don't mind me

sideblog for tiresome discourse none of my followers want to see

[nb-leafeon]

inclusionists can we no platform iron-sunrise

this kinda shit being said to minors? unacceptable. shouldn’t really be said to anyone at all because it’s fucking gross and invasive but especially not to minors

[vrissexist]

they also compared a native american lesbian to Trump and refused to back down when ppl on both sides rightfully pointed out that it's a fucked up thing to do, so Uh. yeah.

[pinkyena]

The LGBT community: asexuals aren’t oppressed!!

Also the LGBT community: *opresses asexuals*

[vrissexist]

Not to be harsh, but how does it feel to make a post that's 100% indistinguishable from the kind that exclusionist-run troll blogs use to make inclusionists look like out of touch 20-30something adults who live exclusively on tumblr and have an extremely loose grasp of what the word "oppression" connotes?

And since you've been dismissing valid criticism coming from exclusionists, I'll add that I'm not one -- this is just embarrassing.

[kurosmind]

What does the LGBT community stand to gain from someone like you? who doesn’t understand how they oppress LGBT people, why queer isn’t their word, or why saying being at pride while aroace will make us less “indecent” as if us faggots are too sexual?

why saying being at pride while aroace will make us less “indecent” as if us f****s are too sexual?  <— Is your name Jared, 19 Anyway what does the LGBT community has to gain from someone like you, anon, who are not even brave enough to show your face while harassing some random person on the internet who’s just doing her thing without hurting anyone? I literally probably live on the other side of the world from you. Go outside and live a little lmao. Also next ask you send me I’ll block you so bye. 

[vrissexist]

Why would you delete this post if it wasn’t a supremely shitty thing to say? More than that, why would you delete the first post and not the posts where you defend it? 

[nb-leafeon]

i can’t believe i still have to say this in may of 2018 but if you platform whatever the fuck gayhets is at now you’re garbage :)

[vrissexist]

I don’t disagree with this but it reads like a response to them pointing out that you uncritically agreed with an anon that compared cis “truscum”/transphobes to “allo exclusionists” which… isn’t great.

[nb-leafeon]

yes, there are similarities between cis truscum and allo exclusionists, the main one being they both feel like they have a say about how people identify and live their lives. they both think they have a say in what makes someone their identity.

allo exclusionists aren’t nearly as bad as cis truscum though as cis truscum are huge transphobes.

[vrissexist]

Maybe the communication breakdown here is the fact that I don’t equate “exclusionist” with “aphobe”, since that’s not something they necessarily have in common with truscrum. It’s shitty when non-asexuals try to dictate the terms of asexuality, but that’s not even a thing that’s restricted to exclusionists. Making that concession doesn’t erase the vile shit gayhets or w/e they’re going by now did; it’s just saying “yeah maybe that’s a false equivalence.”

[nb-leafeon]

i can’t believe i still have to say this in may of 2018 but if you platform whatever the fuck gayhets is at now you’re garbage :)

[vrissexist]

I don’t disagree with this but it reads like a response to them pointing out that you uncritically agreed with an anon that compared cis “truscum”/transphobes to “allo exclusionists” which... isn’t great.

[vrissexist]

hey, i say this lovingly. “disabled” isn’t an orientation. 

“if the lgbt+ community is about oppression let’s kick the white cis ablebodied gays out” sorry ablebodied bisexual people and ablebodied trans people and ablebodied asexual people are no less ableist than ablebodied gay people. i don’t care if it’s “my side” saying this; i still have more in common with a disabled exclusionist than an abled inclusionist paying lip service.

[ahp-discourse]

New “older” inclusionist (20+) gameplan:

Sit back, keep our mouths shut and when those younger than us see the world around them crumbling and expect us to do something about it, remind them that they told us we were “too old” to be participating in discourse.

[vrissexist]

Ok, since I'm an "inclusionist" who isn't much younger than you, I am going to try to level with you. This isn't criticism against you personally, so much as what I see you doing during the occasional times I glance at the tag, including this post.

