The "A" In the Acronym: Why Asexuality Needs Its Own Community

The "A" In the Acronym: Why Asexuality Needs Its Own Community

The merging of asexual and aromantic people with the LGBT+ community is inaccurate and unfair to both parties involved.

The acronym used to address the community of gay, transgender, and people of otherwise marginalized sexuality and/or gender nonconformity has shifted rapidly throughout the recent past, adding, subtracting, and rearranging letters as variously identified groups come forward with their own (often newly coined) labels. LGBT has become LGBTA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and asexual), LGBTQIAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual/aromantic, and pansexual), and even QUILTBAG (queer/questioning, undecided, intersex, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, asexual/aromantic, and gay). Considering the vast extent of labels that many people are choosing to use--often incredibly niche, and typically used in couplings to denote very specific identities, such as “demisexual genderqueer lesbian”--it’s near enough impossible to create an accurate and thoroughly inclusive acronym. Many people, myself included, have settled on “LGBT+”, with the plus sign included to encompass all other queer identities that don’t necessarily fit these “big four.”

Perhaps the most controversial letter of this alphabet soup is the oft-added A, said to stand for asexual, aromantic, and LGBT-allied people. No small amount of intra-community conflict surrounds the latter--while straight and cisgender allies themselves can’t be considered “queer” in any way, the “ally” label has often been used by closeted LGBT+ folks as a way of aligning themselves with their community without putting themselves in danger. Asexual and aromantic folks, however, tend to be frustrated by the co-opting of the letter supposedly meant to refer to them.

There’s a problem here, though, and not just pertaining to the complexity of referencing allyship in our community’s acronym. For a number of reasons, asexual and aromantic people don’t necessarily belong under the LGBT+ umbrella, either.

To start understanding this, let’s break down exactly what it means to be asexual or aromantic. Sexuality in general can be a fluid, nuanced thing (hence the need for ever more specific labels), and recently people have begun to label themselves not only in terms of to whom they are attracted, but also how that attraction manifests. Though no amount of charts and definitions can accurately represent the spectrum of human sexuality, quite a few attempts have been made to do just that. One of these is the binary attraction model, which was prominent in the LGBT+ community for a couple of recent years before eventually being discarded in favor of less scrutinizing labels. The binary attraction model splits sexuality into two types of attraction: sexual and romantic. In theory, then, a person could be sexually attracted to people of all genders, while only being romantically attracted to women. The inevitable blurring of these two “separate” types of attraction tended to make such distinctions unnecessarily complicated, though, and often spurred uncertainty in people who had previously considered their sexualities to be “figured out” -- hence the decrease in use of the model as more and more people pointed out its flaws.

One part of this model, however, is still presently retained: the separation of sexual and romantic attraction as it pertains to people who only experience one of them.

Asexuality, then, is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone of any gender, while aromanticism is the lack of romantic attraction. Like everything else, these identities exist on a spectrum; someone who rarely experiences such attraction might label themself as “demiromantic” or “demisexual,” to name one of the many names given to the shades of gray between asexuality/aromanticism and their opposite, sometimes called “allosexuality” and “alloromanticism.” (There are a number of problems with these terms, not the least of which being the way in which it clumps gay and straight people together, thus imposing the role of the oppressive majority upon severely marginalized LGBT+ people.) Asexuality (and aromanticism, of course) can be just as inherent as any other sexuality, and there’s nothing implicitly wrong with them. However, they do not constitute “queerness” in and of themselves.

The vast stretch of historical oppression of LGBT+ people manifests, loosely, in violence towards two groups: those who experience same-gender attraction, and those who don’t align themselves with cisnormativity--that is, they are transgender and/or nonbinary (or even extremely butch while identifying as cis female--though gender and sexuality are very different things, they are inextricably entwined to a certain extent, especially when it comes to queer issues). The formation of a supportive LGBT+ community, of course, emerged as a response to this oppression: it exists as a safe space in which hetero- and cisnormativity as a whole is rejected, and in which LGBT+ people can be themselves without fear of aggression. Of course, everything is imperfect, and flawless solidarity has never quite been achieved, but a degree of kinship exists in response to the mutual experience of having been hurt at the hands of the heteropatriarchy--an experience that asexual and aromantic people do not necessarily have.

Again, that ugly adverb. To elucidate: as I mentioned before, someone may be asexual while still experiencing romantic attraction, or vice versa. If that attraction happens to be to people of the same gender, then of course the person in question would belong in the LGBT+ community. The same goes if our theoretical asexual also happened to be trans. Asexuality and aromanticism alone are not grounds for exclusion--but they aren’t for inclusion, either. Because if someone can be asexual and gay, they can also be asexual and straight. And it’s here, in the implication that asexuality gives a straight, cisgender person a place in the LGBT+ community, that the problem arises.

We find ourselves in the same position as we did with the conflict over “ally” being included in the LGBT+ acronym: the question of accepting cis and straight people into our community, into our safe space. A straight and cis asexual person has never experienced violence due to their same-gender attraction or their unconventional gender identity. They don’t, in a word, have that key experience that necessitated the formation of a community in the first place.

At the same time, though, asexual and aromantic people don’t quite fit in with the straight community, either--especially people who consider themselves to be both asexual and aromantic, and therefore aren’t straight, but aren’t gay, either. Asexuality isn’t a trivial thing--it can be hugely central to one’s identity, and while it doesn’t spark violent oppression, it may still result in a degree of rejection, alienation, or dismissal by straight people who don’t fall on the asexual or aromantic spectrum.

