



No, don’t go, it’s not that similar. This post focuses on a different area. Some readers here may remember one of my older posts about the hierarchy in the LGBT, and the idea of a “ gold star gay ”. This post is a little like that.No, don’t go, it’s notsimilar. This post focuses on a different area.





Now I know that a lot of people don't think that asexuals are oppressed or need help or are bullied due to their orientation, but unfortunately some people seem to be under the impression that we aren't allowed into their private member's club.

You see, asexuality was recently included in the Trevor Project’s list of training materials. Oddly enough, this caused a stir. You’d think that, you know, if a suicide hotline decides to include something, the general public says “well, as long as you can help someone, I don’t care what their orientation is”. Because that’s what should happen, people should accept that sometimes everyone has difficulties, and needs to talk to someone about it, and I don’t see a whole lot of asexual helplines (aside from some excellent blogs on Tumblr, but not everyone is on Tumblr or can find them), so the fact that something as wide-reaching as the Trevor Project has stepped up is really kind of a big deal.



Certainly, the Trevor Project is something that nobody tries to impede or change (aside from homophobes, but that’s always a given). But then some bright spark figured that asexuality must now be in the LGBT spectrum, because the Trevor Project said so. Now, I have no problem with this. Certainly I don't think that asexuals that don't identify as LGBT should go under that banner, but Queer as a blanket term has often been used to describe something that isn't heterosexual or cisgender, but not LGBT. So what's the issue? If someone wants to adopt that as a label, it's not my place to tell them "this is a private party, and you're not invited".



Unfortunately I am not the Internet at large.





I guess you want us to sit out in the rain?

source





Interestingly, some different blogs sprung up in the wake of this (the owners, evidently, wanting a semi-anonymous forum for any rude or insulting comments, rather than just posting to an existing personal blog they own). Someone started a blog in which they only posted pictures of insects, um, “doing the deed” and proceeded to tag everything with the dedication that only an idiot with maximum time (anyone else thinking “neet” right now? That is, Not in Education, Employment or Training) can. To clear up any doubt, insects cannot be classed as asexual in any sense of the word, and tagging it as “AVEN” kind of gave the troll’s game away.



But I digress. I haven’t got to the fun blog, yet. That prize belongs to

Those of you that follow the asexual or related tags on Tumblr will doubtless have noticed the barrage of hate and passive-aggressive posts that followed this. For those that didn’t see, it was mostly along the lines of “ZOMG YYYYYYY”, with a bit of “asexuality doesn’t exist” and “asexuals have special snowflake syndrome” thrown in. Which is great, by the way. Thank all who post that sort of thing, seriously. I really needed my orientation invalidated by you right now.Interestingly, some different blogs sprung up in the wake of this (the owners, evidently, wanting a semi-anonymous forum for any rude or insulting comments, rather than just posting to an existing personal blog they own). Someone started a blog in which they only posted pictures of insects, um, “doing the deed” and proceeded to tag everything with the dedication that only an idiot with maximum time (anyone else thinking “neet” right now? That is, Not in Education, Employment or Training) can. To clear up any doubt, insects cannot be classed as asexual in any sense of the word, and tagging it as “AVEN” kind of gave the troll’s game away.But I digress. I haven’t got to the fun blog, yet. That prize belongs to Homophobic Asexuals . For some reason, the owner of that particular blog decided at some point that a significant proportion of the asexual community was homophobic, and that this proportion is significant enough that it needs to be addressed. But not through reasoned debate – oh heaven forbid, no, that would involve actual discussion and big words – but instead through the use of memes. Definitely the way to go, there, guys. Well done. You get a gold star, as a first class fool.

Correction: don't call the ace community homophobic,

because most of it isn't homophobic.

Now don’t get me wrong, some of the things they posted were fair enough. If they had done it in a different format or made it slightly more obvious that they were against certain aces in particular then I might even have sided with them. But, as is the way with these things, the addition of the generalising memes just didn’t help.





Funnily enough, they ignored my helpful ask suggesting that, if they were indeed merely calling out certain members of the asexual community for their homophobia, perhaps they should broaden their scope and try calling out homophobia in the general community. Because, if I may make a gross assumption here, the idea of calling out homophobia is to educate and inform individuals of what is and isn’t acceptable and to ensure that people know the power of words. Wouldn’t it be more sensible, then, to try calling it out in a proportion of the population oh, I don’t know, maybe greater than 1% of the population. So tell me, if you’re calling out homophobia in a group that is so small, doesn’t that just imply that you have something against asexuals, rather than homophobes? And isn’t it such a coincidence that you started this blog immediately after asexuality became something that somehow threatens you?