27 isn't old, and the people telling you to do your taxes don't actually think you're a decrepit grandma (hint: they know it gets a rise out of you) but at 27 you seriously should not be getting into it with kids over a decade your junior. It's inappropriate when adults do it IRL, and the fact that you can't see each other face-to-face doesn't make it less strange.

I'm not blaming you for the actual vile shit sent your way. I'm not saying you shouldn't post to a tag on Tumblr or interact with younger people -- but when shit gets heated, or personal, or counterproductive, the onus is on you to disengage and move on. And I mean disengage -- if they don't leave you alone, block them. Don't answer their anons. Let it go. Step away. Meditate for 5 mins. (This isn't a facetious suggestion by the way.) But you should not be getting into it with kids.

Part of this means knowing when to pick your battles. Which is figurative, because a Tumblr tag is not a battlefield. You’re not “fighting for what you believe in” by getting into arguments with teenagers. No one’s going to “see the world around them crumbling” because they have the Wrong Discourse Opinions. But you gotta understand that you’re giving people fuel when you do things like call them ableist for telling you to go outside. (Which, I get it. I had to move back in with my parents during a years-long medical leave of absence because debilitating seizures were keeping me bedridden, and an offhanded comment from my dad made me burst into tears lmao. But it’s not “ableist” any more than someone telling me to go outside would be classist bc I’ve been homeless.)

This is getting way tl;dr and I’m not trying to be harsh or attack you personally, but the language in this post suggests that you might be letting this discourse stuff consume you to an extent that isn’t super great for your mental well-being. This is me attempting to give perspective as someone who’s had to deal with a condition that made it so that internet junk seemed like my entire world. Like, a legit good-faith effort, as in you’re free to hit me up on IM or my askbox if you want to talk about it. (Or you can block/ignore/etc., the world is your oyster.)

[dosrg]

sorry for my flood of discourse im just Hella Pissy and sick of ppl making others feel hated and mocked for something they dont control. if you dont think cisgender heteroromantic people are lgbt? fuckin whatever, let people be in spaces where they feel safe and allowed to express their identity. also ace people arent new stop saying that its bullshit

[deepseacutie]

“Let oppressors exist in spaces specifically meant to be safe havens for the people they oppress” nice!

[fumbledeegrumble]

I’m so tired of your theoretical fear of theoretical scenarios where it may theoretically be possible to be oppressed by asexuals. This is a non-issue. Has there ever been any credible, documented case where a “real lgbt” person was actually oppressed by a cishet asexual? Not some dillweed making a rude comment about allosexuals or something, I mean an actual instance where an lgbt person was oppressed by a cishet ace. Not theoretically. Because the way you guys go on about them, you’d think aces are the ones out there waving “god hates fags” signs on college campuses. Hey guys, Matthew Shepherd wasn’t murdered by cishet aces.

Over the past 3 years, exclusionists have taken screenshots of individual aces saying stupid, ignorant things and used them to turn aces into some kind of bogeyman, when we have actual cishets out there preying on the members of our community. Working each other into a frenzy over theoretical oppressors does nothing to help people who actually need help.

For a group of people whose go-to retort is “go outside,” it sure seems like you guys would benefit from that.

[vrissexist]

I feel like it would help inclusionist arguments (speaking as one myself) to drop the “actual cishet” thing. Asexuality doesn’t modify or augment a person’s straightness or “cisness” -- that seems like kind of a runaway interpretation of how intersectionality works. To use an example a degree removed from ace discourse: Steve the cis gay man is cis, gay, and a man. Steve’s orientation has a profound effect on how he views his gender identity -- but he’s still a cisgender man, and it’d be absurd to say he’s especially exempt from male or cisgender privilege. Being gay entitles him to LGBT spaces, but that doesn’t mean Steve goes “hey it was the actual cis men who -insert Steve invoking slurs/murder/torture-” when confronted with the privileges he benefits from. 

