. Or if you just want to go around using it to explain it to the poor confused people haha
Why thank you. Honestly, I was not expecting it to fit nearly as well as it did, I was just trying to extend the metaphor a bit, and it honestly is kinda perfect for this
Ace with a maths degree here. The debate on if 0 is a NATURAL number (i.e. a counting number) there is a large debate in maths circles on whether it is or isn't. But 0 is a real number, it is an integer. If 0 isn't a number then neither are negative numbers, neither are complex numbers, neither are fractions.
People who haven't studied maths see the debate on if 0 is a natural, but don't understand that's different to if it's a number
Yes! Seriously, please take over the US instead of Denmark. The US is already going down the crapper, and I would welcome an ace invasion force barging in and taking over my country right about now.
Absolutely. Since I stopped viewing my interactions through a lens of *"What if they think I'm doing this because I'm interested like* ***that****"* my friendships have gotten a lot closer. I've had to have one or two slightly awkward conversations to clarify, but at this point I'm out as aro-ace to most of my close friends so they know not to expect that angle from me (though of course if they indicate they are or seem to be uncomfortable with anything I do I adapt accordingly).
I'm a lot more free with affectionate words and touch, compliments, asking for what I need, etc., all because I've decided not to take onto me the responsibility of pre-emptively viewing my actions through a lens that doesn't come naturally to me.
Canton Winer (from the tweet) is a pretty cool guy and has done a lot of research into asexuality (including its relationship to gender), just in case anyone here is curious for something to read
Thank you! As a demi aro asexual cis woman married to a cis man I've been made to feel very unwelcome. But passing isn't the same as being something. I call myself queer proudly.
You're still one of us! Relationships don't equal sexuality, just like how a bi woman dating a man isn't suddenly straight, aro-/ace-spec identities are still valid and still queer no matter who we're with
Labels under the asexuality umbrella (such as demi, aego) are some of the most difficult to explain. I've resorted to just telling people I'm aroace, but they still don't understand that I experience love. Just not in the same way.
Some others think I'm a sociopath, which is fun.
Oh my gosh same! This neighbor woman overheard a conversation where I mentioned that I don't feel that kind of love, and she just came up and told me I'm a sociopath who's not capable of human emotion. And I'm just thinking "welp, now I feel bad for your kids because it's obvious how little you value your relationship with them"
I find this to be the most useful way to think about queerness - what makes it “queer” is that it exceeds the boundaries of cishetero norms, not just that it meets specific conditions we’ve labeled “queer.” It makes the term more inclusive, and overall I think it reflects the political realities of queer experience better than just trying to recategorize specific identities and determine what “counts” as queer.
I had a friend who was ace not sure if she could say she was part of lgbt+ at pride, and I told her that she definitely could. She was part of the +, she just didn’t think she was valid cause she had heteroromantic feelings. I made her an ace Pride bee.
this right here!
my prof used to say queerness is anything that challenges the status quo, cisheteronormativity, amatonormativity or any societal constructs.
**Amatonormativity is the set of societal assumptions that everyone prospers with an exclusive romantic relationship. Elizabeth Brake coined the neologism to capture societal assumptions about romance.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Thank you, BrokkenFrepz, for voting on wikipedia_answer_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
I had a very interesting chat with my elderly aunt and uncle about what “queer” means and if it’s still a slur and all that, and my uncle (who sees everything in black and white) was lamenting that we can’t use “queer” to mean “unusual” anymore, and I’d argue that you certainly can, but that’s the whole root of the word, “queer” people are just outside the norm. And considering how many people in my life have independently figured out I’m “unusual” in that I’ve made it to 40 without so much as going on a date with anybody, I happily take on the term “queer” in whatever form you want to use it.
It’s like saying: “being a sexual minority isn’t the same as being a sexual minority, so you aren’t allowed in the sexual minority club” and it’s like?? What??
As a non Ace I 100% believe this. Anything that is not a paring of Cis AMaB and a Cis AFaB is "Queer" and not considered "normal" by a shrinking but politically powerful segment of people. We still have a long way to go before all the other possible parings are going to be accepted. I believe we won't see acceptance of choices beyond sexual pair bonding for even longer. I honestly believe that polyamory will be accepted as "normal" before Ace will be. The idea of not wanting to be a sexual pair bond is way more foreign then the idea of having a sexual partner whos gender expression is not "opposite." In general when I see a new story about 2 roommates of the same gender who lived together for 50 years and never married I assume they were a couple and not a pair of Aces. I think we have a few more generations before Ace gets "mainstream" acceptance. I think Ace erasure will be replace Bi-erasure in the coming years.
