#this isn't just in reference to aspec identities or gender identities either

[redysetdare]

I think queer stories would be better if people stopped assuming that queer representation hinges on if two characters are romantically involved at all. Like the moment you accept characters as being queer without needing romance to prove said queerness then i think we'd find ourselves with a lot more unique, nuanced, and interesting queer stories. but by limiting queerness to only romance you are stifling queer stories.

[leikeliscomet]

The reason I feel disconnected from the term alloace and its tag is bc it's just not specific enough and bc of that a lot of commentary on alloaces falls flat to me. The specific gender(s) you have romantic attraction for greatly determine what type of experience you will have. There are so many straight ace experiences I can't relate to. Can you safely express romantic attraction in public? Are depictions of your romantic attraction banned in books and TV/film? Then there's race too. When your race is sexualised and your asexuality is denied, how can you then express romantic attraction freely? When your race is simultaneously desexualised, are you even allowed conventional romance to begin with? When you are seen as a sexual being against your will how can you decentre sexual attraction when no one has ever believed you?

Aroallo on the other hand is used to describe the collective experience of aromanticism without asexuality so there's a consistent community for that that's grown but go to alloace and its less active and a series of random posts, not really 'collective community' stuff. Most alloace content isn't called alloace like aroallo content is called aroallo, but just asexual. There's many ace posts that would fit the label but aren't under the tag. Not sure why but I don't think it's that deep. A lot alloace posts aren't even about alloaces specifically, they're posts about arospec experiences either comparing alloaces implying there's a type of privilege or actively blaming us for arospec erasure. The erasure is real and their anger is justified but again it's assumed under the banner of alloace that having romantic attraction automatically guarantees a certain experience when it doesn't, historically or systemically. The most visible alloaces are predominantly white and cishet. The 'allo asexuality' they have is one a lot of alloaces are actively denied and so we actually have more in common with arospecs bc we both have relationship models and exploration of romance that goes against what is societally expected of us. I relate to Black arospecs bc we share the history of how Black people are sexualised and desexualised. I relate to lesbian arospecs bc our attraction to women is unconventional, experiencing 'half' and not the other.

I'm then left scratching my head being asked to use the privilege I don't have and use the visibility I don't get. Does the aspec community ask aspecs to stand with gay, bi, pan and lesbian aces? Do they make posts on how biphobia and acephobia overlap to protect bi aces? Do they ask aspecs to learn the history of how gay romantic lit was censored? Do they ask aspecs to support alloace victims/survivors with the sexual violence they experience from non-ace partners? Do they ask aspecs to unpack compulsory sexuality? Do they do the community support they wish to see themselves?

So yeah, I'm frustrated. With other parts if my identity and if I don't see certain posts about it I'd be like 'well stop complaining and be the one to say something then'. I could do up 'allo aces are valid' content but again, who would I be referring to? Would anyone care? Is it even possible to make a catchall post that fits the whole experience? It's looking like no. Again I need this community to start to looking outside the scope of their own personal aspec experience cus community is in the name but it doesn't feel like it.

[redtail-lol]

Is there a full/bigger version of yr pfp?? I fckn love lgballt sonas and I need to see yours for scientific purposes. /nf

Yeah and a flag guide that I'll provide but keep in mind it hasn't been updated in a while and I'll have a new one soon

Term Definitions because I can. Some definitions are personal to me and not general definitions

Woman/Girl: A gender identity that is connected to femininity and the female sex

Cisgender: Someone who's gender identity is congruent with their AGAB

Cisconfusgender: A cis person who often is unsure of their gender but always comes to the conclusion they're cisgender. I didn't coin this term but I made the flag based on a description of it

Quoieuphoric: Someone who isn't sure what gender euphoria feels like or if they feel it. I coined this term myself!

