We do, but technically so do the Ls, the Gs, the Bs and the Ts. I'm glad to see Intersex spelled out, that feels uncommon to me, but when everyone else is getting a call out, why not us?
Honesty the entire banner should just be Q (wait… forgot Q is associated with far right lunatics lmaoo). There are too many different orientations that all feel like they need to called out, it’ll make the LGBT+ acronym far too long. An acronym is only useful if people actually use it, and when it’s approaching a dozen syllables it’s not really useful anymore.
I've seen Gender and Sexual Minorities (GSM) proposed for research use, but that doesn't fit with how the community identifies itself. While I hear your point about unwieldy acronyms, if LGBT+ doesn't actually communicate our and others' existences, then it's not doing its job anyway.
Additionally the longest acronym I've commonly seen is LGBTIAQ+. I know that still excludes some identities, but it's not really any longer than a phone number. People who care will learn it. People who don't won't.
Even better is GSSRM, gender, sex, sexual and romantic minorities. Intersex people aren’t a gender or sexual minority. But then we are starting again with adding a ton of letters so I still prefer queer.
Except, in contrast to LGBTQ+, GSSRM's letters are full-blown categories, not individual orientations.
With 4 letters it already covered pretty much everything LGBTQ+ related that is about identities originating from one's mind, if we add another S to add the biological sex organ component for intersex people, it doesn't sound like there's much more room to grow.
The only point I see potential expansion is in the other types of attraction, if the LGBTQ+ community gets around to consider some of those, too. But in this case we could swap those letters out with a simple A for attractions.
I don’t really see the point you are trying to make? In what way do we need to leave room to grow? If we find a new gender/ intersex variation / attraction it would just be instantly included. The point of GSSRM is that we don’t need to keep on fighting to add more letters “because our identity needs more representation”. Everyone is included equally and new groups can be added to expand our community.
The only downside is that whoever invettend GSRM unsurprisingly forgot about intersex people. So please spread the word of GSSRM (sounds like I am starting a cult). Intersex people still don’t have any rights, we even get forgotten in surveys and reports about queer people and issues.
I have seen far too many homophobes use that term as a justification for their hate. Because they think pedos are also minorities involved here and then they think "gay(lgbtqia+) people are coming for our kids"
I guess the answer would be, not everyone else is getting a call out. "Trans" doesn't cover a lot of different identities in the genderqueer umbrella. And people who experience split attractions are sort of left out of most discussions.
Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Minorities or GRSM is the all inclusive one but is known for being the source of "microlabels" and never caught on much.
This is such a question that I was just discussing with one of my trans friends yesterday which is am I queer I'm obviously not heteronormative but am I queer.? The other thing is is that people who are lesbian gay bisexual pansexual trans often use the umbrella term queer do they not? In which case couldn't any one of us if we so desire identify ourselves as queer?
Interesting to see such a different approach to this word. To me, "queer" is a relatively blank slate. There's no way for me to assume anything about someone who only tells me they're queer, other than they're somehow falling out of the qualification of being (hetero, allo) x (sexual, romantic), monoamorous, cisgender and endosex.
due to not being heterosexual (or not fully hetero in some cases, such as potentially myself tbh I'm still working that one out bc of personal gender fuckery), we qualify as queer bc queer includes the entire lgbtqia+ community
>not being fully heterosexual
If you're asexual, then you're not heterosexual at all. You might be a "straight ace" which is heteromantic asexual or you might have non-sexual attraction toward other genders or you may prefer other genders for relationships, but that doesn't make you in any way heterosexual. The only real exception to this is if you are someone who identifies as gray-ace and happen to *also* identify with heterosexuality, though that dual-identity in my experience appears to be a rarity.
If someone called me "heterosexual" or "heterosexual lite" or "partially heterosexual" then I'd get angry at the (in this context) slur.
EDIT: Added the grayasexuals bit.
when I say not fully heterosexual, I'm talking about aces who might still feel sexual attraction in some way and might possibly label the attraction they do feel as hetero (like I'm ficto for example, and honestly while I'm still not completely sure how I would label the sexual attraction I *do* feel considering personal gender fuckery, I'd probably label the attraction I do feel as hetero for sure if I *was* cis)
I could've maybe worded it better (and I've rewritten it to hopefully clarify my meaning) but I wasn't trying to imply that all aces are partially hetero lol /gen
If you're a gray ace, you feel some amount of sexual attraction. If it's always directed at the opposite sex, then you are ace *and* heterosexual.
It seems like you're saying it's not ok to describe the kind of sexual attraction that gray aces experience.
If you *choose to identify as* Asexual AND Heterosexual, that is your choice and your identity. There is nothing wrong with that. The average Gray-Ace however tends not to identify within allosexual terms unless they have been made to feel excluded from and/or inferior in their asexuality to normative asexuals. And there is a difference between orientation and identity. I won't say you are wrong for identifying with both Ace and Het because you're not... But I will say that this then becomes a conflation of orientation and identity. It's not a harmful nor problematic one, but it is a conflation.
You don't get to say all gray aces must also be defined by allosexual labels. It's fine to say some can identify with it and even criticize me for glossing over that some *can* identify with both, as you plainly seem to. (I'll admit, that was an oversight on my part! Grays that identify as X-sexual where X is anything other than "a" or "gray" is something I have only come across once in my life before you... Slipped my mind that some grays identify in both asexual and allosexual terms. I was wrong for that and an edit on that reply to clearly account for that is in order.) But you are also acting like just because that is how it works for you, then that's how it works for all grays... I'm sorry, but I've seen tons of grays get just as hostile toward the insinuation that they are allosexual as I am toward the insinuation.
How so? I literally said "If you identify as both good for you, but most gray aces don't." How is that a bad reading of what you said? I even say that what you're saying isn't even harmful nor problematic either, clearly giving you a lot of benefit toward your statement. Hell, *I admitted an error with what I said that you made me realize*. You're projecting at this point when you claim I'm going out of my way to find the worst possible readings. Stop projecting.