[vrissexist]

not to Get Into It over something like ace discourse, but here are two statements that aren’t mutually exclusive

- “asexual-identifying individuals deserve support and spaces to gather, whether it’s local, individual, existing spaces inviting them under the larger umbrella of ‘minority orientations’ or a separate/overlapping-with-LGBT alliance; mocking and harassing asexuals doesn’t make you an Intrepid Defender of the LGBT Community”

- “if a person is straight and cisgender and asexual they are Cishet, full stop, and have no place spouting off homophobic/transphobic slurs; denying this and minimizing the discomfort of LGBT people doesn’t make you an Intrepid Defender of the Asexual Community”

so uh. i guess what i’m trying to get at is, “Chill Out”

[newrucas]

I’ve been dealing with internalized homophobia for a long time and honestly I wish I hadn’t come across the SAM because it messed me up even more than I was. It validated my internalized homophobia, telling me what I wanted to hear: that I could still have a romantic relationship with a woman even though I’m just attracted to men. I mistook platonic connections with women for romantic feelings, and talked myself into feeling I could never feel something romantic with a man. But I can, and in fact I’m totally gay. I’m not saying the SAM isn’t good for other people, but it’s also really bad for others, so basically what I’m saying is tread carefully and really evaluate whether it genuinely applies to your specific situation, or if you’re not using it to hide behind and avoid dealing with internalized homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality.

[vrissexist]

hey i just want to say i’ve seen your earlier posts on the SAM before and i’m really glad you’ve been working things out for yourself. i know from experience that it’s scary as hell to come to terms with, so good on you for making the dive. 

[tiberian]

not 2 start discourse but like. surely if you can be gay and ace or bi and ace then u can also be straight and ace. like I genuinely don’t understand how u can be like “you have to be heterosexual and heteroromantic to be straight, if you’re not one of those two then you’re lgbt” but no ones saying the same thing like “you have to be homoromantic and homosexual to be gay” like I genuinely don’t get it could someone explain

[afabitch]

no, being ace doesn’t cancel out your other attractions. but I don’t understand how you could possibly think cishet non-aces see cishet aces as “”normal”” when they act like sexual attraction is what makes people human

[nokogiriyama]

fun game: tell a straight person your asexual/aromantic, see their reaction. your in for a surprise, i guarantee

[tiberian]

how is that like. related to what I asked

[nokogiriyama]

you still fail to understand that hetero aspecs are not “still het”, they’re still het aroace. just like gay/bi/pan aspecs are still gay/bi/pan aroace. “still het” or “still gay” would imply our asexuality/aromanticisms are modifiers and not real important parts of our identity. if we say “gay aces are still gay” its because we have to remind exclusionists everyday that their useless crusade throws under the bus “real lgbts” too, but instead you use it as an excuse to be dicks and say “but straight aces are still straight lol” like YES, THEY ARE. but they’re still ace too, which is not less important than them being straight, its an orientation on its own. and that makes them not 100% cishets because they dont benefit from all cishet privilege. hence why my comment “tell a cishet person your ace”, since they dont consider us as human. so in conclusion, het aces are still het ACES, not “still het”, and gay aces are still gay ACES, not “still gay”.

[vrissexist]

being 100% cis and het doesn’t cancel out a straight asexual’s orientation because they’re not mutually exclusive. i can’t really grok this argument because it shouldn’t matter – if asexuals have a place in the larger community, then being ace in itself is enough to warrant their inclusion. i’ve seen “The Real Straights/Cis don’t consider me One of Them” used too many times as a defense mechanism from people confronted with their own relative privilege, e.g. “as a gay man, i don’t have full access to cis privilege because i’m not seen as a Real Man/have been misgendered/had transphobic slurs thrown my way”. (without accusing anyone of “recycling rhetoric”, you see this a lot with TERFs who are GNC and deny any inherent cis privilege on that basis.) 