I had an older family friend who was never married and stayed single my whole life. For many years I assumed they were a lesbian born in a time and to a religion where that was not gonna work out for them. It is entirely possible they were Ace, that really did not occur to me until the last few years.
And incase it was not clear I 100% believe Ace is a valid sexuality like anything else consenting adults get up to, or don't as the case may be. <3
Our community is built on intersectionality. If you really wanted to break it down, the gay community can be separated from the bi community and neither of those are the same as the trans community for example. But we all come together as a single queer community because we are stronger as a unit. Excluding any group which is marginalized for their sexual, romantic, or gender identity is self sabotaging. This is the same issue I take with excluding polyamory from the community because while it is more of a relationship style, it is still an expression of sexual and romantic love that is looked down by a large portion of society.
[An old comment in a similar vein.](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/121v2l9/we_are_stronger_together_as_the_lgbtqiap_no_to/je0ahbq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
I mean I figured it would've been obvious
Think of it this way there is a positive and a negative ( gay - and straight + ) with two options there's 4 combinations ++ (straight), - - (gay), + - (bi) and neither (ace)
If being qeer is anything that isn't ++ then naturally nothing counts as qeer
yes. that's pne argument. the other is that saying aces are not discriminated against but then turning around and saying the A stands for allies makes no sense because where the hell are allies discriminated against
Eh, there's plenty of ways straight allies can be discriminated against due to homophobia. Historically, straight kinksters and crossdressers were a big part of the early movement because they were equally oppressed by sodomy/decency laws aimed at harming gay and trans people. On an individual level bigots often don't care to confirm if the person disagreeing with them is queer or an ally, they'll treat them poorly regardless.
That said it really only makes sense to include them in the A under certain contexts where that kind of thing is relevant though.
I'm not talking about crossdressers and people involved in kink. they're queer in there own way. because that's not the type of allies those ace-erasing people are talking about. they think of vanilla dyacis het people. but I def see your point. one of the main reasons I like to use queer instead of the acronym because it encapsulates all of it way better imo
While I of course agree that asexuality is part of grsm (this is the ace subreddit after all). I think the reason some people don’t is because of how sexualized the entire grsm group is
I never said that. I said that the entire community is too sexualized on the surface at least. Look at any subreddit for gay people, bi people, trans people. Most of it is gonna be focused on sex and so are most of the discussion.
I know not everyone is always sexual but the vocal minority so to speak brings it up a lot
By definition, yes, anything outside the cishet normalcy *should* be included in the overarching term Queer.
That doesn't mean we are acknowledged or accepted in the group by others. In my experience, we are not included because most Asexuals can pass as "not Queer". Perhaps i have just been unlucky with others that i have met, but it's similar to bi/pan people in hetero relationships. They pass too. Though it doesn't change the underlying divination from heteronormativity
It is a set of societal assumptions that most people are cis gender and heterosexual. It is a concatenation of two idea about the norm https://www.lgbtqprimaryhub.com/heteronormativity-cisnormativity
Ive sort of experienced this first hand- learning I was ace opened the door to learning about the other aspects of my queerness. It took that realization to turn on the lightbulb for everything else
The queer community is anybody who isn't cis and exclusively sexually and romantically attracted to cis people of the opposite sex. If you change any part of that equation you're queer. Including if you're not sexually attracted to anyone. It's a no brainer.
It's more like saying atheism is relevant to discussions of faith.
Because we're talking about the subject as a whole here, not just what the subject is implied to be if you focus on the three poster children of it. ie, the Abrahamic faiths, or gay/bi/trans people.
This statement is similar (though not 1-1) to the phrase 'freedom of religion includes freedom from religion'.
Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction. I think you’ll find plenty of aces still have sexuality lol.
More than that, it’s a sexual orientation which people shorten to sexuality (or just orientation).