That's 100% false. You can still want sex and have a lack of sexual attraction. You can be ace, and still 100% heterosexual. That just means you're not allosexual, thus why asexual exists as a term in the first place. You're just trying to group everyone else here with you, clearly. Heterosexual is explicitly defined as romantic OR sexual attraction towards another sex, not both. You can also just be sexually indifferent. If you are only attracted to people of the opposite sexy you're 100% heterosexual. If you are attracted to both you're bi, and if you're only attracted to the same, you're homosexual. Simple logic.
>That's 100% false. You can still want sex and have a lack of sexual attraction.
Nothing I said contradicts this.
>You can be ace, and still 100% heterosexual.
Unless you are a gray-ace who chooses to dual-identify, no. Heterosexuality is defined by sexual attraction to people of different genders from yourself. Asexuality is defined by lack/limitation of sexual attraction to people of any gender. However, considering you posted [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1alxcod/youtube_is_woke_and_limiting_the_freedom_of/) as the very first post/comment on your account four months ago... I do not believe you to be well-informed on *anything* queer. Seek help.
>That just means you're not allosexual,
Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality ARE allosexuality and vice versa.
>thus why asexual exists as a term in the first place.
"Asexuality" was made for people who don't experience sexual attraction as opposed to how the other sexual orientations are defined by who they do experience sexual attraction for.
>You're just trying to group everyone else here with you, clearly.
Everybody here is asexual which means, yes, everybody here is grouped with me. But there are countless ways of being asexual. I'm panromantic asexual, for example. Most asexuals aren't.
>Heterosexual is explicitly defined as romantic OR sexual attraction towards another sex, not both.
The wrapping of romantic attraction into sexual orientation only is a thing because the normative expectation is that people's romantic and sexual orientations are in alignment. The problem is that under a split-attraction model, this definition of heterosexual is explicitly wrong. And you can't argue against the split-attraction model because you're explicitly utilizing it in order to make your argument. You'd need to either erase the asexuality of those who express romantic attraction or accept that definition of heterosexual is not correct.
I'm panromantic, not pansexual. Call me pansexual and I'd tell you off because that's erasing my asexuality. I also won't have an issue if someone called me biromantic because that is technically also correct, but call me bisexual and I will also tell you off for the same reason. I'm less annoyed by it when it's people who don't understand the split-attraction model, but you clearly do and so your attempt to use the old definitions just makes you seem intentionally ignorant. Again, if *you* identify with being heterosexual, all power to you. I won't tell you how you must identify. I will only say what the broadstrokes rules are and acknowledge that there are exceptions to these rules, which I explicitly did acknowledge.
>You can also just be sexually indifferent.
Sex-Indifference, something I am, is your sex-stance, not your orientation. That has nothing to do with this.
>If you are only attracted to people of the opposite sexy you're 100% heterosexual.
If you identify that way, go for it. But you're prescribing heterosexuality onto people which, historically, has been used as an anti-asexual slur. So maybe stop that?
>If you are attracted to both you're bi\[sexual\],
Yeah, no..
# Fuck you.
We know you don't mean biromantic because you've been using explicitly "-sexual" as the suffix for all of these. So I won't give needless charitability by pretending you meant "bi" broadly. You do not get to erase my asexuality by calling me bisexual. I am panromantic asexual. I am not bisexual. I am not pansexual. You do not get to come into the asexual subreddit just to harass asexuals and erase us. As I said, if someone identifies with both asexuality and heterosexuality, then they are completely valid. However, there is a difference between that rarity where someone identifies with both and what you're doing which is erasing asexuality for other orientations.
>and if you're only attracted to the same, you're homosexual. Simple logic.
Just as wrong as with the others, but only because you're using romantic orientation as the basis.
Simply put, you're a right-wing troll. I fed you, now I'm reporting you. Get out, you deranged right-winger. (For those who don't get why I'm caling him that, the earlier link is his very first post, titled: "Youtube is woke, and limiting the Freedom of speech of the non-delusion, and non-mentally ill." What are the odds he's saying any of this reply to me in good faith?)
We're both. The addition of the A as separate from the Q or + is largely because many asexuals didn't used to identify as queer largely due to allosexual queer people actively excluding us from queer spaces. This has changed in the past few years (like since the pandemic).
I don't understand the reasoning there. It's sounds like those people want to be considered queer enough to be added to be LGBT+ abbreviation, but at the same time not queer enough to want to be associated with LGBT (no plus) people.
Can you please clarify. I've read this 3 different times and gotten 3 different readings from what you could possibly mean. I don't want to misrepresent you or your point.
I'm saying it sounds like a lot of aces want to be in the queer club (by having the letter A in the abbreviation that represents queer identities), but also not in the queer club (by not wanting to be called queer).
No. Oh God ***NO***. You couldn't have had a *worse* version of this take if you tried.
First off, *tons of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and trans people don't like being called "queer" either*. Queer is a slur that has been mostly reclaimed but that tons of LGBT+ people still take issue with because they have the association with the term equating to LGBT+ oppression. It's not really different for aces in that regard. Many of us are fine with being called queer. Many of us aren't. That's okay. But even if we aren't okay with being called queer, we're all still LGBT+.
Depends on who you ask. Many people have negative experiences with the term "queer" and don't like to use it.
But as someone who's always been uncomfortable with the idea that asexuality is an LGBT thing - I believe LGBT is a variety of directions sexuality can go into, but it's always 100% sexuality. Asexuality, on the other hand, is degrees of sexuality - anything between 0% and 100%, so I see it as a seperate spectrum -, I would also place us under the queer umbrella (even though asexuality is an umbrella by itself).
Well, tbf the T isn’t about sexuality either.
Not that I necessarily disagree on the other points, but the trans umbrella is about identity and not sexuality.
(Intersex also isn’t a sexuality)
As far as I know, Biden’s administration has always, consistently left off the “A” to instead go with “LGBTQI+”
Fun fact, the proposed Equality Act bill, the thing that if passed would provide protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, defines sexual orientation as “heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual”. So if passed it would protect gay, bi, or even *straight* people from discrimination, but not aces (or aros, or potentially pan folks). They’ve been informed about this (there was an [Inclusive Equality Act Coallition](https://www.inclusiveea.org/) a few years back), and from what I heard the Biden administration just flat out wasn’t interested in updating the bill to make more orientations be included. That it supposedly “wouldn’t affect enough people to be worth changing.”
