maybe the idea that asexuality is an inherently lgbt identity would be the tiniest bit easier to swallow if it weren’t coexisting alongside the idea of asexuality being a spectrum.
because here’s the problem that arises when we assume both of those statements to be true. when asexuality is treated as a spectrum, the word begins to break away from its original definition, “a lack of sexual attraction”, and takes on a new meaning, that being “anyone who has less sex than ‘normal’”. when you combine it with inclusionist rhetoric that insists on the inherent “queerness” of asexuality, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the lgbt community is united only by deviance from a culturally imposed sexual norm. while this may be semi-accurate to an ear untrained in lgbt history and queer theory (for lack of a better word), this ultimately creates more problems than it solves.
it gets even messier when you bring up the idea of a highly sexual or sex-addicted asexual. in recent years, there appears to have been a split between the concept of sexual attraction and the act of having sex. and while, yes, you can have sex with someone without being attracted to them, this has been taken to an extreme in the ace community. meaning, technically, a self-identified asexual could have a high libido, masturbate, fantasize about having sex, want to have sex with a specific other person for recreational purposes, actually have sex with said person, enjoy it, and still be a valid asexual.
the question then becomes, if an ace person can do all of these things and still be asexual, where is the line drawn? what is the exact criteria for being ace outside of saying that you are one? what is the fundamental difference between an asexual and an “””allosexual”””? and most importantly, how can a system of oppression exist for a group that could, by this definition, include literally anyone?
if asexuality is a spectrum, and asexuality is an ostracized, “queer” identity, this implies that there is a “normal” amount of sex a person should be having to be accepted by a society that allegedly oppresses asexuals. so, where is this normal? exactly how little sex should a person be having before they are considered asexual? how on earth is a cis person who only has sex with the opposite binary gender after developing an emotional bond any “queerer” than any other cishet?
and then there’s the issue of aphobia as an axis of oppression and the concept that society wants people to have sex. which, again, is only true if it is not given any thought. society wants us to have sex, but only a very specific kind of sex, that being conventional sex between a cisgender man and a cisgender woman. to imply that a gay person has institutional power over a person who doesn’t have sex is to blindly disregard the history of homophobia and the body count it has left behind.
i think the confusion stems from people using “issues specific to this group of people” and “oppression” interchangeably with one another. asexuals can and do have problems that they as a group face because of their asexuality, but those problems are not being perpetrated or enabled by those in power, and often, so-called “aphobia” stems from rape culture and misogyny, not a bias against asexuals as a group.
going back to the second paragraph here, ace people being lgbt necessitates another shift in definition, and an extremely concerning one at that. an lgbt community inclusive of asexuals (even cisgender ones who do not experience same-gender attraction) is no longer for people oppressed on the social axes of homophobia and transphobia, but for anyone whose sexual preferences differ from what they perceive as the standard of normalcy set by society.
completely disregarding asexuals for a brief moment, let’s consider what other groups might be looking to take advantage of a community operating under this definition and pushing a platform of inclusivity. i’m talking about kinksters and pedophiles. to make it very clear, the only reason i am grouping these people in with asexuals is because all three of them have made repeated and documented attempts to insert themselves into the lgbt community on the basis of sexual preferences they believe are being unfairly discriminated against. while, obviously, no moral equivalency can be drawn between asexuals and pedophiles, ace inclusionism has opened the door to this kind of unwanted attention by shifting public perception of what it means to be lgbt away from a necessary political alliance and towards a fun club for folks who feel a little different. conveniently enough, this sanitization of the spirit of the lgbt community has worked very well for corporations that capitalize on pride month and inclusivity, hence the ace flag on everything.
what people need to understand is that the lgbt community has never been about including everyone, and the recent trend of marketing the lgbt community as accepting of anyone and everyone runs distinctly counterproductive to our political goals. communities are by their very nature exclusive; you can’t just walk into a community that you have nothing in common with and demand a seat at the table so your voice can be heard on issues that don’t affect you. even our allies, important and welcomed as they are, can and usually do understand that their allyship does not make them lgbt, and their input is not always needed or wanted.
to summarize, ace inclusionism and the idea of “the ace spectrum” do away with the boundaries between cishets and lgbt people by making “queerness” about deviance from a sexual norm as opposed to a united front against homophobia and transphobia. in doing so, they have opened the floodgates for a new era of marketing-based faux activism that buries the original purpose of our community and makes us more vulnerable to being infiltrated by cishet sexual deviants/people with paraphillias and capitalists looking to profit off of our history and our pain.
gummygunk
blakekathryn
tangentwithtanner
theartofmadeline
pixelskylines
origamiaround
kaledo-art
titsay
germansingergirl
