Why straight asexuals can’t join the queer club

I feel like I’m jumping into this late, especially when so many of my fellow LGBT bloggers have discussed this issue so well and clearly. However the issue is still being discussed and we still have heteroromantic asexuals insisting they are queer, appropriating a term meant specifically for people with same sex attractions. I have no expectations that asexuals are going to get it, but I need to vent some thoughts. 

A simple browse of the asexuality tag and you can easily find posts like this one:

also heteroromantic people are NOT STRAIGHT!!!!

Straight
adj. straight·er, straight·est
11. Heterosexual.
n.
6. A heterosexual person.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/straight 

As you can see, straight is a slang term for HETEROSEXUALS. Not romantics.

So when you call a heteroromantic straight, or a homoromantic gay/lesbian, you are invalidating their identity and that is rude and disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Nobody has any right to tell you what you are. 

Source

Well, at least we’ve established they can use a dictionary! Words indeed have meanings and dictionaries are useful tools in understanding them, but words also have a history and context that dictionaries always ignore. It has been explained many times why this is important and why heteroromantics aren’t queer, and yet they still just don’t get it. I’m not going to repeat what those two posts and many more that explain far better than I could. Instead I’m going to focus on a different aspect of this issue. If the specific dictionary meanings and not the context of the words is all that matters in this discussion, then let’s follow this logic to its conclusion. 

I understand why asexuals may fall into the trap of thinking that it should fall in with queer, especially when homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, are all accepted queer identities, so why not asexual? It is in fact not heterosexuality, and I will not argue it is. However, these words don’t fall into groupings by virtue of being commonly unlike something, but rather the commonality they do have. There are differences in what it is to be “homo-“, “bi-“, “pan-“… but they all have one unifying characteristic and that is attraction to the same gender. That is at the heart of this issue, because queer unequivocally refers to people with same sex attraction, while straight refers to those with opposite sex attraction.

But what about asexual? Where does this identity fit in this dichotomy? It simply doesn’t. The prefix “a” means “without, not”, so to be asexual is to be without sexuality. Much like atheism means without god and says nothing about what that person does believe in; all asexuality tells you about someone is that they are without sexuality and says nothing about their attractions which is the core of the issue. So, how do we determine who asexuals are attracted to? 

This is where the romantic designations come in.

I remember some time back someone asked a question about why asexuals have romantic orientations and what not. How that “heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. just means attracted to -insert what they are attracted to here- in some way.”

By saying that erases asexuals.

Also.

Every single definition I’ve seen of “heterosexual” and “homosexual” and what not talks about

• Orientating yourself sexually towards the other
• Being sexually attracted to the other
• Having sexual desire for the other
• Having sexual feeling for the other

And they say that separating sexual and romantic attraction is unnecessary? REALLY NOW? By all those definitions of heterosexuality I looked up, I fit none of them.

Also I looked up “straight.” Is informal for a heterosexual person. Last time I checked I am an asexual that happens to be heteroromantic. 

Oh would you look at that.

Source

The existence of the “-romantic” identity is how asexuals let you know what their attractions are while still maintaining an asexual identity. There you have it straight from an asexual, and yet they end by reaffirming they are not straight. And hey, she looked it up too, so they must be right!

The simple fact is that these identifiers do what the word asexuality cannot, which is express their attractions. Therefore, those who identify as heteroromantic are straight despite their lack of sexuality, because they are not attracted to the same sex. Not one of the LGBT bloggers I’ve seen who have taken up this issue have insisted that those who identify as “homo-“, “bi-“, or panromantic are not queer because it’s the prefix that matters, not the suffix. 

However it strikes me as very revealing that every heteroromantic asexual who has relied on dictionary definitions has put the emphasis on “-sexual” and conveniently ignore “hetero-” as if it has nothing to do with the definition of straight when the truth is it has everything to do with it. The prefix “hetero-” is the key part of the definition, just as homosexual achieves its meaning through the prefix “homo”. And notice how every prefix that is accepted as queer can apply it to “-romantic” or “-sexual” because each prefix includes a form of same sex attraction. “Hetero-” does not no matter how you try to slice it. For another way of explaining it, I recommend reading Partysoft’s recent post. 

Furthermore, the lack of heteroromantic in mainstream dictionary definitions of straight is not an indication that they’re queer, but rather that the people who write these books don’t give a shit about their “-romantic” identities. I find it extremely ironic that those who would complain so loudly about the erasure they face would then turn around and use this erasure as an advantage to try and strongarm their way into queer spaces at the expense of actual queers.

Queers have been forced to accept straight asexuals into their spaces and put up a lot of homophobic bullshit from them, and by virtue of their privilege have no understanding or a willful ignorance about what queer people actually go through.

Let me tell you what a queer actually goes through. I was raised Catholic and went through Catholic school from 4th to 12th grade. The official stance on homosexuality is that it is in fact natural, but it is a burden that God has given you. In order to remain without sin, you cannot act on your sexuality because it is not a life giving act. This is what I was taught as a teenager by my teachers and parish when I was starting to recognize my attraction to women. 

You straight aces complain about how the world is so sexual and they don’t understand you, well my world was of repression, of not acting on what I wanted even after I rejected Catholicism. I have never had a any kind of meaningful relationship because of it and it has taken me almost a decade to finally come out as a lesbian since I first realized I had these attractions. 

So please, save me your stories of how sexual people don’t get you, and you have a listing in a medical book. My story isn’t unique, and frankly I don’t blame any queer who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about straight people who want to declare they don’t fuck in LGBT spaces when we are killed, beaten, and repressed because of who we want to fuck. 

It really does baffle me the mental gymnastics these people will go through to claim a word that will never be used violently against them, and then act as if the mean queers who call them out on it are oppressing them, while simultaneously exposing their disgusting homophobia. They rail against sexuality as if it’s the only word that has any meaning in this debate and are completely ignorant of the actual real social justice issues present in the world today, and I promise you my posting this under and asexual tag is not one of them. 

It doesn’t matter how you use it, if you call yourself “hetero-” you are straight. I mean seriously, if the suffix “sexual” is all the matters of the dictionary definition, you may as well call homosexuals straight because straight = sexual, riiiiiight? It’s a ridiculous argument to make. 

As long as you are attracted to the opposite gender, whether you want to fuck them or not, you are straight. End of story.