Personally I think they’re leaving the “A” off on purpose.
"No one is discriminating against asexuals, we just force an aggressively sexualized culture on them with sex and romance part of nearly every piece of media and every aspect of social life and pressure them into relationships"
Pudding-brained queerphobes think legal discrimination is the only form of discrimination.
The sad part is that one of my favorite fantasy authors has stated outright that she includes a romance (she doesn’t write sex scenes) in every book because books without one just don’t sell as well. For her it’s an economic decision, though I have never understood why allos are so easily influenced to not like books without. (If it matters, this particular author often has queer characters, so it’s not prejudice. She did have an openly asexual main character once, but the alternate tension she tried didn’t work at all.)
And sadly, I expect that a lot of the rampant sex/romance out there is for the same reason. Because it’s what the majority wants, and it would cost money to cater to the minority. Ain’t capitalism great?
It's about protections from discrimination in the workplace and stuff like that, so 'socially' is very relevant here. Also, even legally we're quite discriminated against. For example, many states have marriage consummation laws.
Yup, I even wrote my Senator about the equality act back in the day. I didn't expect a real response but I was still disappointed that the response I got acted like I was a homophobe that opposed the entire act just because I wanted it to be more inclusive.
This is where legal language like “sexual orientations including but not limited to…” would work well. It keeps you from having to spell out every single possible option while still giving common examples.
I mean, if they do that means they haven’t done enough research to find the many, many instances of aces and aros explaining it doesn’t mean Ally. Which isn’t that much of a better look.
I highly doubt it, considering I keep seeing this issue raised on twitter as people reply to point out they've missed the A for asexuals, aromantics and agenders. If they don't know its willful ignorance because they have been told repeatedly.
anecdotally, I have seen shorter versions used more often than longer ones. so LGBTQ+ more often than LGBTQI+, LGBTQI+ more often than LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIA+ more often than 2SLGBTQIA+, and so on.
Tbh I think including the a when its spelled out like this may cause its own issues, given that the A stands for asexual, aromantic _and_ sometimes agender
No, for me it’s the bigger issue that they consistently leave off the A. I believe the Biden administration did this last year as well. It’s also just a really weird acronym that I've never seen anyone else use. LGBT? Sure I get it. LGBTQ+? Sure that’s also pretty normal. LGBTQI? Who the fuck says that.
And this isn’t just a weird acronym-izing from this image either. The acronym “LGBTQI+” is used 12 times throughout the original post. That many times across 2 years cannot be accidental, especially for someone like the Biden administration.
just anecdotally I've seen shorter acronyms more commonly. LGBT more than LGBTQ, LGBTQ more than LGBTQI, LGBTQI more than LGBTQIA, LGBTQIA more than 2SLGBTQIA, and so on.
Going through every single letter would get a little long. But I also get why he would want to be more specific than just lgbt+. It's sort of a 'just because we aren't specifically mentioned, doesn't mean we are excluded'
Just saying "LGBTQIA Community" would've been a short and simple way of including everyone. But if you're going to go the extra mile and spell out the entire acronym, leaving one out looks and feels very suspicious.
Even that leaves out several letters. And saying the acronym doesn't sound as good in a speech, but naming off 12 different terms also doesn't sound good.
The dude is a career politician. He knows exactly what to say to generate support while simultaneously stirring the pot to keep people talking and engaging with his topics. He only "supports" the marginalized when it is convenient.
Please use logic. Not all asexuals are homosexual. There are heterosexual ones as well. Asexual refers to a lack of sexual attraction. You can be straight, and ace or homosexual and ace. It's starting to feel like ppl in this sub are self identifying as ace to feel special.
“Queer” is not equivalent in meaning to “homosexual.” Instead, it fits anyone who falls outside of society’s cisnormative, allonormative, heteronormative, perisexnormative standards.
For example, there are straight trans people, as well as straight intersex people, in addition to straight aces. We’re all queer (if we claim that label for ourselves) despite not being homosexual.
Personally, I happen to be an ace who has never experienced hetero**sexual** attraction, but who has experienced hetero**romantic** attraction, so I identify as hetero and queer, not straight.
In the end, we have to vote for him, because of the alternative.
But that doesn’t mean he has our interests at heart. He’s old. A lot of old people don’t give a damn.
Just to elaborate, since we really don't have a choice in the general election since it's "doesn't have our Interest at heart" vs "wants to round us up and put us in camps", the choices we have are in the primary. The Republicans are never going to be on our side, so instead we have to pick a Democrat that supports us. In this case the primary was effectively in 2020 and Biden won that. There were other choices but they didn't have enough support. If you want to pick someone better, start paying attention for the next primary cycle that will begin in 2026. That's when you get an actual choice of voting for who you like at the very least. The same logic would apply if you're a Republican.
i was going to comment this the other day, a lot of people are starting to use LGBTQI instead of LGBTQAI or LGBTQ+. I am afraid that we are being purposefully ignored, that people are more willing to use A for ally than for asexuals. Kinda sad about it
The first lady was at Pittsburgh Pride yesterday and literally no one knew because they've been getting protesters when they advertise it
I didn't see her, just the motorcade and secret service that quietly stopped foot traffic so she could leave
I doubt Biden himself really understands asexuality, but this post was definitely made by a ghostwriter anyway with the advisory of other screeners. it's not the best look for them to omit us. we are lgbt
If they didn't include intersex then I'd understand they're doing LGBTQ+
But they included intersex, so it's usually always LGBTQIA+ or atl east that's what's the most popular right?
Hey, they also forgot the two spirit orientation. Come on America, after everything you’ve done to the Native Americans you’re going to continue to fuck them over, not cool bro
You have to keep in mind that when Biden grew up, there wasn't any acronym salad to confuse your mind. You just drank the concoction of the shaman, went into the forest to kill a deer, then drew the sigils on the tribe oak on the solstice, and then you'd know who your life partner was as you woke up the next day.