She/her/hers/herself: Someone who would appreciate if you referred to her by she/her pronouns

They/them/their/theirs/themselves: Someone who would appreciate it if you referred to them by they/them pronouns

Femme: Someone who presents femininely

Aspec: Someone on the ace, aro, or other a-spectrum(s)

Arosespec: Someone who is on both the aro and ace spectrums

Acespec: Someone who is on the asexual spectrum

Arospec: Someone who is on the aromantic spectrums

Asexual: Someone who doesn't feel sexual attraction at all (personal use definition)

Cupiosexual: Someone who doesn't feel sexual attraction but still desires a sexual relationship

Demiromantic: Someone who experiences romantic attraction exclusively to people they have formed a strong emotional bond with

Cupioromantic: Someone who desires a romantic relationship even in the absence of romantic attraction (personal use definition)

Angled Aroace: Someone who is on both aro and ace spectrums but isn't fully ace, aro, or either

Lesbian: A feminine, neutrally, xenically, or unaligned person who is attracted, usually exclusively, to other feminine, neutrally, xenically, or unaligned genders. This is a definition I came up with that I think accomplishes what the nonmen definition attempted to describe and doesn't exclude multigender/multialigned people and acknowledges the common exclusive use of today but doesn't exclude historical use. (personal use definition)

Aurora Lesbian: An all inclusive alt flag. An aurora lesbian can be considered an all inclusive lesbian

Lunian: An mspec lesbian

Bi lesbian: Someone who's bi attraction is also simultaneously lesbian attraction because it's only towards people who are considered part of lesbian attraction (personal use definition)

Sapphic: WLW, doesn't have to be exclusive.

Midnight Sapphic: A sapphic who feels othered and ostracized from the greater sapphic community for their identity

Omni lesbian: Someone who is attracted to all genders considered part of lesbian attraction (personal use definition)

Bi lesbian with bi- as a modifier: Someone who primarily identifies as a lesbian, and sees being a bi lesbian as a subset of that lesbian attraction

Neptunic lesbian: A lesbian who is also neptunic

Closeted mspec lesbian: An mspec lesbian who is closeted about being an mspec lesbian in at least one aspect of their life

Acespec Mspec Lesbian (yeah apparently it's not just the acespec lesbian flag oops): An mspec lesbian who is acespec

Neptunic: Someone who is exclusively attracted to all non-masc genders

Bi: Someone who is attracted to multiple genders. Commonly used to mean not all genders and with gender as a factor, but because of its history, it can refer to any mspec attraction

Multi: Someone who is attracted to multiple genders. An umbrella term for bi/pan/poly/omni

Mspec: Someone who is on the multispectrum

Bi-Gay: Someone who considers their attraction bi and gay (gender neutral)

Stellian: Someone who considers their attraction mspec and gay (gender neutral)

LGBTQ: Someone who is not an allocishet

Autistic: I'm not yet diagnosed and I'm working on it but I believe I am on the autism spectrum/have autism spectrum disorder. You can use person first or identity first language I don't mind either.

Queer: Someone who reclaims Queer as an identity. Not all LGBTQ people will be queer, because we should acknowledge that is has been used to harm people and they may still have trauma with the word queer.

Inclusionist: Someone who includes all good faith identities and seeks understanding before calling something nonsense.

Lykoi Lesbian: A lesbian inclusionist group that passively fights exclusionism by being inclusive.

[foxfairy06]

why do you think aspecs aren’t lgbtq+ have you read any gay history or do you just think we don’t exist because we do man and you also said “no kink at pride” but then we don’t exist

For one this isn't even a coherent argument. It's accusative, leading, and poorly structured and thus difficult to read, but I'll try my best.

So, i never said they aren't lgbtq+, i think the q+ is bullshit. It ends with T. The thing that holds us all together is the same type of issue. Issues relating to our gender, and what specific struggles that come about from it. Two experiences in particular. Same gender attraction, and gender dysphoria. Asexuals experience none of this.

They also have no meaningful association with our history, you'll see they were invited to pride, not made part of the subject matter or hosted as a main voice of the community at any point in integral pre-internet lgbt history (it's not just gay). The fact you insinuate such associates without providing any source as to how they are a part of LGBT history specifically doesn't help either. If you make a claim about history you should reference a specific thing that happened at that key event, or provide a source.

I never said you don't exist, in fact in several posts that asexuals and aromantic people do exist, have, a unique experience, are orientations, and are not a choice. However just because something is valid doesn't mean it is LGBT. Yes you exist, congratulations. However, your particular issues are not what the focus of the LGBT community is. Unless you have a separate romantic or sexual orientation that is towards the same gender or you have gender dysphoria. I'm sorry but heteroromantic cisgender asexuals just aren't LGBT.

No kink at pride has nothing to do with the asexuals argument, that's a red herring. Even then, these arguments are not mutually exclusive, and have separate reasons for them. I don't exclude kink from pride because i oppose sex and put everything non-sexual on a pedestal. Personally I'm a big fan of sexual environments. However that is not an environment literal children trying to express their identity need.