i also don’t really like being Considered Not Human as a basis for inclusion for a few reasons, but a big one is my own experience with the way sexuality intersects with visible disability, which has a really enormous impact on how able-bodied people (straight or otherwise) view you – when efforts to reclaim your sexual agency are met with repulsion or aggressive fetishization, and every day brings a new reminder of how you’re seen as Less Than, it’s hells of demoralizing, and it’d be great if there were more spaces where people could discuss this intersection, both within LGBT+ spaces and outside of them. there’s a nuanced discussion to be had there without saying that a straight wheelchair user isn’t 100% straight because of the rampant desexualization and dehumanization she might face. 

also to be clear i’m not equating asexuality (an orientation) with disability (not an orientation lol) or making an inclusion vs exclusion argument so much as thinking about some personal observations. i just feel like the statement “asexuality is a marginalized/minority orientation and should be included on that basis” is weakened when people bring in phrases like “100% cishet”, “Actual Straights”, etc

[nokogiriyama]

asexuality shoud be included because its an orientation that is not straight, period. the fact that some straight people also ARE asexual means nothing, they’re still het but they’re still ace. asexuality in itself is an orientation that doesnt inherently mean attraction to the opposite gender and is not hetetosexual, that’s why it has to be included and that’s why it IS included.

also yes, actual cishet people consider asexuality as a disorder, illness, something that has to be cured, so asexuality can’t be considered just as a modifier to heterosexuality.

straight asexuals have privilege over gay/bi/pan people but heterosexuals heteroromantics have privilege over straight aces.

its really Not That Difficoult to understand that asexuals dont stop being asexual because they’re also het, just like gay ace people dont stop being ace. the two things can coexist and musn’t be separated, as if being straight and ace were just “the same as being 100% straight but without sex”

[vrissexist]

ftr i’m not an exclusionist and i agree with your first paragraph, but i wasn’t bringing any exclusion vs inclusion argument into it because that wasn’t really what the OP was asking for. i don’t believe straight and ace means you’re “100% straight without sex” either. you can be 100% straight and 100% ace because they’re not mutually exclusive – one doesn’t cancel out or necessarily act as a modifier to another (unless the ace person is using it that way.) 

on a similar token, being an inclusionist isn’t mutually exclusive with having an extreme distaste for the phrase “actual cishet people” when talking about asexuality. “cishet” isn’t an insult or dismissal, it’s just a descriptive term. 

[nokogiriyama]

yeah i wasnt saying you were an exclusionist but “ok but straight aces are still straight” is an argument used by them to dismiss asexuality as if it was just another way to say “straight without sex”, which as you said is not what that means. for the rest i agree.

also im an inclusionist but this doesnt mean i love cishet people, since as a gay nb person those remain my oppressors. still, i am coherent and i experienced being ace without knowing i was gay and i know how much that hurt so im not gonna dismiss straight ace people’s experiences just bc they’re also straight.

[vrissexist]

we’re in a similar boat, since i ided solely as ace before i knew i was gay as well, and was super open about my asexuality in high school -- in an extremely conservative, rural area lmao, so ofc when straight aces recount their experiences i believe them bc i’ve Been There. i think that’s the nature of intersectionality, where a person’s various identities can overlap and interact with each other without canceling each other out, but i also like to (naively maybe) think most ppl can agree with/understand that take, i.e. “if you’re cis+het+ace you’re cishet and ace, and while cis and het are privileged identities ace is not”, etc

[tiberian]

not 2 start discourse but like. surely if you can be gay and ace or bi and ace then u can also be straight and ace. like I genuinely don’t understand how u can be like “you have to be heterosexual and heteroromantic to be straight, if you’re not one of those two then you’re lgbt” but no ones saying the same thing like “you have to be homoromantic and homosexual to be gay” like I genuinely don’t get it could someone explain

[afabitch]

no, being ace doesn’t cancel out your other attractions. but I don’t understand how you could possibly think cishet non-aces see cishet aces as “”normal”” when they act like sexual attraction is what makes people human

[nokogiriyama]

fun game: tell a straight person your asexual/aromantic, see their reaction. your in for a surprise, i guarantee