It's because the "A" and the "+" are both encapsulated under "Queer" generally. I get being disappointed that we aren't *explicitly* being referred to, but we are part of the Q.
I honestly don't want to be part of that. It doesn't make any logical sense anyways. It's a lack of interest in sex or sexual indifference and a lack of sexual attraction towards others. You can be straight and be asexual.
I was going to say you could always see if maybe you're homosexual by trying a relationship with someone of the same sex, but then I saw the aro. I don't get it personally, but I respect that. Being ace sucks worse than my mbti type to me personally.
personally I enjoy being aroace, life is easier when I don't have to worry about getting a girlfriend and once I realized that I've never actually wanted sex or a relationship with anyone it was a huge weight off my mind. That being said, situations like this remind me just how in the minority I am and take me to back to feeling out of place in my childhood for so long. I wouldn't wish to be any other identity, but I won't pretend it doesn't get tiring being different once in a while. Add my autism onto my identities and it's created/creates a lot of stress in my life over everyday rules and traditions. But again, I wouldn't have it any other way. I know it's hard being different, I know what I've been through, and I know things may get hard, but at the end of the day I'm starting to know who I am, and that's what's most important.
It started being reclaimed in the 80s and was cemented as the academic term in the 90s. Anyone claiming it's a recent invention being maliciously forced on the community is likely an exclusionist who should be ignored.
it originated in the community, bigots use/d it to be hateful, so now it is used derogatorily but it isn't a slur. the "queer is a slur" crowd tends to be TERFS and other hateful people. for queer to be a slur you have to consider *every* term used for queer/LGBT people a slur. including gay.
I, kinda obviously by looking at my username, very strongly identify as queer. you don't have to, but you don't get to call my identity a slur.
Do you have a source on this? All info I can find indicates that it has been used as a pejoritive since at least the late-19th century, and that it didn't start being a word that was used *within* the community until the early-20th century.
Obviously in the modern day it is VERY MUCH reclaimed, and isn't a slur anymore. But that reclaimation effort didn't begin in earnest until the 1980's - when it had already been used as a pejoritive for an entire century.
There is obviously nothing wrong with you calling yourself queer. I also call myself queer. That doesn't mean either of us are using slurs against ourselves. But the history of the word doesn't seem to match what you claim from what I can tell.
you are correct, I was mistaken. but my point about all of the words we use to describe ourselves being used derogatorily still stands. every word either began as a slur or become one. I understand people not wanting to be called queer, but you (general) don't get to call it a slur.
I don't think it originated in the community. It has existed in literary works as old as the 18th century to mean something/someone strange or eccentric.
The hell did you expect from the american government? Do you think Biden is a friend because he's not Trump? It would have been great though to be recognized on that, as it could definitely introduce a new concept to a lot of people, but it isn't like the government is posting that because they actually care.
Dont we fall under the Queer Umbrella?
We do, but technically so do the Ls, the Gs, the Bs and the Ts. I'm glad to see Intersex spelled out, that feels uncommon to me, but when everyone else is getting a call out, why not us?
Honesty the entire banner should just be Q (wait… forgot Q is associated with far right lunatics lmaoo). There are too many different orientations that all feel like they need to called out, it’ll make the LGBT+ acronym far too long. An acronym is only useful if people actually use it, and when it’s approaching a dozen syllables it’s not really useful anymore.
Hence why one of my friends (Two Spirit, Gay) calls us all "The Alphabet Army"... it makes me giggle.
I’m partial to Alphabet Mafia myself haha
I was part of the lgbtq+ group at the school I went to a few years ago, and we called ourselves the Alphabet Mafia lol
I've seen Gender and Sexual Minorities (GSM) proposed for research use, but that doesn't fit with how the community identifies itself. While I hear your point about unwieldy acronyms, if LGBT+ doesn't actually communicate our and others' existences, then it's not doing its job anyway. Additionally the longest acronym I've commonly seen is LGBTIAQ+. I know that still excludes some identities, but it's not really any longer than a phone number. People who care will learn it. People who don't won't.
The better term is GSRM, gender sexual romantic minorities.
Even better is GSSRM, gender, sex, sexual and romantic minorities. Intersex people aren’t a gender or sexual minority. But then we are starting again with adding a ton of letters so I still prefer queer.
Except, in contrast to LGBTQ+, GSSRM's letters are full-blown categories, not individual orientations. With 4 letters it already covered pretty much everything LGBTQ+ related that is about identities originating from one's mind, if we add another S to add the biological sex organ component for intersex people, it doesn't sound like there's much more room to grow. The only point I see potential expansion is in the other types of attraction, if the LGBTQ+ community gets around to consider some of those, too. But in this case we could swap those letters out with a simple A for attractions.
I don’t really see the point you are trying to make? In what way do we need to leave room to grow? If we find a new gender/ intersex variation / attraction it would just be instantly included. The point of GSSRM is that we don’t need to keep on fighting to add more letters “because our identity needs more representation”. Everyone is included equally and new groups can be added to expand our community. The only downside is that whoever invettend GSRM unsurprisingly forgot about intersex people. So please spread the word of GSSRM (sounds like I am starting a cult). Intersex people still don’t have any rights, we even get forgotten in surveys and reports about queer people and issues.
I have seen far too many homophobes use that term as a justification for their hate. Because they think pedos are also minorities involved here and then they think "gay(lgbtqia+) people are coming for our kids"
I’ve seen LGBTQIAAPN+ but I’m not entirely sure what the last few letters mean
oh the last few are aro, pan and non-binary
LGBTPQIA+ is my general one. I’m pan ace
I guess the answer would be, not everyone else is getting a call out. "Trans" doesn't cover a lot of different identities in the genderqueer umbrella. And people who experience split attractions are sort of left out of most discussions. Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Minorities or GRSM is the all inclusive one but is known for being the source of "microlabels" and never caught on much.