Also again, not at ome point did i say you don't exist.

Hope that helps!

[saffigon]

Kinda tired of the idea that binaries are no longer oppressive if they become a trinary. I think the most obvious example is the gender binary becoming a trinary with nonbinary, but in the same way, alterous attraction and queerplatonic relationships do this with the platonic/romantic binary. (And for a bit of a disclaimer here, I will be using alterous to refer to how it fits into the platonic/romantic *attraction* binary and queerplatonic to refer to how it fits into the platonic/romantic *relationship* binary)

Adding another category to a binary idea is not in and of itself an issue, instead it's when those things get boiled down to such simplicity that what they actually mean gets lost. In the example of nonbinary gender identities, by adding it to the gender binary, the vastness of nonbinary has been lost. It is no longer seen as an umbrella for any gender outside of man and woman and is instead seen as a third gender in between the two. This same issue then arises in the platonic/romantic binary as alterous attraction and queerplatonic relationships are defined by their relation to platonic and romantic rather than their existences as a more vast idea.

The platonic/romantic binary, though it may not be referred to that way, is pretty prevalent. You're either friendzoned or in a relationship; You're "just friends" or you're dating; "I can't [be physically close], they're my friend!" and "Friends don't do that, they're obviously together!" It is a binary upheld by amatonormativity and allonormativity. And this is most obviously upheld in and around aspec spaces with alterous attraction and queerplatonic relationships. These are placed into the middle of the binary and ultimately create a trinary of sorts. And alterous attraction and queerplatonic relationships are not a problem in and of themselves, just as nonbinary isn't a problem just because it's been placed in a trinary, but instead the perceptions and messages around them cause these issues.

I think the biggest issue can come from defining alterous attractions and queerplatonic relationships as between platonic and romantic rather than something else entirely. Though these have their definitions as both between and outside of, there is a strong emphasis on them being between, and most commonly how I've seen them described. Why is this an issue? Because it upholds hierarchy of relationships, plays into amatonormativity, and ultimately hurts the aspec communities and beyond.

Hierarchy of Relationships By having queerplatonic relationships in between platonic and romantic ones, it implies the idea that they are inherently more important than friendships and less important than romantic relationships. Which, while it may be true for certain people, should not be used as a generalization for all queerplatonic relationships as it can deemphasize the importance of non-romantic relationships as well as continue to uphold the amatonormative view that romantic relationships are the ultimate relationship. I also want to point out that saying the actions within a QPR can be between platonic and romantic or a mix of the two is not necessarily the same as saying the relationship, as a whole, is between the two. Saying the actions are can help explain how a QPR works internally whereas saying the relationship is implies the idea of the trinary and an external evaluation of every QPR. And while the discourse of "Well a QPR is just a friendship!!!" has been prevalent, that doesn't mean there should be a turn to emphasizing the hierarchy. By doing this, the community can be setting ourselves up for the amatonormativity that already comes from the platonic/romantic binary

*And though I don't agree with everything in this article, I think it's an important perspective on how queerplatonic relationships can uphold relationship hierarchy

Amatonormativity By creating this new hierarchy, there is a new amatonormative expectation rather than attempting to get rid of the original. The idea of amatonormativity affecting the platonic relationships of aromantics is already quite prevalent; if you don't want or have a romantic relationship, you must want or have close friendships. And queerplatonic relationships, if placed into the idea of a trinary, can play right into that hand. By having queerplatonic relationships and alterous attraction be between romantic and platonic, and putting it into a relationship hierarchy, it creates this expectation for aromantic people to be in a queerplatonic relationship or experience alterous attraction. It's almost a "next best thing" mindset where if you don't want the "best" committed relationship, you want the "next best thing" available to you. Aromantic people are almost expected and have this sort of pressure to enter queerplatonic relationships.

I know for me personally, I wanted a queerplatonic relationship, but when I found I didn't experience alterous attraction consistently and therefore didn't feel comfortable in queerplatonic relationships, I was disappointed and hurt, almost moreso than when I found I didn't want romantic ones. I felt like I had failed as an aro person because I didn't want the "next best thing" I was supposed to want.