Sadly, they never did reply. I suspect it was because, as they mocked any anonymous questioners and called them “too scared to say anything with their URL out”, I asked without using the anonymous function.



Clearly my name was much too threatening (or my ask much too logical).



That’s just one specific blog, though. I think that the issue I have here is a little wider spread. Take this, for example:













But this is where it goes downhill a little. You see, this poll was on the



It’s good because people reply with complete anonymity. There’s no need to figure out what to label yourself on an internet survey, and no need to tell anyone anything like your age or gender – answers that plenty of people don’t feel comfortable giving. The simplicity of the poll is also its greatest attribute; not even the ridiculously lazy have an excuse. They were also sensible when making it, knowing that some people will look at the figures and not involve themselves, they made it so that you must vote before you get an answer.



That’s the good things. Funnily enough, the bad parts are almost the same thing. There are no other questions, and hence it’s impossible to see what kinds of people are voting yes or no. Is it cisgender heterosexual people? Do they have a right to say what should and shouldn’t be under the Queer umbrella? Is it just a certain demographic in the QUILTBAG acronym that’s voting no? Are they just voting yes? Why? And hell, what do asexual people think of this? I’ve seen plenty that think asexuality shouldn’t be either in the Queer spectrum or in the Trevor Project. I mean, I always vote yes, because I think above all we should have the choice, but what if the majority of aces don’t want it? And yes, there is always the risk of generalising an entire group if they disagree, but at this rate people will generalise anyway.



Other negatives include what some of you readers must have thought immediately: “Why is polyamory and asexuality in the same poll?”



You see, some people that are fine with asexuality have problems with polyamory. Some people that are ok with polyamory have issues with asexuality. Or maybe someone thinks only one of them doesn’t deserve to be under the Queerbrella. Either way, if you say no to one then you’ll click no to this survey. So in the end it’s not an adequate enough portrayal of the public view. Interesting poll, right? Should asexuals and the polyamorous be included in the queer spectrum, hm?But this is where it goes downhill a little. You see, this poll was on the Huffington Post exactly three weeks ago. They didn’t ask any questions aside from this, and their only representation was with percentages rather than actual numbers. This is both good and bad, I think.It’s good because people reply with complete anonymity. There’s no need to figure out what to label yourself on an internet survey, and no need to tell anyone anything like your age or gender – answers that plenty of people don’t feel comfortable giving. The simplicity of the poll is also its greatest attribute; not even the ridiculously lazy have an excuse. They were also sensible when making it, knowing that some people will look at the figures and not involve themselves, they made it so that you must vote before you get an answer.That’s the good things. Funnily enough, the bad parts are almost the same thing. There are no other questions, and hence it’s impossible to see what kinds of people are voting yes or no. Is it cisgender heterosexual people? Do they have a right to say what should and shouldn’t be under the Queer umbrella? Is it just a certain demographic in the QUILTBAG acronym that’s voting no? Are they just voting yes? Why? And hell, what do asexual people think of this? I’ve seen plenty that think asexuality shouldn’t be either in the Queer spectrum or in the Trevor Project. I mean, I always vote yes, because I think above all we should have the choice, but what if the majority of aces don’t want it? And yes, there is always the risk of generalising an entire group if they disagree, but at this rate people will generalise anyway.Other negatives include what some of you readers must have thought immediately: “Why is polyamory and asexuality in the same poll?”You see, some people that are fine with asexuality have problems with polyamory. Some people that are ok with polyamory have issues with asexuality. Or maybe someone thinks only one of them doesn’t deserve to be under the Queerbrella. Either way, if you say no to one then you’ll click no to this survey. So in the end it’s not an adequate enough portrayal of the public view.



That little bit of analysing over, let’s look at the actual result, hm? What do people think?







Well, as you can see it’s a pretty even split, and has been for most of the time I’ve been following it. But 50/50 with a slight lean against it is, in my opinion, not good enough. Because sure, some of you readers probably don’t agree with including asexuals (I’ll have to leave the polyamorous line of thinking here, because I’m afraid I’m not sure what their community thinks of this). Judging from the answers to that poll, half of all you readers don’t like that I identify as queer. But if you don’t, then you’re not just expressing your opinions. You’re deliberately deciding that a whole group of people actually aren’t allowed to identify how they want to.



I disagree with that. I would like the choice to be open to me, don't you think that's fair?



Before I leave you, the more eagle-eyed among you may have noticed that this is only part one. Yes, reader, this will be continued next Friday, with almost the exact opposite line of how to be nice to people – addressing how a certain minority of asexuals don’t do their community any favours by claiming moral superiority on the grounds of their lack of desire for sex. Because that irritates me just as much as the subject for this post did.