'The A stands for Ally'

There was an era (1990s? I feel old) when "A" was routinely used in "LGBTA" and "LGBTQIA" to mean "ally," at least where I lived. As others have said, this was a time when fewer people were out, and including allies gave cover for people who were closeted to more safely participate. Asexuality was less visible in parts of pop culture then, too. I'm mentioning this context, because for people who didn't live through it, the outdated usages might seem less defensible. That said, I'm not defending the video linked above; it is off/outdated; and I'm +1 to what kuwisdelu said. Allies don't need to be named.

mccardey said:

My feeling? Allies are allies, and choose to be allies. No letter required.

Click to expand...

RedRajah said:

Except some seem to insist on having one...

Click to expand...

Which smacks of what's happened over the years to the culture: people claiming to be allies come in and take over our spaces.

BenPanced said:

Which smacks of what's happened over the years to the culture: people claiming to be allies come in and take over our spaces.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not ok. Guests are not residents.

Myrealana said:

As an ally, I don't need to be identified as part of a group. That's kind of the point of being an ally, isn't it?

I mean, I don't expect to see #BlackandAlliedLivesMatter T-shirts.

Click to expand...

Yes, this. Speaking as an ally, my gut feeling is that insisting on a place in the acronym can sometimes actually REDUCE the power of our voice to reach the people who most need to hear it (i.e., the straight/cis people in power).

AW Admin said:

Yeah, that's not ok. Guests are not residents.

Click to expand...

But they can become squatters.

I don't see the acronym category as being affirmative/active genders and orientations, that is exactly the sort of the lens that asexuals are erased by and the form the discrimination against them takes. Sexuality and romance are not different from gender in having "N/A" as an option.

I see it as being about minorities in relation to gender and orientation. Because being a minority is what powers the discrimination. The category is for all gender/sexuality minorities and the letters just help people appreciate who some of them are. In that scheme the question might be, are allies still minorities? IMHO, probably.

I also see it as super-similar to bi-erasure and the rejection of non-fixed-binary-affirmative categories. It is like "gay" especially "gay male" somehow "owns" the non-heterosexual space sometimes.

amergina said:

TBH, a lot of the discussion that I see pertaining to why ace/aro people can't be under the LGBT+ umbrella is very similar to the discussions I see about how bi people are just faking it and are either really straight or just closeted gay or lesbians, so why do we need the B?

Click to expand...

I'm just curious, what is it about asexuality that makes it LGBT?

Aces generally use the split attraction model, and therefore, can be cishet. If someone is heteroromantic asexual, does that not make them straight? If someone is cis asexual, then does that not make them cis?

Asexuality describes how someone experiences attraction, not who they are attracted to.

This is coming from someone who's aspec bi. I don't think it's erasure to say that asexuality isn't LGBT if they are exclusively attracted romantically, if not sexually, to people of another gender.

But that's just my two cents.

Asexuals are valid and brilliant.
Aromantics are valid and brilliant.
Allies are valid and brilliant.

When I was reading the first few posts I was ready to froth and rage against the 'Allies taking over everything' nonsense as per usual, but AW Admin's post has really reminded me how many folks have to be Allies because it's not safe for them to be anything else.

Hell, I'm in the fairly-open-minded UK and I'm queer as hell on the internet but I can only fly the 'ally' banner at work. I tried being quietly queer to a small group of work-friends, and it went... badly.

So, I'm just going going to try and keep my chin up this month and assume good intentions. I'm going to assume Equinox were aiming to help, not harm, and they'll learn from this and do better.

That said, anyone who thinks Ace and Aro folks don't belong under the rainbow umbrella can get in the sea.

miss marisa said:

I'm just curious, what is it about asexuality that makes it LGBT?

Aces generally use the split attraction model, and therefore, can be cishet. If someone is heteroromantic asexual, does that not make them straight? If someone is cis asexual, then does that not make them cis?

Asexuality describes how someone experiences attraction, not who they are attracted to.

Click to expand...

Asexual literally means 'not sexually attracted to anyone'. It's a sexuality. It says it right there on the tin.

This is coming from someone who's aspec bi. I don't think it's erasure to say that asexuality isn't LGBT if they are exclusively attracted romantically, if not sexually, to people of another gender.

But that's just my two cents.

Click to expand...

Aces and Aros don't default to heterosexuality, though. That's not a thing. So it's ridiculous to assume that an Ace/Aro is hetero, and it's ridiculous to 'erase' them because of a made up idea that they're straight.

And that's not even touching on the difficulties they face trying to navigate an immensely sexualised world with social stigma against people not in or interested in relationships. Our world is bloody hard on Aro/Ace folks.

EMaree said:

Asexual literally means 'not sexually attracted to anyone'. It's a sexuality. It says it right there on the tin.

Click to expand...

Asexuality is a spectrum. There's varying degrees of how one can experience asexuality.

EMaree said:

Aces and Aros don't default to heterosexuality, though. That's not a thing. So it's ridiculous to assume that an Ace/Aro is hetero, and it's ridiculous to 'erase' them because of a made up idea that they're straight.

And that's not even touching on the difficulties they face trying to navigate an immensely sexualised world with social stigma against people not in or interested in relationships. Our world is bloody hard on Aro/Ace folks.