This amatonormativity also continues to enforce the idea that a) platonic relationships are still wanted and expected and b) that platonic relationships that do exist should not be your top priority. Similarly to being aromantic or analterous, being aplatonic continues to be diminished due to the idea that you must want to form some form of relationship, even though some don't desire that closeness. Alongside this, you have the diminishing of platonic relationships as a whole due to their lack of importance compared to queerplatonic and romantic relationships. Prioritizing these relationships can be perceived as something foolish or childish and overall just seen as a waste of time.

What's the solution? There's not necessarily going to be an end all be all solution to the issue of the trinary; so long as we have binaries, trinaries will continue to rear their head. However, there is the solution of changing the way you view queerplatonic relationships and alterous attraction, as well as continuing the breakdown of relationship hierarchy and amatonormativity Queerplatonic relationships are their own multifaceted relationships, not inherently something reliant on the ideas of romantic and platonic relationships. Romantic and platonic relationships themselves should be defined by the people in them, not on the expectations of society, and queerplatonic relationships, which are purposefully vague in order to combat this issue, shouldn't fall into this trap either. By inserting them into the platonic/romantic binary to begin with, you are doomed to fall into this, so the best way to combat it is to nip it in the bud and allow them to exist as their own relationship separate from the expectations of any relationship. As for amatonormativity: there shouldn't be an expectation for anyone to enter any sort of relationship. Platonic, queerplatonic, and romantic relationships are optional facets of life, not a requirement. Not all aspec people want queerplatonic relationships, and it shouldn't be expected that just because someone is aspec that they want a qpr.

Edit: I would also like to clarify that I don't think queerplatonic relationships or alterous attraction is bad or inherently amatonormative. I think that qprs and alterous attraction are great, I think they should be a part of the community and I don't think people who are in qprs are automatically contributing to amatonormativity. Instead, I'm proposing that adding these to an existing binary and creating a trinary does not inherently fix the amatonormative ideals of the binary. Culture and discussions of qprs can be plagued with amatonormativity if they're seen as expected or seen in relation to romantic and platonic rather than something on it's own.

[galactichelium]

Don't reblog. This is a personal post.

I have such a complicated relationship with gender, like... Ok this is going below a read more bc I ramble a bit but if you were ever curious abt my gender stuff. Well. It's there.

I'm bigender, which on its own makes things complicated, but then it's also like. While one of my genders is straightforward (literally just being "man"), the other I find a lot more difficult to explain. I guess if I had to though, I'd say it feels very vaguely woman-aligned, and attached to some aspects of sapphic culture. I've had trouble saying this publicly up until now (because of how weird people are about non-lesbians using these labels), but how I've described it in private for like almost a year is that it feels very attached to specifically butch aspects of sapphic culture, but without being a woman. I know any queer person can be butch before anyone thinks or says it, in fact, in private I had been calling myself butch in more of a man way for a year before realizing I was bigender in this way. That my butch-ness was separate from my man-ness. I ended up realizing this because, while calling myself butch in private felt more accurate, there was something still wrong. And May last year I figured out why that was. So yeah I've been sitting on this for awhile lmfao.

If you've been following me for 3+ years, you've probably seen that I've in the past had a habit of flip-flopping with identities, and I think that's because, well, I'm bigender, and despite knowing abt bigender people, it just never occurred to me that I could be two genders simultaneously. I've now stuck with bigender for almost a year, which I'm pretty sure is the longest any label has stuck lmfao.

I tend to get gender euphoria from gender statements that some would see to be inherently contradictory, for example, anyone remember that one shirt going around for a bit that said "I'm not a girl but my boyfriend is"? Peak gender. And I'm obviously comfortable with being called all masculine terms, exclusively or otherwise. But the same isn't true with feminine terms. Most of the time I only like them when they are mixed in with masculine terms. I also wouldn't like a cis person to refer to me with feminine terms at all.

This whole thing also makes my relationship with the word "sapphic" very complicated. Because it's like, yes, in some aspects, I do feel like it would be accurate to describe myself as such. However, part of me is also adverse to it, because then I get worried people will think I'm more woman-aligned than I actually am. So then there's "trixic". But I don't really wanna call myself that either, because it's too ambiguous. Anyone nonbinary who is attracted to women can use that. And I guess there's also the whole thing that I'm obviously aspec, and due to that, haven't technically been attracted to a woman in practice. But I still know I'm bi because I know gender is completely irrelevant from my attraction. I guess it's weird in that, while gender is irrelevant from my attraction, my attraction is relevant to my gender. So I've always struggled with whether to call myself "sapphic" or "trixic".

So yeah. Gender. Complicated.