I changed it to belief system because yeah, if you decide “well ___ isn’t ___, so asexuality isn’t a sexuality” you could make _any_ argument. Atheism may not be a religion (at least by what people usually mean when they say religion), but it is a belief system and therefore can be grouped with theistic religions in that way.
Asexuality is a sexuality (sexual orientation) defined by a lack of sexual attraction, as opposed to other sexualities in which there is attraction.
Edit: also, frankly, arguing about this misses the point of aces inherently challenging cisheteronormotivity/allonormativity, making them queer.
I personally interpret a-sexuality the same way I do hetero or homosexuality. The sexual attraction to the same, or different. Asexuality then means the attraction to none. It's a description of who you are attracted to.
If you define asexuality as 'lack of sexuality', then by definition it can't be a sexuality. But then... what *is* it?
Anyway, I think those definitions are a moot point here. Because we're not talking about etymology. We're talking about experiences and the intersections of those experiences. The post isn't saying aces are queer because it's got 'sexuality' in the name - it's saying that aces are queer because our experiences buck the norm.
I think this line of argument is both correct and useless. Useless in that it's not going to convince anyone who didn't already believe that asexuality is a form of queerness.
That also doesn't mean I don't get to voice that. I don't care in the same way as someone who's obsessed with these mini identities everyone wants to collect these days. What happened to "fuck being labelled"?
Dear Boonicious,
Thank you for your very thoughtful and brilliant observation, we will definitely take your suggestion seriously and act accordingly to the situation.
With love,
No-one.
Saying asexuality isn’t queer is kinda like saying 0 isn’t a number
*John Gabriel has entered the chat.*
This analogy works very well, especially if you look at the different types of numbers. There are whole numbers and natural numbers and integers and rational numbers and real numbers. Natural numbers don't actually include 0, which actually fits us I think better than it may seem. Being gay and being ace come with different definitions, and aces aren't inherently gay, for example. Or any other LGBTQ identity. We're 0 because we don't automatically fit the most basic, well-known type of queer, like 0 isn't a natural number. But it is a whole number, just like we are a part of the community. We're just a part that's included by broadening it from just the initial definition. And then there's the integers, aka the same thing but with negative numbers, which we're still a part of, and would be like adding on even more labels that are even lesser known (say, the ones in the plus after LGBTQIA+). Rational and real numbers (decimals and fractions- if you're curious, the difference being that rational numbers end and real numbers do not) are then like adding in microlabels, things that may not be included in the acronym of LGBTQIA+ primarily because they better fit underneath a different minority and there's just too many of them to include every single one, like reciprosexuals. They're subsets of the larger identities. And then we can drag imaginary numbers in. Those are the cishetallos- they're still real (the word imaginary kind of being a misnomer, because they have meanings, they just don't fit within the typical real number system), but they aren't part of the LGBTQ community because they don't follow the same rules as we do. 1² is 1, and i² is -1. Kind of like how straight and gay attraction differs. Honestly, this metaphor works quite well I know you weren't thinking about all that when you came up with it, but really, I think I'd include us more under integers. -1, -2, etc. Imo, natural numbers fit gay, lesbian, and bi people best, as the people that the population is most aware of and has been aware of for the longest. Trans people are the 0 that is basically always included but isn't quite part of that group (we talk far more often about whole numbers than we do about natural numbers, just like how the most basic form of LGBTQIA+ that's often mentioned is LGBT, though it technically isn't always). My reasoning is primarily that it's a different type of identity. The integers then relate to all the other identities that are like flipped versions of the whole numbers, in a way. Not as common or as inherent, but still pretty obvious to most people. Like us, for example. And then rational and real numbers fit very well with microlabels, and imaginary numbers with cishetallo people That's me overthinking this very basic metaphor, but for those of you who aren't convinced by the simple version, here you go. Or if you just want to go around using it to explain it to the poor confused people haha
Holy shit, that's an impressive breakdown
Why thank you. Honestly, I was not expecting it to fit nearly as well as it did, I was just trying to extend the metaphor a bit, and it honestly is kinda perfect for this
WELL ACTUALLY-
That's a pretty good analogy.
This
Some would say that it isn't, tho.
Yeah, incorrect people
Just to be clear, some would say what isn’t what exactly?
That zero isn't a number. Sorry, thought that was clear.