There exists, therefore, the need for an asexual and aromantic community, in the same way that an LGBT+ community exists now. While the overlap between the two is tremendous, blending them together is inaccurate and troubling. Both groups of people experience different issues, and both deserve spaces in which to address those issues and seek refuge from the danger and displeasure of the cisnormative heteropatriarchy. But those spaces are simply not one and the same, and it’s time for that to be recognized.

Cover Image Credit: Wikipedia

Popular Right Now

16 Things You Know To Be True If Your Name Is Emily

*Immediately sends to five other friends named Emily*

Emily. The name of legends, great poets and just overall fabulous people. Emily has been ranked among one of the most popular girl's names for literally decades, so it's no secret that people named Emily definitely have a few things to bond over.

1. You have very specific preferences on being called Em, Emmy or Emmers.

And most likely only *some* people are given this privilege.

2. Every time you meet someone named Emily you instantly bond.

OMG, our parents were some of the most unoriginal people ever! Besties!

3. But secretly, you like to think of yourself as the better Emily.

Sorry not sorry.

4. Your middle name is probably Ann, Elizabeth or Marie.

Because your name is as basic as it gets.

5. You take great pride in knowing that you were the inspiration for names like Emma, Emmy and Emmaline.

And maybe you're a little jealous that your parents didn't at least try to do something a little more unique.

6. Whether it's work or school you always have to share your name with someone.

So you're probably used to attaching the first letter of your last name or broin' out and using your last name like some sort of athlete.

7. On the flip side, you were ALWAYS able to find your name on keychains growing up.

8. And unless your barista is feeling extra grouchy, it's impossible to get your name wrong on your Starbucks cup.

Unless you're one of those Emily's that spells it like Emmaleigh... *judging you*

9. Because at least you have a name no one has to ask how to spell.

Unless, well, see above.

10. You have spent hours perfecting the ideal "E" for your signature.

Do you make a backwards "3" or do you do a loopy lowercase "e?" The choice is yours.

11. And you definitely went through a phase where you dotted the "i" in hearts.

Because you just wanted to go for that extra ~GiRlY~ effect.

12. Your friends know better than to call your name in a public place.

Unless they want at least three people turning around.

13. Someone has texted you thinking they're talking to a different Emily.

Nope, nope. I'm Emily G., not Emily L.

14. You can appreciate that when you write the word Emily it's perfectly even on both sides.

15. And contains the perfect amount of loops.

16. Because while it might be super common, it's popular for a reason

Cover Image Credit: M Star News

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

A Day In Immigration Court

"America is a nation founded by immigrants" could not be more true in this space.


This past month, I started my summer internship with a local immigration attorney. Throughout the summer, I will be observing the day-to-day responsibilities of an immigration law office, which includes observing client appointments, compiling evidence and legal research for cases, and attending hearings at the federal immigration court in New York City. Immigration court is vastly different than anything I had ever experienced, and the harsh reality of the American immigration system manifests itself in the immigration courts themselves. Yet after only a couple of days witnessing various hearings in court, I want to look beyond the inefficiencies ingrained in our current immigration system and instead paint a picture so that you can understand the underlying effects of the American dream taking place.

There are two floors designated for the immigration courts in the federal building. After exiting the elevator, there is an overwhelming presence of individuals and family units awaiting their presence in court. One time I saw a woman holding a baby that was days old outside of the courtroom. Courtrooms are numbered and labeled with the last name of the immigration judge on the door, and individuals are expected to wait outside with either an attorney, accredited representation, or any other people accompanying the respondent before his or her trial.

Aside from the large conglomerate of immigrants on this floor, there are multiple signs taped to the walls contain directions in languages, including Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, etc. While on these floors, you cannot help but be surrounded by different people, languages, and cultures. In its essence, this is the presence of the American "melting pot" at its finest. There is something inherently beautiful about intersecting cultures and ways of life, and being in the presence of such different people can allow yourself to open your eyes to such different perspectives. Is that not what America is about?

The popular saying, "America is a nation founded by immigrants" could not be more true in this space.

Since my first time at immigration court, I have witnessed individuals win and individuals lose their case. However, a loss does not have to be the end for some individuals. There is an option to appeal the decision from the immigration judge to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) within thirty days. In cases where the individual receives legal status, it feels as though a large burden is placed off of the individual's shoulders. No longer do they have to struggle through the American immigration system after years of perseverance, and in some cases, individuals can move towards becoming an American citizen.

It is almost funny to think that my presence in a government building could spark an inspirational motivator. However, I think my experience in immigration court is more humbling than anything. It puts into perspective the lengths that individuals take to make their case in front of a judge. For them, America is worth fighting for. Although there are various inefficiencies within the current immigration system, I am not trying to romanticize the reality of immigration court. Most of the time, the lines are long, interpreters are unavailable, and cases are more difficult than ever to win. However, instead of focusing on these points, I think it is important to re-focus on the bigger picture behind the immigration courts, realizing the positives amidst all of the negatives.

Although this is only the beginning of my internship, I am excited to see where this opportunity will lead me. I am excited to hear the stories of others, which showcase their determination against hardship and persecution. And I am determined to not only witness but also initiate change first-hand, one case at a time.

Related Content

Facebook Comments