Click to expand...

I agree that ace people face discrimination and once again, I'm aspec. I'm not in this to erase my own identity. Saying cishet aces are cishet is not erasure.

Aces don't automatically experience no attraction to anyone. Aces can be in relationships, and often are. That means they experience romantic attraction. If they're exclusively attracted to those of another gender that is not their own, that means they're straight. No matter how they experience their attraction.

amergina said:

Someone can be trans and straight, too. Should we toss trans folks out because of that?

Asexuality is a sexual orientation. Aromanticism is a romantic orientation. Both are not at all common. Both are seen as odd and wrong and strange in a way that allosexual straight people are not.

If someone cannot comprehend that, then there's not much I can do to explain it.

I'll keep fighting to not erase ace/aro people and to make space for them under the rainbow umbrella.

Click to expand...

Nope, because they're not cis. As I said, I'm talking about cishet aces.

Saying that aro/aces should be LGBT because they're seen as "odd" and "strange" is troubling. Does that mean we should start including people with kinks in the community? I mean, they're also seen as "odd" by vanilla people.

Albedo said:

"Cishet, used as both an adjective and a noun, describes a person who is both cisgender and heterosexual."
Given asexuals are not heterosexual, how could we be 'cishet'? You could maybe make a case that aromantic people with hetero attraction were straight, but that would ignore the fact that they're still marginalised in an extremely amatonormative world by their own experience of sexuality.

Asexuality describes a lack of sexual attraction. Some asexuals are romantically attracted to the same or the opposite sex, others to neither, but they're all asexual, which precludes being heterosexual.

Click to expand...

So are you saying that asexuals never experience romantic attraction? Het can also mean heteromantic. And asexuality doesn't automatically preclude someone from heterosexuality. Aces can still experience sexual attraction; that's why the term gray-ace exists. Therefore, they are still considered straight if they experience romantic/sexual attraction in any form.

amergina said:

miss marisa, it sounds like your saying that because there are some heteromantic asexuals out there and heterosexual aromanics out there, no one who is ace or aro can ever be considered LGBT.

Basically, that if het is part of you identity, you are automatically not included as falling under the rainbow umbrella and are the same as straight allo cis people.

Click to expand...

That would be really weird, considering I'm aspec and also LGBT.

Yes, straight people are straight. And straight people don't belong in the LGBT. I don't understand why that's controversial?

eta It's not that "some" aces are asexual. Most people who identify only as ace experience heteromantic or varying degrees of heterosexual attraction. Aka they're straight.

...If hetero relationships mean you don't belong under the rainbow umbrella, does that mean all us bi folks have to remove ourselves from the premises when we're not dating our own gender? Or do we just phase in and out of reality as required, flickering like spooky ghosts while people argue that we're not real?

~floats around making tea~

EMaree said:

...If hetero relationships mean you don't belong under the rainbow umbrella, does that mean all us bi folks have to remove ourselves from the premises when we're not dating our own gender? Or do we just phase in and out of reality as required, flickering like spooky ghosts while people argue that we're not real?

~floats around making tea~

Click to expand...

I'm bi and I do tend to flicker in and out of existence like a ghost, so sounds about right.

Bisexuality describes who we're attracted to. Asexuality describes how we experience sexual attraction.

miss marisa said:

Most people who identify only as ace experience heteromantic or varying degrees of heterosexual attraction. Aka they're straight.

Click to expand...

Got any sources to back that up, or is that simply your opinion?

miss marisa said:

Yes, straight people are straight. And straight people don't belong in the LGBT. I don't understand why that's controversial?

eta It's not that "some" aces are asexual. Most people who identify only as ace experience heteromantic or varying degrees of heterosexual attraction. Aka they're straight.

Click to expand...

Romance and sexuality isn't that clean-cut. This is difficult for us to accept, as humans, because labels and boxes are reassuring and help us understand and learn. But really, that's what it comes down to.

We don't get to gatekeep who's QUILTBAG and who isn't. It's not our right.

There are more queers in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your acronyms.

be frank said:

Got any sources to back that up, or is that simply your opinion?

Click to expand...

Do you have any sources that only "some" aces are hetero?

EMaree said:

Romance and sexuality isn't that clean-cut. This is difficult for us to accept, as humans, because labels and boxes are reassuring and help us understand and learn. But really, that's what it comes down to.

We don't get to gatekeep who's QUILTBAG and who isn't. It's not our right.

There are more queers in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your acronyms.

Click to expand...

I think it's my right to not want straight people in the LGBT community.

miss marisa said:

Do you have any sources that only "some" aces are hetero?

Click to expand...

I'm not the one who made an assertion. You make the claim, you back it up.

miss marisa said:

Do you have any sources that only "some" aces are hetero?

Click to expand...

Isn't this kind of like debating whether or not an atheist is a Christian atheist or a Hindu atheist?

It's not check A or B; it's A, B, both, or neither.

(clueless outsider question)

Up-thread, there's somebody *in this thread* identifying *themself* as both asexual and not heterosexual.

be frank said:

I'm not the one who made an assertion. You make the claim, you back it up.

Click to expand...

As I said, all this is my two cents. You don't have to agree with me. I can't whip out an asexual census.