#to be clear this doesn't apply to stuff like sherlock holmes where there's unspecified queercoding

[jaycewithawhy]

Starting to get mildly frustrated at the thing where canonically asexual characters are presumed to not be canonically aromantic even when all evidence points to that conclusion.

And, like, I get that a lot of time it's coming from alloace people who are tired of being presumed aro and I don't exactly blame them for being defensive, but I do think they need to take a second to familiarize themselves with the way a character's asexuality is actually handled in canon before rushing to assure everyone that the character doesn't have to be aro too or implying that anyone presenting the character as canonically aro is only pushing a headcanon.

Because I have on multiple occasions seen people who openly admit to not being familiar with the source material confidently state that a canonically asexual character is not canonically aro despite the character in question explicitly tying their experience of "asexuality" to a lack of interest in dating and romance. But because they didn't use the term aromantic within the text itself it's not treated as canon. And, like, author intention/coding shouldn't always be considered canon, but it's also not great to say that a character's clearly intended queer identity can be discounted because the author didn't use the most up-to-date chronically online terminology to communicate their intentions.

With any other sexuality, people are generally comfortable assuming that a character's romantic orientation is the same as their sexual orientation unless otherwise stated. Yes, aspec people as a whole are more likely to use the split attraction model. Yes, technically that romance repulsed character could be gray-romantic or demiromantic. Yes, there's no reason an asexual character should be assumed to be aromantic if it's not indicated either way.

But... like... if it is indicated that the character is aromantic, then not acknowledging that is erasure, plain and simple.

I'm not saying anyone should harass people who write romance with canonically aroace characters, or that there isn't value to writing characters across the asexual and aromantic spectrum, even if it means deviating from those characters' canon identities.

All I am asking is two things:

1. Familiarize yourself with what canon actually is before jumping into a conversation about a character's canon sexual and romantic orientations.

2. Take, like, two minutes to think about what you're saying and whether you would still feel comfortable saying it if the conversation was about portraying (for example) a canonically gay character as biromantic in fanworks. If you wouldn't, maybe think about why those two scenarios feel different to you.

And I do genuinely mean think about. I'm not trying to push any specific conclusion here. My ultimate goal is for people to be more thoughtful about how they engage with this issue, not for everyone to agree with me.