[tiberian]

how is that like. related to what I asked

[nokogiriyama]

you still fail to understand that hetero aspecs are not “still het”, they’re still het aroace. just like gay/bi/pan aspecs are still gay/bi/pan aroace. “still het” or “still gay” would imply our asexuality/aromanticisms are modifiers and not real important parts of our identity. if we say “gay aces are still gay” its because we have to remind exclusionists everyday that their useless crusade throws under the bus “real lgbts” too, but instead you use it as an excuse to be dicks and say “but straight aces are still straight lol” like YES, THEY ARE. but they’re still ace too, which is not less important than them being straight, its an orientation on its own. and that makes them not 100% cishets because they dont benefit from all cishet privilege. hence why my comment “tell a cishet person your ace”, since they dont consider us as human. so in conclusion, het aces are still het ACES, not “still het”, and gay aces are still gay ACES, not “still gay”.

[vrissexist]

being 100% cis and het doesn’t cancel out a straight asexual’s orientation because they’re not mutually exclusive. i can’t really grok this argument because it shouldn’t matter – if asexuals have a place in the larger community, then being ace in itself is enough to warrant their inclusion. i’ve seen “The Real Straights/Cis don’t consider me One of Them” used too many times as a defense mechanism from people confronted with their own relative privilege, e.g. “as a gay man, i don’t have full access to cis privilege because i’m not seen as a Real Man/have been misgendered/had transphobic slurs thrown my way”. (without accusing anyone of “recycling rhetoric”, you see this a lot with TERFs who are GNC and deny any inherent cis privilege on that basis.) 

i also don’t really like being Considered Not Human as a basis for inclusion for a few reasons, but a big one is my own experience with the way sexuality intersects with visible disability, which has a really enormous impact on how able-bodied people (straight or otherwise) view you – when efforts to reclaim your sexual agency are met with repulsion or aggressive fetishization, and every day brings a new reminder of how you’re seen as Less Than, it’s hells of demoralizing, and it’d be great if there were more spaces where people could discuss this intersection, both within LGBT+ spaces and outside of them. there’s a nuanced discussion to be had there without saying that a straight wheelchair user isn’t 100% straight because of the rampant desexualization and dehumanization she might face. 

also to be clear i’m not equating asexuality (an orientation) with disability (not an orientation lol) or making an inclusion vs exclusion argument so much as thinking about some personal observations. i just feel like the statement “asexuality is a marginalized/minority orientation and should be included on that basis” is weakened when people bring in phrases like “100% cishet”, “Actual Straights”, etc

[nokogiriyama]

asexuality shoud be included because its an orientation that is not straight, period. the fact that some straight people also ARE asexual means nothing, they’re still het but they’re still ace. asexuality in itself is an orientation that doesnt inherently mean attraction to the opposite gender and is not hetetosexual, that’s why it has to be included and that’s why it IS included.

also yes, actual cishet people consider asexuality as a disorder, illness, something that has to be cured, so asexuality can’t be considered just as a modifier to heterosexuality.

straight asexuals have privilege over gay/bi/pan people but heterosexuals heteroromantics have privilege over straight aces.

its really Not That Difficoult to understand that asexuals dont stop being asexual because they’re also het, just like gay ace people dont stop being ace. the two things can coexist and musn’t be separated, as if being straight and ace were just “the same as being 100% straight but without sex”

[vrissexist]

ftr i’m not an exclusionist and i agree with your first paragraph, but i wasn’t bringing any exclusion vs inclusion argument into it because that wasn’t really what the OP was asking for. i don’t believe straight and ace means you’re “100% straight without sex” either. you can be 100% straight and 100% ace because they’re not mutually exclusive -- one doesn’t cancel out or necessarily act as a modifier to another (unless the ace person is using it that way.) 

on a similar token, being an inclusionist isn’t mutually exclusive with having an extreme distaste for the phrase “actual cishet people” when talking about asexuality. “cishet” isn’t an insult or dismissal, it’s just a descriptive term. 

