I love your Tumblr, but I've always been curious about your thoughts on this new trend of asexuals that are neither trans or attracted to the same sex romantically demanding inclusion in LGBT spaces.
Asexual people are not a ânew trendâ. And it is sort of ironic that you use that language to describe them since it has been used to describe every letter in the acronym constantly, and that stigma is one this project was created to fight.Â
The idea that somehow asexual people donât belong or deserve to be respected because the identity is seen as a âtrendâ alone gives them enough in common with the rest of the community for me to believe that they deserve to be a part of the queer movement.Â
But to pretend that asexual people have not been a part of our community ever before is ahistorical (see article above) and honestly, a tired and boring argument that has been debunked so many times I am almost bored of it.Â
So if after all that you still are unsure of our stance on inclusion within the queer community try reading our articles and it may help clear that up for you.
I have been read for the ages. đ I never said asexuals were a new trend. I only asked about clarification on your thoughts on cis gendered asexuals that arenât romantically attracted to the same sex demanding inclusion in the LGBT community now in the modern age. I donât recall these asexuals I am speaking of wanting to be consisted LGBT in the 60âs through the 2010âs until the last few years.
Youâre an inclusionist, kool. I donât know what an article about sapphic asexuals in 17th century China has to do with my question. I never asked about gay asexuals historically.
Donât twist my words then come for my wig when youâre literally begging for Patrons every other day for what amounts to small, but admittedly interesting well written, articles that lots of LGBT/Queer studies majors could do on 4 hours of sleep.
Just say you hate ace ppl and leave.
I hate you personally đ



