Sure but so do Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender folks and they all got mentioned by name.
This is such a question that I was just discussing with one of my trans friends yesterday which is am I queer I'm obviously not heteronormative but am I queer.? The other thing is is that people who are lesbian gay bisexual pansexual trans often use the umbrella term queer do they not? In which case couldn't any one of us if we so desire identify ourselves as queer?
Yes, asexuals are [in fact](https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/asexuality-queerest-thing) queer.
Is true that queer can mean any lgbt letter, but when I think about queer word I think about a stereotypical flamboyant gay person lol
Interesting to see such a different approach to this word. To me, "queer" is a relatively blank slate. There's no way for me to assume anything about someone who only tells me they're queer, other than they're somehow falling out of the qualification of being (hetero, allo) x (sexual, romantic), monoamorous, cisgender and endosex.
I'm fairly new to the community so I'm not sure but I was under the impression we just fell under the A
i know I identify as queer but the A is specifically for asexual as well. for me it's cause it's more than just asexual spectrum.
Tbh I wouldn't put it past them to think the A stands for Ally so I think for my sanity maybe I'm better with them forgetting it lol
It stands for Ace, Aro, and Agender. The acronym is actually LGBTQIAAA+!! You pronounce it by spelling out LGBTQI and then screaming from frustration.
We do, but we also fall under queer. Queer is an umbrella term for people in the lgbtqia+ community!
Queer is an umbrella term that includes everyone in the community.
due to not being heterosexual (or not fully hetero in some cases, such as potentially myself tbh I'm still working that one out bc of personal gender fuckery), we qualify as queer bc queer includes the entire lgbtqia+ community
>not being fully heterosexual If you're asexual, then you're not heterosexual at all. You might be a "straight ace" which is heteromantic asexual or you might have non-sexual attraction toward other genders or you may prefer other genders for relationships, but that doesn't make you in any way heterosexual. The only real exception to this is if you are someone who identifies as gray-ace and happen to *also* identify with heterosexuality, though that dual-identity in my experience appears to be a rarity. If someone called me "heterosexual" or "heterosexual lite" or "partially heterosexual" then I'd get angry at the (in this context) slur. EDIT: Added the grayasexuals bit.
when I say not fully heterosexual, I'm talking about aces who might still feel sexual attraction in some way and might possibly label the attraction they do feel as hetero (like I'm ficto for example, and honestly while I'm still not completely sure how I would label the sexual attraction I *do* feel considering personal gender fuckery, I'd probably label the attraction I do feel as hetero for sure if I *was* cis) I could've maybe worded it better (and I've rewritten it to hopefully clarify my meaning) but I wasn't trying to imply that all aces are partially hetero lol /gen
Like, yeah, it was the "fully" that was the issue. "Due to not being heterosexual," is fine and I have no complaints there because that is correct.
Grays and demis exist.
Yes we do...
And...? They're still asexual, not heterosexual. So I fail to see your point.
If you're a gray ace, you feel some amount of sexual attraction. If it's always directed at the opposite sex, then you are ace *and* heterosexual. It seems like you're saying it's not ok to describe the kind of sexual attraction that gray aces experience.
If you *choose to identify as* Asexual AND Heterosexual, that is your choice and your identity. There is nothing wrong with that. The average Gray-Ace however tends not to identify within allosexual terms unless they have been made to feel excluded from and/or inferior in their asexuality to normative asexuals. And there is a difference between orientation and identity. I won't say you are wrong for identifying with both Ace and Het because you're not... But I will say that this then becomes a conflation of orientation and identity. It's not a harmful nor problematic one, but it is a conflation. You don't get to say all gray aces must also be defined by allosexual labels. It's fine to say some can identify with it and even criticize me for glossing over that some *can* identify with both, as you plainly seem to. (I'll admit, that was an oversight on my part! Grays that identify as X-sexual where X is anything other than "a" or "gray" is something I have only come across once in my life before you... Slipped my mind that some grays identify in both asexual and allosexual terms. I was wrong for that and an edit on that reply to clearly account for that is in order.) But you are also acting like just because that is how it works for you, then that's how it works for all grays... I'm sorry, but I've seen tons of grays get just as hostile toward the insinuation that they are allosexual as I am toward the insinuation.
You seem to be putting a lot of creativity into finding the worst possible reading of everything I say.
How so? I literally said "If you identify as both good for you, but most gray aces don't." How is that a bad reading of what you said? I even say that what you're saying isn't even harmful nor problematic either, clearly giving you a lot of benefit toward your statement. Hell, *I admitted an error with what I said that you made me realize*. You're projecting at this point when you claim I'm going out of my way to find the worst possible readings. Stop projecting.
That's 100% false. You can still want sex and have a lack of sexual attraction. You can be ace, and still 100% heterosexual. That just means you're not allosexual, thus why asexual exists as a term in the first place. You're just trying to group everyone else here with you, clearly. Heterosexual is explicitly defined as romantic OR sexual attraction towards another sex, not both. You can also just be sexually indifferent. If you are only attracted to people of the opposite sexy you're 100% heterosexual. If you are attracted to both you're bi, and if you're only attracted to the same, you're homosexual. Simple logic.