[tiberian]

not 2 start discourse but like. surely if you can be gay and ace or bi and ace then u can also be straight and ace. like I genuinely don’t understand how u can be like “you have to be heterosexual and heteroromantic to be straight, if you’re not one of those two then you’re lgbt” but no ones saying the same thing like “you have to be homoromantic and homosexual to be gay” like I genuinely don’t get it could someone explain

[afabitch]

no, being ace doesn’t cancel out your other attractions. but I don’t understand how you could possibly think cishet non-aces see cishet aces as “”normal”” when they act like sexual attraction is what makes people human

[nokogiriyama]

fun game: tell a straight person your asexual/aromantic, see their reaction. your in for a surprise, i guarantee

[tiberian]

how is that like. related to what I asked

[nokogiriyama]

you still fail to understand that hetero aspecs are not “still het”, they’re still het aroace. just like gay/bi/pan aspecs are still gay/bi/pan aroace. “still het” or “still gay” would imply our asexuality/aromanticisms are modifiers and not real important parts of our identity. if we say “gay aces are still gay” its because we have to remind exclusionists everyday that their useless crusade throws under the bus “real lgbts” too, but instead you use it as an excuse to be dicks and say “but straight aces are still straight lol” like YES, THEY ARE. but they’re still ace too, which is not less important than them being straight, its an orientation on its own. and that makes them not 100% cishets because they dont benefit from all cishet privilege. hence why my comment “tell a cishet person your ace”, since they dont consider us as human. so in conclusion, het aces are still het ACES, not “still het”, and gay aces are still gay ACES, not “still gay”.

[vrissexist]

being 100% cis and het doesn’t cancel out a straight asexual’s orientation because they’re not mutually exclusive. i can’t really grok this argument because it shouldn’t matter -- if asexuals have a place in the larger community, then being ace in itself is enough to warrant their inclusion. i’ve seen “The Real Straights/Cis don’t consider me One of Them” used too many times as a defense mechanism from people confronted with their own relative privilege, e.g. “as a gay man, i don’t have full access to cis privilege because i’m not seen as a Real Man/have been misgendered/had transphobic slurs thrown my way”. (without accusing anyone of “recycling rhetoric”, you see this a lot with TERFs who are GNC and deny any inherent cis privilege on that basis.) 

i also don’t really like being Considered Not Human as a basis for inclusion for a few reasons, but a big one is my own experience with the way sexuality intersects with visible disability, which has a really enormous impact on how able-bodied people (straight or otherwise) view you -- when efforts to reclaim your sexual agency are met with repulsion or aggressive fetishization, and every day brings a new reminder of how you’re seen as Less Than, it’s hells of demoralizing, and it’d be great if there were more spaces where people could discuss this intersection, both within LGBT+ spaces and outside of them. there’s a nuanced discussion to be had there without saying that a straight wheelchair user isn’t 100% straight because of the rampant desexualization and dehumanization she might face. 

also to be clear i’m not equating asexuality (an orientation) with disability (not an orientation lol) or making an inclusion vs exclusion argument so much as thinking about some personal observations. i just feel like the statement “asexuality is a marginalized/minority orientation and should be included on that basis” is weakened when people bring in phrases like “100% cishet”, “Actual Straights”, etc

[flower-lesbienne]

I'm trying to figure out why people are angry with you for being an ex-terf. Like... You're not a terf anymore. You learned and grew as a person and became better. Isn't that what the goal should be? What, are they mad that you had a change of mind and heart and improved as a person instead of dying when you were still a terf? What lessons would have been learned then, that people with bad ideologies are irredeemable? Jesus...

Yeah I get this pretty much every time I make a post. The point of me not hiding that I’m a former t/erf is to show how people can leave toxic ideologies behind and grow as a person (which I feel I’ve done considerably since leaving the t/erf community) but exclusionists don’t seem to be getting that

[discourseful]

uwu god forbid the transes don’t trust people who used to align with a group that literally wants trans people, especially trans women, dead and constantly spreads rhetoric of trans women being vile rapists… especially when you’re STILL OUT HERE SPEAKING OVER TRANS PEOPLE

[you-arent-queer]

yeah no shit no ones gonna trust you, stop playing victim and acting like we’re being rude or something for not accepting you lol

[flower-lesbienne]

Think you got you’re own issues to deal with dude

[diskhorsedudes]

HOLY SHIT. THIS IS THE SADDEST THING IVE EVER SEEN. You can’t claim to hate terfs but yet you got one that reblogs from you. Wow. You obviously have questionable content on your discourse blog if a literal terf is reblogging from you lmao.