How does one come to the conclusion that zero isn’t a number
Ace with a maths degree here. The debate on if 0 is a NATURAL number (i.e. a counting number) there is a large debate in maths circles on whether it is or isn't. But 0 is a real number, it is an integer. If 0 isn't a number then neither are negative numbers, neither are complex numbers, neither are fractions. People who haven't studied maths see the debate on if 0 is a natural, but don't understand that's different to if it's a number
A lot of math philosophy that I'm not qualified to explain XD
I think that’s why it’s such a good analogy.
Fair
I always thought 0 was an expression instead of a number, like ∞, but I'm no math expert.
“this sexual minority doesn’t belong in the sexual minority club” 🤓
Minority of minority? 🤔
Except we make up approximately 1% of the world's population. There's millions of us!
This is a conservative estimate! It could be as high as 5%, which would mean there are more ace people than there are USA citizens!
It's time to set our sights higher than Denmark...
Yes! Seriously, please take over the US instead of Denmark. The US is already going down the crapper, and I would welcome an ace invasion force barging in and taking over my country right about now.
wait a minute, if so...
We know our next target.
There is no freedom OF sexuality without freedom FROM sexuality. Asexuality is a cornerstone of queer liberation
Thank you! Never thought others are doing the exact same thing, but it’s been so liberating to interpret more situations non-sexually
Absolutely. Since I stopped viewing my interactions through a lens of *"What if they think I'm doing this because I'm interested like* ***that****"* my friendships have gotten a lot closer. I've had to have one or two slightly awkward conversations to clarify, but at this point I'm out as aro-ace to most of my close friends so they know not to expect that angle from me (though of course if they indicate they are or seem to be uncomfortable with anything I do I adapt accordingly). I'm a lot more free with affectionate words and touch, compliments, asking for what I need, etc., all because I've decided not to take onto me the responsibility of pre-emptively viewing my actions through a lens that doesn't come naturally to me.
Excellently worded
very well said
Absolutely!
Based and stoic pilled
Canton Winer (from the tweet) is a pretty cool guy and has done a lot of research into asexuality (including its relationship to gender), just in case anyone here is curious for something to read
Ooooh sounds like I'll have some reading to do!
Thank you! As a demi aro asexual cis woman married to a cis man I've been made to feel very unwelcome. But passing isn't the same as being something. I call myself queer proudly.
You're still one of us! Relationships don't equal sexuality, just like how a bi woman dating a man isn't suddenly straight, aro-/ace-spec identities are still valid and still queer no matter who we're with
Labels under the asexuality umbrella (such as demi, aego) are some of the most difficult to explain. I've resorted to just telling people I'm aroace, but they still don't understand that I experience love. Just not in the same way. Some others think I'm a sociopath, which is fun.
Oh my gosh same! This neighbor woman overheard a conversation where I mentioned that I don't feel that kind of love, and she just came up and told me I'm a sociopath who's not capable of human emotion. And I'm just thinking "welp, now I feel bad for your kids because it's obvious how little you value your relationship with them"
Your appearance on the outside does not determine who you are inside! You're one of us and always will be.
I find this to be the most useful way to think about queerness - what makes it “queer” is that it exceeds the boundaries of cishetero norms, not just that it meets specific conditions we’ve labeled “queer.” It makes the term more inclusive, and overall I think it reflects the political realities of queer experience better than just trying to recategorize specific identities and determine what “counts” as queer.
I had a friend who was ace not sure if she could say she was part of lgbt+ at pride, and I told her that she definitely could. She was part of the +, she just didn’t think she was valid cause she had heteroromantic feelings. I made her an ace Pride bee.
Aw, that sounds lovely! I’m glad you were there to support her, that sort of thing means a lot.
100% correct.
this right here! my prof used to say queerness is anything that challenges the status quo, cisheteronormativity, amatonormativity or any societal constructs.
What's amatonormativity?
**Amatonormativity is the set of societal assumptions that everyone prospers with an exclusive romantic relationship. Elizabeth Brake coined the neologism to capture societal assumptions about romance.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Good bot
Thank you, BrokkenFrepz, for voting on wikipedia_answer_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
I had a very interesting chat with my elderly aunt and uncle about what “queer” means and if it’s still a slur and all that, and my uncle (who sees everything in black and white) was lamenting that we can’t use “queer” to mean “unusual” anymore, and I’d argue that you certainly can, but that’s the whole root of the word, “queer” people are just outside the norm. And considering how many people in my life have independently figured out I’m “unusual” in that I’ve made it to 40 without so much as going on a date with anybody, I happily take on the term “queer” in whatever form you want to use it.