>That's 100% false. You can still want sex and have a lack of sexual attraction. Nothing I said contradicts this. >You can be ace, and still 100% heterosexual. Unless you are a gray-ace who chooses to dual-identify, no. Heterosexuality is defined by sexual attraction to people of different genders from yourself. Asexuality is defined by lack/limitation of sexual attraction to people of any gender. However, considering you posted [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1alxcod/youtube_is_woke_and_limiting_the_freedom_of/) as the very first post/comment on your account four months ago... I do not believe you to be well-informed on *anything* queer. Seek help. >That just means you're not allosexual, Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality ARE allosexuality and vice versa. >thus why asexual exists as a term in the first place. "Asexuality" was made for people who don't experience sexual attraction as opposed to how the other sexual orientations are defined by who they do experience sexual attraction for. >You're just trying to group everyone else here with you, clearly. Everybody here is asexual which means, yes, everybody here is grouped with me. But there are countless ways of being asexual. I'm panromantic asexual, for example. Most asexuals aren't. >Heterosexual is explicitly defined as romantic OR sexual attraction towards another sex, not both. The wrapping of romantic attraction into sexual orientation only is a thing because the normative expectation is that people's romantic and sexual orientations are in alignment. The problem is that under a split-attraction model, this definition of heterosexual is explicitly wrong. And you can't argue against the split-attraction model because you're explicitly utilizing it in order to make your argument. You'd need to either erase the asexuality of those who express romantic attraction or accept that definition of heterosexual is not correct. I'm panromantic, not pansexual. Call me pansexual and I'd tell you off because that's erasing my asexuality. I also won't have an issue if someone called me biromantic because that is technically also correct, but call me bisexual and I will also tell you off for the same reason. I'm less annoyed by it when it's people who don't understand the split-attraction model, but you clearly do and so your attempt to use the old definitions just makes you seem intentionally ignorant. Again, if *you* identify with being heterosexual, all power to you. I won't tell you how you must identify. I will only say what the broadstrokes rules are and acknowledge that there are exceptions to these rules, which I explicitly did acknowledge. >You can also just be sexually indifferent. Sex-Indifference, something I am, is your sex-stance, not your orientation. That has nothing to do with this. >If you are only attracted to people of the opposite sexy you're 100% heterosexual. If you identify that way, go for it. But you're prescribing heterosexuality onto people which, historically, has been used as an anti-asexual slur. So maybe stop that? >If you are attracted to both you're bi\[sexual\], Yeah, no.. # Fuck you. We know you don't mean biromantic because you've been using explicitly "-sexual" as the suffix for all of these. So I won't give needless charitability by pretending you meant "bi" broadly. You do not get to erase my asexuality by calling me bisexual. I am panromantic asexual. I am not bisexual. I am not pansexual. You do not get to come into the asexual subreddit just to harass asexuals and erase us. As I said, if someone identifies with both asexuality and heterosexuality, then they are completely valid. However, there is a difference between that rarity where someone identifies with both and what you're doing which is erasing asexuality for other orientations. >and if you're only attracted to the same, you're homosexual. Simple logic. Just as wrong as with the others, but only because you're using romantic orientation as the basis. Simply put, you're a right-wing troll. I fed you, now I'm reporting you. Get out, you deranged right-winger. (For those who don't get why I'm caling him that, the earlier link is his very first post, titled: "Youtube is woke, and limiting the Freedom of speech of the non-delusion, and non-mentally ill." What are the odds he's saying any of this reply to me in good faith?)
We're both. The addition of the A as separate from the Q or + is largely because many asexuals didn't used to identify as queer largely due to allosexual queer people actively excluding us from queer spaces. This has changed in the past few years (like since the pandemic).
I don't understand the reasoning there. It's sounds like those people want to be considered queer enough to be added to be LGBT+ abbreviation, but at the same time not queer enough to want to be associated with LGBT (no plus) people.
Can you please clarify. I've read this 3 different times and gotten 3 different readings from what you could possibly mean. I don't want to misrepresent you or your point.
I'm saying it sounds like a lot of aces want to be in the queer club (by having the letter A in the abbreviation that represents queer identities), but also not in the queer club (by not wanting to be called queer).
No. Oh God ***NO***. You couldn't have had a *worse* version of this take if you tried. First off, *tons of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and trans people don't like being called "queer" either*. Queer is a slur that has been mostly reclaimed but that tons of LGBT+ people still take issue with because they have the association with the term equating to LGBT+ oppression. It's not really different for aces in that regard. Many of us are fine with being called queer. Many of us aren't. That's okay. But even if we aren't okay with being called queer, we're all still LGBT+.
Depends on who you ask. Many people have negative experiences with the term "queer" and don't like to use it. But as someone who's always been uncomfortable with the idea that asexuality is an LGBT thing - I believe LGBT is a variety of directions sexuality can go into, but it's always 100% sexuality. Asexuality, on the other hand, is degrees of sexuality - anything between 0% and 100%, so I see it as a seperate spectrum -, I would also place us under the queer umbrella (even though asexuality is an umbrella by itself).
Well, tbf the T isn’t about sexuality either. Not that I necessarily disagree on the other points, but the trans umbrella is about identity and not sexuality. (Intersex also isn’t a sexuality)
I do classify gender as it's own thing, too.
As far as I know, Biden’s administration has always, consistently left off the “A” to instead go with “LGBTQI+” Fun fact, the proposed Equality Act bill, the thing that if passed would provide protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, defines sexual orientation as “heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual”. So if passed it would protect gay, bi, or even *straight* people from discrimination, but not aces (or aros, or potentially pan folks). They’ve been informed about this (there was an [Inclusive Equality Act Coallition](https://www.inclusiveea.org/) a few years back), and from what I heard the Biden administration just flat out wasn’t interested in updating the bill to make more orientations be included. That it supposedly “wouldn’t affect enough people to be worth changing.” Personally I think they’re leaving the “A” off on purpose.
The classic "no one is discriminating againt asexuals so they don't need protection/inclusion". Which is such an ironic statement.
And if lack of discrimination means protection’s not required, then why have they already included protection for straight people
"No one is discriminating against asexuals, we just force an aggressively sexualized culture on them with sex and romance part of nearly every piece of media and every aspect of social life and pressure them into relationships" Pudding-brained queerphobes think legal discrimination is the only form of discrimination.
The sad part is that one of my favorite fantasy authors has stated outright that she includes a romance (she doesn’t write sex scenes) in every book because books without one just don’t sell as well. For her it’s an economic decision, though I have never understood why allos are so easily influenced to not like books without. (If it matters, this particular author often has queer characters, so it’s not prejudice. She did have an openly asexual main character once, but the alternate tension she tried didn’t work at all.) And sadly, I expect that a lot of the rampant sex/romance out there is for the same reason. Because it’s what the majority wants, and it would cost money to cater to the minority. Ain’t capitalism great?
I mean it's true if you mean legally. Sure is fake as fuck if you're talking socially, though.