[you-arent-queer]

yeah them saying that im part of a cult is REALLY SOMETHING I GUESS LMAO

y'all LOVE twisting shit around. im deadddd…

[flower-lesbienne]

I’m not twisting anything, terfs reblogging from you is a big problem whether they’re being positive or negative

[vrissexist]

At what point do you step away from the tumblr argument and say "okay, I'm digging myself a deep hole here, time to stop."

Like breaking away from TERF ideology should at least show that you're capable of some self-reflection and critical thought, so why not apply it here? If you're not blaming someone for being harassed by TERFs because they're on the Wrong Side of Discourse, can't you make it seem less like that's what's going on? Or were all the people whose selfies TERF blogs like youre-not-passing reblogged and mocked also just Problematic?

[utena-gay]

got-tori mentioned you in a post

@chisayukizome when i say I’m ace that DOES tell you who I’m attracted to. I’m attracted to no-one. If I actually used ace in conjunction with another identity,then maybe it would be all about sex. But asexuality can stand on its own as a sexuality and isn’t any more inherently sexual than any other sexuality.

Asexuality cannot stand on its own as a sexuality because the definition of asexuality is inherently sexual. The only people who are truly attracted to no one are aroace people. Asexuality has never been about no attraction to no one, it’s always been about an explicit lack of SEXUAL attraction. Which makes it SEXUAL.

I’m fucking asexual, shitlips. I’m gay (not fucking homoromantic don’t you dare call me that) which means I’m attracted to men, and my identifying as asexual says nothing about who I’m fucking attracted to and only how I experience sexual attraction.

Asexuality is not an orientation, cannot stand on its own, and does not describe the genders one is attracted to. Aroace does.

[vrissexist]

I err on the side of “it’s cool if you use the split attraction model (e.g. aroace) as long as you don’t foist it on other people” since it’s not really a universal fixture of the nebulously-defined larger “ace population” so much as an idea that cropped up independently on tumblr sometime in the 2010s. A while back before that the word “asexual” was understood as a counterpart to “bisexual”, “heterosexual”, etc – not attracted to the same gender, or opposite gender, but to no gender. 

Unfortunately there’s no like…. committee regulating the varied definitions of the label, which leads to a lot of contention, but you can probably agree that there can be a happy medium where people respect the fact that you identify as gay and asexual (not homoromantic) and also respect that @got-tori identifies as asexual (not aromantic). 

[utena-gay]

AVEN has literally said you can be straight, gay, bi, pan, lesbian and ace since like… the very beginning. And it was founded in 2002. the split attraction model was created to try and claim that aces can never be straight, it wasn’t the origin of asexual only being about sexual attraction

And you can’t just have multiple definitions of a term that change based on someone’s personal experiences. Either asexual means “lack of sexual attraction” or it means “no attraction to anyone” and it definitely doesn’t mean the latter.

Gay always means “sole attraction to the same gender”. It doesn’t mean “sexual attraction to the same gender but also attracted to the other binary gender”, its definition is sole attraction to the same gender.

Asexual means a lack of sexual attraction, not attraction to no one.

[vrissexist]

The earliest real “stance” you can find from AVEN on the Wayback Machine is “this is a pretty personal identifier and the definition depends on what you find helpful to making sense of your sexuality”, from around 2003. I didn’t start looking into asexuality until around 2006, and it meant “lack of sexual attraction” just as easily as it meant “attraction to no one”, or more commonly “lack of sexual orientation”. It doesn’t mean your personal definition of asexual is wrong, or even that it’s not the most commonly used definition at this point, but people who identify as ace-and-nothing-else aren’t necessarily using that definition. 