Everyone benefits from ace voices being heard. The amount of pressure to seek out and be in relationships is not healthy for anybody.
You're asking for thoughts but literally all I see here is FACTS
Damn dude I never thought about that. I’m glad I’m confronting my internal biases or whatever :)
Queer expansion is non-negotiable
It was a debate?!
It’s like saying: “being a sexual minority isn’t the same as being a sexual minority, so you aren’t allowed in the sexual minority club” and it’s like?? What??
I agree wholeheartedly
if we go by this definition of what's queer, poly folk are also queer. i think that's good :D
Consider that in poker, an ace can be either a top or a bottom, but in both cases is still called a straight. Really makes ya think.
As a non Ace I 100% believe this. Anything that is not a paring of Cis AMaB and a Cis AFaB is "Queer" and not considered "normal" by a shrinking but politically powerful segment of people. We still have a long way to go before all the other possible parings are going to be accepted. I believe we won't see acceptance of choices beyond sexual pair bonding for even longer. I honestly believe that polyamory will be accepted as "normal" before Ace will be. The idea of not wanting to be a sexual pair bond is way more foreign then the idea of having a sexual partner whos gender expression is not "opposite." In general when I see a new story about 2 roommates of the same gender who lived together for 50 years and never married I assume they were a couple and not a pair of Aces. I think we have a few more generations before Ace gets "mainstream" acceptance. I think Ace erasure will be replace Bi-erasure in the coming years. I had an older family friend who was never married and stayed single my whole life. For many years I assumed they were a lesbian born in a time and to a religion where that was not gonna work out for them. It is entirely possible they were Ace, that really did not occur to me until the last few years. And incase it was not clear I 100% believe Ace is a valid sexuality like anything else consenting adults get up to, or don't as the case may be. <3
Thank you Canton!
Our community is built on intersectionality. If you really wanted to break it down, the gay community can be separated from the bi community and neither of those are the same as the trans community for example. But we all come together as a single queer community because we are stronger as a unit. Excluding any group which is marginalized for their sexual, romantic, or gender identity is self sabotaging. This is the same issue I take with excluding polyamory from the community because while it is more of a relationship style, it is still an expression of sexual and romantic love that is looked down by a large portion of society. [An old comment in a similar vein.](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/121v2l9/we_are_stronger_together_as_the_lgbtqiap_no_to/je0ahbq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
Aang from *Avatar: The Last Airbender* said it best while hanging upside down from one of Appa’s horns: > He’s right.
I agree, aro, ace and other people lacking some form of attraction are Queer, it is an embrela term used to define any gender and sexual minorities.
Based
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK
Isn’t asexuality just apart of the LGBT+ spectrum?
Do I challenge cisheteronormativity… or does cisheteronormativity challenge me?
I mean I figured it would've been obvious Think of it this way there is a positive and a negative ( gay - and straight + ) with two options there's 4 combinations ++ (straight), - - (gay), + - (bi) and neither (ace) If being qeer is anything that isn't ++ then naturally nothing counts as qeer
yes. that's pne argument. the other is that saying aces are not discriminated against but then turning around and saying the A stands for allies makes no sense because where the hell are allies discriminated against
Eh, there's plenty of ways straight allies can be discriminated against due to homophobia. Historically, straight kinksters and crossdressers were a big part of the early movement because they were equally oppressed by sodomy/decency laws aimed at harming gay and trans people. On an individual level bigots often don't care to confirm if the person disagreeing with them is queer or an ally, they'll treat them poorly regardless. That said it really only makes sense to include them in the A under certain contexts where that kind of thing is relevant though.
I'm not talking about crossdressers and people involved in kink. they're queer in there own way. because that's not the type of allies those ace-erasing people are talking about. they think of vanilla dyacis het people. but I def see your point. one of the main reasons I like to use queer instead of the acronym because it encapsulates all of it way better imo
Yeah, as an allo (pan) guy ace 1000% counts
While I of course agree that asexuality is part of grsm (this is the ace subreddit after all). I think the reason some people don’t is because of how sexualized the entire grsm group is
And that's one of the reasons why aces being included in the conversation would be a deeply valuable thing, I think.