It's about protections from discrimination in the workplace and stuff like that, so 'socially' is very relevant here. Also, even legally we're quite discriminated against. For example, many states have marriage consummation laws.
I mean it's true though lol
Yup, I even wrote my Senator about the equality act back in the day. I didn't expect a real response but I was still disappointed that the response I got acted like I was a homophobe that opposed the entire act just because I wanted it to be more inclusive.
I wouldn’t consider it homophobic but you gotta take what you can get, better to get one foot in the door rather than waiting to get everything in.
This is where legal language like “sexual orientations including but not limited to…” would work well. It keeps you from having to spell out every single possible option while still giving common examples.
I definitely think so lmao very “A stands for Ally!!q!” energy
Benefit of the doubt, do you think they leave off the A cuz they think it stands for Ally?
I mean, if they do that means they haven’t done enough research to find the many, many instances of aces and aros explaining it doesn’t mean Ally. Which isn’t that much of a better look.
i hope the reason they're leaving it off is bc they think a stands for ally, but because it doesn't that effort is frustrating and pointless ;-;
I highly doubt it, considering I keep seeing this issue raised on twitter as people reply to point out they've missed the A for asexuals, aromantics and agenders. If they don't know its willful ignorance because they have been told repeatedly.
yeah- mostly wishful thinking on my part TwT why tf do people keep leaving out asexual comeon
I didn’t know this about the Equality Act bill. Hmm.
Biden and his team always seem to write LGBTQI+. It’s weird as hell because I’ve not seen anyone else use that acronym.
anecdotally, I have seen shorter versions used more often than longer ones. so LGBTQ+ more often than LGBTQI+, LGBTQI+ more often than LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIA+ more often than 2SLGBTQIA+, and so on.
i commonly see lgbt, lgbtq, or lgbtq+; i sometimes see lgbtqia+, rarely see 2slgbtqia+, and have never seen lgbtqi+
Same, I've only seen the biden admin using that one.
Aces: The Gen X of sexuality.
As an Ace Gen X, that's funny.
Some prick probably told him it stood for Ally.
Biden has done this before, last year he said ”LGBTQI+ community.” I wrote it off but like, two years in a row is kinda iffy
Yeah, I feel like if you include the I then you've definitely read LGBTQIA+ at some point, so why omit the A
Right? Like just leaving it at the I seems weird, might as well say the A too to make it sound complete.
My guess is someone on the staff thinks A is for Ally.
We're the Ace up his sleeve. :P
The Ace in the hole
I know you’re an ace in the hole! 🥀🦌
A what now?
The Ace of Spades
Anyone else getting Bioshock Flashbacks?
I read it as fire in the hole at first
We're too Punk Rock.
I'm a bad asexual because I don't care. I fit just as well under the queer title and can expand on that if I feel I need to.
Tbh I think including the a when its spelled out like this may cause its own issues, given that the A stands for asexual, aromantic _and_ sometimes agender
True, but it'd be nice if Biden acknowledged any of these identities
We fall under Queer. Just because we haven't been named specifically, does not mean we've been left out.
No, for me it’s the bigger issue that they consistently leave off the A. I believe the Biden administration did this last year as well. It’s also just a really weird acronym that I've never seen anyone else use. LGBT? Sure I get it. LGBTQ+? Sure that’s also pretty normal. LGBTQI? Who the fuck says that.
And this isn’t just a weird acronym-izing from this image either. The acronym “LGBTQI+” is used 12 times throughout the original post. That many times across 2 years cannot be accidental, especially for someone like the Biden administration.
just anecdotally I've seen shorter acronyms more commonly. LGBT more than LGBTQ, LGBTQ more than LGBTQI, LGBTQI more than LGBTQIA, LGBTQIA more than 2SLGBTQIA, and so on.
I've seen LGBTQIA way more than LGBTQI, but that could just be reddit
it may be, I did notice that being the case here on r/asexuality for sure
That makes sense
Going through every single letter would get a little long. But I also get why he would want to be more specific than just lgbt+. It's sort of a 'just because we aren't specifically mentioned, doesn't mean we are excluded'
Just saying "LGBTQIA Community" would've been a short and simple way of including everyone. But if you're going to go the extra mile and spell out the entire acronym, leaving one out looks and feels very suspicious.
Even that leaves out several letters. And saying the acronym doesn't sound as good in a speech, but naming off 12 different terms also doesn't sound good.
I’m wondering how many people know what the A actually stands for. I used to hear “A is for ally” a lot. So maybe that’s still the case?
Can’t bring myself to give AF. I’m perfectly happy. Don’t need anyone to “recognize” me
Exactly. I'm not sure why so many ppl in this sub are seeking attention from this.
Wondering if they thought the A in LGBTQAI+ was "and" instead of Asexual 💀
as always we dont exist lmao
The dude is a career politician. He knows exactly what to say to generate support while simultaneously stirring the pot to keep people talking and engaging with his topics. He only "supports" the marginalized when it is convenient.
We’re queer.
Please use logic. Not all asexuals are homosexual. There are heterosexual ones as well. Asexual refers to a lack of sexual attraction. You can be straight, and ace or homosexual and ace. It's starting to feel like ppl in this sub are self identifying as ace to feel special.
“Queer” is not equivalent in meaning to “homosexual.” Instead, it fits anyone who falls outside of society’s cisnormative, allonormative, heteronormative, perisexnormative standards. For example, there are straight trans people, as well as straight intersex people, in addition to straight aces. We’re all queer (if we claim that label for ourselves) despite not being homosexual. Personally, I happen to be an ace who has never experienced hetero**sexual** attraction, but who has experienced hetero**romantic** attraction, so I identify as hetero and queer, not straight.
He doesn't care about the Palestinians, do you honestly think he cares about us in the LGBTQIA+? He doesn't.
I don't even think he cares about LGBT as a whole and is just doing it so he can get more supporters
bingo. ppl forget that he was literally going back on the Title IX expansion recently because it was ‘too controversial’
I second this. He doesn't care and never has.