Like I have my own opinions on the fact that there are such disparate definitions of the label, but it doesn’t change the fact that people will identify based on their own understanding of what asexual means just by virtue of the fact that the “community” has only been around since like... the 90s. The word “bisexual” has been in common use for a lot longer and people are still arguing over the definition. I can’t throw my lot in with the people who say “actually you mean pan not bi, just identify as that”, or the people who would say you should just identify as homoromantic asexual and not as a gay ace or even just “gay”, but it’d be logically/morally inconsistent for me to be chill with telling someone “no don’t identify as just asexual, you’re aroace actually.”

[utena-gay]

got-tori mentioned you in a post

@chisayukizome when i say I’m ace that DOES tell you who I’m attracted to. I’m attracted to no-one. If I actually used ace in conjunction with another identity,then maybe it would be all about sex. But asexuality can stand on its own as a sexuality and isn’t any more inherently sexual than any other sexuality.

Asexuality cannot stand on its own as a sexuality because the definition of asexuality is inherently sexual. The only people who are truly attracted to no one are aroace people. Asexuality has never been about no attraction to no one, it’s always been about an explicit lack of SEXUAL attraction. Which makes it SEXUAL.

I’m fucking asexual, shitlips. I’m gay (not fucking homoromantic don’t you dare call me that) which means I’m attracted to men, and my identifying as asexual says nothing about who I’m fucking attracted to and only how I experience sexual attraction.

Asexuality is not an orientation, cannot stand on its own, and does not describe the genders one is attracted to. Aroace does.

[vrissexist]

I err on the side of “it’s cool if you use the split attraction model (e.g. aroace) as long as you don’t foist it on other people” since it’s not really a universal fixture of the nebulously-defined larger “ace population” so much as an idea that cropped up independently on tumblr sometime in the 2010s. A while back before that the word “asexual” was understood as a counterpart to “bisexual”, “heterosexual”, etc -- not attracted to the same gender, or opposite gender, but to no gender. 

Unfortunately there’s no like.... committee regulating the varied definitions of the label, which leads to a lot of contention, but you can probably agree that there can be a happy medium where people respect the fact that you identify as gay and asexual (not homoromantic) and also respect that @got-tori identifies as asexual (not aromantic). 

[shadows-discourse]

Why is it so hard for people to understand?

Asexual is not synonymous with not wanting sex

Aromantic is not synonymous with not wanting to date

Cisgendered Heterosexual Aromantic isn’t straight

Cisgendered Asexual Heteroromantic isn’t straight

Literally all being Ace means is not being sexually attracted to anyone. Or, in simpler terms, not being able to look at someone and automatically think “Wow their sexy/hot! I want to have children with them/have sex with them!”

All being Aro means is not being romantically attracted to anyone. In the same vein as before, that means not being able to look at someone and go “I wanna date them right now!”

It’s not hard and yet y’all act like it’s rocket science.

[postdysphoric]

heterosexual and heteroromantic don’t mean straight we were the fools all along

[were-wolfcourse]

Gotta love how straight became the new terf where people water down the meaning into some ambiguous, nebulous group of Those People.

Being ace doesn’t mean you cant be straight, OP.

[shadows-discourse]

Seeing as straight is now used to mean someone who’s all three {cis, heteroromantic, and heterosexual} it’s not really more ambiguous and less ambiguous.

And if you ask the actual cishets it does mean you can’t be straight because it means you’re broken.

[vrissexist]

You absolutely cannot take the split attraction model, an incredibly niche set of labels used by a niche subset of an already niche population, and pretend that suddenly the common use definition of “straight” has changed outside of the “ace discourse” tag on tumblr. There is nothing to be gained by trying to absolve straight cis aces of their straight and cis privilege -- it’s nonsensical. It’s like if a cis gay man said “I don’t benefit from male privilege because cishets don’t count me as a ‘real man!’” Like yes, that might be something a cishet person would say, but that doesn’t mean that a cis gay man doesn’t benefit from male privilege.