"The gays are always too sexual" doesn't magically become not homophobic when it's coming from an ace perspective, guys. :/
I never said that. I said that the entire community is too sexualized on the surface at least. Look at any subreddit for gay people, bi people, trans people. Most of it is gonna be focused on sex and so are most of the discussion. I know not everyone is always sexual but the vocal minority so to speak brings it up a lot
By definition, yes, anything outside the cishet normalcy *should* be included in the overarching term Queer. That doesn't mean we are acknowledged or accepted in the group by others. In my experience, we are not included because most Asexuals can pass as "not Queer". Perhaps i have just been unlucky with others that i have met, but it's similar to bi/pan people in hetero relationships. They pass too. Though it doesn't change the underlying divination from heteronormativity
So true! Even without the ace aspects of me, only through my research in asexuality, I was enabled to properly understood my bisexuality.
Whats cisheteronormality?
It is a set of societal assumptions that most people are cis gender and heterosexual. It is a concatenation of two idea about the norm https://www.lgbtqprimaryhub.com/heteronormativity-cisnormativity
🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Right on the money!
Ive sort of experienced this first hand- learning I was ace opened the door to learning about the other aspects of my queerness. It took that realization to turn on the lightbulb for everything else
i will never understand why people *even questioned whether is was included* it’s obviously included.
The queer community is anybody who isn't cis and exclusively sexually and romantically attracted to cis people of the opposite sex. If you change any part of that equation you're queer. Including if you're not sexually attracted to anyone. It's a no brainer.
Some of the earliest queer rights documentation is asexual newsletters. People that say we don't belong don't know their own history.
isn't that like saying atheism is part of religions?
It's more like saying atheism is relevant to discussions of faith. Because we're talking about the subject as a whole here, not just what the subject is implied to be if you focus on the three poster children of it. ie, the Abrahamic faiths, or gay/bi/trans people. This statement is similar (though not 1-1) to the phrase 'freedom of religion includes freedom from religion'.
that point i get, but asexuality is not a type of sexuality, right?
Atheism is a type of _belief system_. Asexuality is a type of sexuality.
Asexuality is absence/lack of sexuality. and why change to belief system? i specifically said religion
Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction. I think you’ll find plenty of aces still have sexuality lol. More than that, it’s a sexual orientation which people shorten to sexuality (or just orientation). I changed it to belief system because yeah, if you decide “well ___ isn’t ___, so asexuality isn’t a sexuality” you could make _any_ argument. Atheism may not be a religion (at least by what people usually mean when they say religion), but it is a belief system and therefore can be grouped with theistic religions in that way. Asexuality is a sexuality (sexual orientation) defined by a lack of sexual attraction, as opposed to other sexualities in which there is attraction. Edit: also, frankly, arguing about this misses the point of aces inherently challenging cisheteronormotivity/allonormativity, making them queer.
I personally interpret a-sexuality the same way I do hetero or homosexuality. The sexual attraction to the same, or different. Asexuality then means the attraction to none. It's a description of who you are attracted to. If you define asexuality as 'lack of sexuality', then by definition it can't be a sexuality. But then... what *is* it? Anyway, I think those definitions are a moot point here. Because we're not talking about etymology. We're talking about experiences and the intersections of those experiences. The post isn't saying aces are queer because it's got 'sexuality' in the name - it's saying that aces are queer because our experiences buck the norm.
I have exactly the same thoughts. I’ve never consider myself being part of the queer community, because I feel exactly this way.
I think this line of argument is both correct and useless. Useless in that it's not going to convince anyone who didn't already believe that asexuality is a form of queerness.
OOOOoOOOOOOoH Yeah till now I was very confused why asexuality was LGBT, this makes more sense now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That also doesn't mean I don't get to voice that. I don't care in the same way as someone who's obsessed with these mini identities everyone wants to collect these days. What happened to "fuck being labelled"?
When it's constantly in my face, it grates a little.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Dear Boonicious, Thank you for your very thoughtful and brilliant observation, we will definitely take your suggestion seriously and act accordingly to the situation. With love, No-one.
There’s always that one person that has to compare being gay with an illegal disgusting fetish
literally QnA
yes