Thanks to a troll, I have discovered an amazing way to mock and ridicule people who attempt to invalidate asexuality or claim that it does not exist:

State unequivocally that Chicago does not exist.

You see, if at least 1% of people are asexual then there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.2 million people in the US who are asexual. That means that there are more people who are asexual than people who live in Chicago. So, pretty much any claim that dismisses asexuality based on prevalence alone can also be used to deny Chicago’s existence. (And that 1% statistic generally believed to be an underestimate of the actual number of aces.)

But it doesn’t end there… Because denying the existence of a major American city is patently absurd (Just like, you know, denying the existence of a sexual orientation…), you can take Chicago denial to whatever ridiculous extremes you desire. That means that just about any dismissal of asexuality can be turned into a dismissal of Chicago.

Here are just a few examples.

“Chicago doesn’t exist!” Good for use with any form of “Asexuality doesn’t exist!”

“Statistically, you’re more likely to be from Los Angeles or New York, so let’s not talk about this Chicago nonsense.” This is the one that started it all. Someone was trying to tell me that statistically, people are more likely to be straight or gay, so therefore people shouldn’t bother talking about asexuality.

“Chicago sounds made up. I’ve certainly never been there.” This can be used in response to people who say that asexuality must be imaginary because they’ve personally never heard of it before. Clearly, only things they’ve heard of can exist and only things they experience matter.

“One geography lesson with MY maps and you’ll understand. I’ve got a magic map that will change where you were born.” This one works for people who try the “Well, you just haven’t slept with me yet.” line.

”Someday, you’ll find the right borough and you’ll realize you’re from New York after all.” This is the equivalent of “Someday you’ll find The One”: The idea that you just haven’t explored all those options you’re not interested in exploring.

“Have you tried being from New York? You might like it!” Never mind you were born in Chicago… You just have to visit New York, suddenly you’ll like it, and that’ll change where you were born. This can be used when someone says “Have you tried having sex? You might like it!”

“Maybe you’re not from New York, but have you tried being from LA? Are you sure?” When someone says “I get that you’re not straight, but have you thought that maybe you’re actually gay?”, it’s like they’re saying you have to be from New York or LA, there are no other possibilities, because Chicago doesn’t exist.

“Chicago isn’t on the map I’m looking at, so clearly it doesn’t exist.” This is like claiming that asexuality isn’t in a dictionary or a textbook, and using that to “disprove” its existence.

“You’re just claiming to be from Chicago because you’re afraid to give directions.” For the people who say that a person is asexual simply because they’re afraid to have sex.

“I’m sure you’ll move to New York or LA when you’re older.” This works for “You’re just a late bloomer.”

“I thought I was in Chicago once, but I was wrong. I was really in New York all along. There’s no such place as Chicago.” There are people who try to say that asexuality can’t exist, because they mistakenly thought they were asexual once. As if their experience can be used as a way to shut down everyone else.

“You’re just saying you’re from Chicago because it’s trendy.” There are people who think that asexuality is a fad of some sort. Well, so’s the Windy City.

“You just don’t want to admit that you’re from LA because society hates people from LA.” If someone says “You’re just gay but are afraid to admit it.”, try this one.

“Chicago is basically just New York anyway, just without the Statue of Liberty. You’re not special just because you don’t have a Statue of Liberty.” For those sadly misguided people who, for some reason, think “Asexuals are basically straight, just without the sex.”

“That place sounds cold and windy and it’s unnatural that anyone would live there. Have you considered seeing a real estate agent about your problem? LA is soooo warm! I love LA!” If someone tries to pull “You should see a doctor about that”, pull this one on them.

“There’s no research proving that Chicago exists.” Because clearly, if you don’t bother to look for research on a subject, it can’t possibly exist. This is especially true when someone points out that research does, in fact, exist.

“Chicago? Like the pizza? It’s not possible for a human to be from Chicago.” For the “Asexual? Like a plant? It’s not possible for a human to be asexual” crowd.

“Two hundred years ago, there weren’t people living in Chicago. Just New York and Los Angeles and that was that. Everything else is just a fad.” Because things that have been recognized more recently than some arbitrary point in the past clearly cannot exist.

“Chicago? Do we really need another city? Why can’t people just say they live in ‘America’? Are they going to want a mayor next?” We can’t let people accurately describe who they are, because then they won’t cleanly fit into my preconceived boxes.

“Chicago means ‘wild garlic’. It can’t be a place!” Words, like “asexual” or “Chicago”, can only mean one thing. Despite the fact that “like”, “can”, and “mean” can mean multiple things.

“But your accent! You can’t be from Chicago!” Useful when someone points out some characteristic and uses it to dismiss asexuality, such as “You’re too pretty to be asexual”.

“You took a trip to New York that one time, so you can’t be from Chicago!” Similar to the absurd claim that “You’ve had sex, so you can’t be asexual!”

Now it’s your turn! Try turning any ace invalidation into a ridiculous statement about the Second City! It’s fun and easy!

Special thanks to everyone who took part in that thread a couple months ago and suggested a bunch of these!