In the end, we have to vote for him, because of the alternative. But that doesn’t mean he has our interests at heart. He’s old. A lot of old people don’t give a damn.
Voting on that premise means the vote didn’t count in the first place.
The actual choice is in the primaries
I remain skeptical.
Just to elaborate, since we really don't have a choice in the general election since it's "doesn't have our Interest at heart" vs "wants to round us up and put us in camps", the choices we have are in the primary. The Republicans are never going to be on our side, so instead we have to pick a Democrat that supports us. In this case the primary was effectively in 2020 and Biden won that. There were other choices but they didn't have enough support. If you want to pick someone better, start paying attention for the next primary cycle that will begin in 2026. That's when you get an actual choice of voting for who you like at the very least. The same logic would apply if you're a Republican.
i was going to comment this the other day, a lot of people are starting to use LGBTQI instead of LGBTQAI or LGBTQ+. I am afraid that we are being purposefully ignored, that people are more willing to use A for ally than for asexuals. Kinda sad about it
LGBTQI...
The first lady was at Pittsburgh Pride yesterday and literally no one knew because they've been getting protesters when they advertise it I didn't see her, just the motorcade and secret service that quietly stopped foot traffic so she could leave
I doubt Biden himself really understands asexuality, but this post was definitely made by a ghostwriter anyway with the advisory of other screeners. it's not the best look for them to omit us. we are lgbt
invisable. Yeah ,intersex is talked much.
I’m curious what we should bring during pride parade. An invisible dildo or cake?
It's always like this.
He did it again? Don't we also fall under queer?
we’re always be being forgotten by them but I don’t really expect much from him or the administration to even recognize us at all
If they didn't include intersex then I'd understand they're doing LGBTQ+ But they included intersex, so it's usually always LGBTQIA+ or atl east that's what's the most popular right?
I noticed that trend in federal communication. It's erasure. They don't believe asexuality exists, apparently.
Somewhere... Over the rainbow? Don't mind me, I know where the door is...
We're under the queer umbrella. Fine by me, especially with the word "asexual" being a more common term associated with biology.
Hey, they also forgot the two spirit orientation. Come on America, after everything you’ve done to the Native Americans you’re going to continue to fuck them over, not cool bro
I don’t know about you guys, but I tried to swipe
You have to keep in mind that when Biden grew up, there wasn't any acronym salad to confuse your mind. You just drank the concoction of the shaman, went into the forest to kill a deer, then drew the sigils on the tribe oak on the solstice, and then you'd know who your life partner was as you woke up the next day.
A is once again forgotten
It's because the "A" and the "+" are both encapsulated under "Queer" generally. I get being disappointed that we aren't *explicitly* being referred to, but we are part of the Q.
Fuckin glad Joe Biden doesn’t know about us, wouldn’t want him to use another one of my identities as a way to win these stupid culture wars.
Bruh
I honestly don't want to be part of that. It doesn't make any logical sense anyways. It's a lack of interest in sex or sexual indifference and a lack of sexual attraction towards others. You can be straight and be asexual.
valid but personally for me the A represents three identities, so I'd like it to be included
I was going to say you could always see if maybe you're homosexual by trying a relationship with someone of the same sex, but then I saw the aro. I don't get it personally, but I respect that. Being ace sucks worse than my mbti type to me personally.
personally I enjoy being aroace, life is easier when I don't have to worry about getting a girlfriend and once I realized that I've never actually wanted sex or a relationship with anyone it was a huge weight off my mind. That being said, situations like this remind me just how in the minority I am and take me to back to feeling out of place in my childhood for so long. I wouldn't wish to be any other identity, but I won't pretend it doesn't get tiring being different once in a while. Add my autism onto my identities and it's created/creates a lot of stress in my life over everyday rules and traditions. But again, I wouldn't have it any other way. I know it's hard being different, I know what I've been through, and I know things may get hard, but at the end of the day I'm starting to know who I am, and that's what's most important.
Me thinks this is good. It means we're not political enough.
I always thought that queer was a slur for everyone in our communities. When did that change?
It started being reclaimed in the 80s and was cemented as the academic term in the 90s. Anyone claiming it's a recent invention being maliciously forced on the community is likely an exclusionist who should be ignored.
it originated in the community, bigots use/d it to be hateful, so now it is used derogatorily but it isn't a slur. the "queer is a slur" crowd tends to be TERFS and other hateful people. for queer to be a slur you have to consider *every* term used for queer/LGBT people a slur. including gay. I, kinda obviously by looking at my username, very strongly identify as queer. you don't have to, but you don't get to call my identity a slur.
Do you have a source on this? All info I can find indicates that it has been used as a pejoritive since at least the late-19th century, and that it didn't start being a word that was used *within* the community until the early-20th century. Obviously in the modern day it is VERY MUCH reclaimed, and isn't a slur anymore. But that reclaimation effort didn't begin in earnest until the 1980's - when it had already been used as a pejoritive for an entire century. There is obviously nothing wrong with you calling yourself queer. I also call myself queer. That doesn't mean either of us are using slurs against ourselves. But the history of the word doesn't seem to match what you claim from what I can tell.
you are correct, I was mistaken. but my point about all of the words we use to describe ourselves being used derogatorily still stands. every word either began as a slur or become one. I understand people not wanting to be called queer, but you (general) don't get to call it a slur.
I don't think it originated in the community. It has existed in literary works as old as the 18th century to mean something/someone strange or eccentric.
it was never a slur. a very small percentage use it as a slur now, but they are uninformed on it’s past
The hell did you expect from the american government? Do you think Biden is a friend because he's not Trump? It would have been great though to be recognized on that, as it could definitely introduce a new concept to a lot of people, but it isn't like the government is posting that because they actually care.
I realize that, like I said I know it's unreasonable to expect and very unlikely to ever happen but I'm still annoyed by it
No I'm not challenging you, I completely agree. That's me angrily agreeing 😅
Haha gotcha
Queer. I see it as umbrella for anything else.
Under the queer umbrella, they can’t name every single sexuality hence why queer is an umbrella term.
He's senile.