Anyone else has no interest in joining LGBTA community??

[aussiekirkland]

3 hours ago, Tal Shi'ar said:

I personally, since finding out about asexuality and all the rest, have came to a conclusion that there's a difference between LGBT and the LGBT+ (well yeah, there's a + for starters). Since the LGBT, (yes, the one without the +) was the struggle for gay, bi and trans people to have rights and not be treated as criminals and less than the people they were, I find that asexuality, since it's so hidden has had nowhere near the same amount of struggles to exist nor has it had to fight for the right to even exist. This has just been my observations though, and I've pretty much spent my whole life having spent no time whatsoever near any of these sorts of circles, so I can't exactly make that many comments nor assumptions.

This is how I see it. If I want to participate in LGBT+ events, I look to see whether the plus is included or not. They usually specify who these events are for, and sometimes events are specifically for trans people or queer POC and so obviously that's not my place.

[meesemouse]

On 11/26/2016 at 8:29 AM, Mark said:

I'd tend more to the view that it is "too different".

Since romance is so ubiquitous and normative.
I imagine that it could be difficult encountering someone for the first time who dosn't want to do something that you've always believed everyone wants.

I definitely agree on that. It's kind of hard to place it, because it on one hand, it isn't something as visible or noticeable. For example, if you see a person sitting alone, you can't just establish that they are aromantic. Whereas some other LGBT orientations and sexualities are more noticeable, for example, if you see two guys acting lovey dovey, then you can infer that they are gay. So on one hand its almost considered more normal at surface level to general society, but yet conversely, in its core it is such an alien concept to so many people. To try to explain to anyone, whether they are just general society or LGBT, that we don't want what everyone has always believed is sought after in society is, as you were saying, difficult. It's all hard to explain but it's definitely neat to see everyone's different opinions on this.

[DeMorgan]

    In my opinion, the LGBT(+) community is one uniting people of traditionally non-normative sexualities.  As aromanticism does not decide sexuality, it certainly isn't a community that I would expect to—or even want to!—include aromantics.

[Cassiopeia]

8 hours ago, DeMorgan said:

    In my opinion, the LGBT(+) community is one uniting people of traditionally non-normative sexualities.  As aromanticism does not decide sexuality, it certainly isn't a community that I would expect to—or even want to!—include aromantics.

 

What about the T part? 

[Holmbo]

On 2016-11-30 at 11:25 AM, Kojote said:

There are so many layers to the LGBT dispute, it's mind boggling at times and none of them are inherently wrong, but a lot of them aren't all that helpful to people who actually need the support, no matter their label (at least I feel like some discussions miss a point). That's why I do not particularly like the alphabet soup. It kind of forces you to identify with one of the letters and debate over which ones can or can't be in there and why, aka it forces us to think of individual people as groups. I really would rather have an all inclusive term, that is not tied to specific identifications, but I do realize that that's not gonna happen anytime soon, given the debate around the word "queer" and the public recognition of "LGBT".

 

I agree with this. Could one talk about a queer-movement perhaps? Sort of a general movement for it to be accepted to not be like "the norm".

 

 

On 2016-12-01 at 9:33 AM, Tal Shi'ar said:

Since the LGBT, (yes, the one without the +) was the struggle for gay, bi and trans people to have rights and not be treated as criminals and less than the people they were, I find that asexuality, since it's so hidden has had nowhere near the same amount of struggles to exist nor has it had to fight for the right to even exist.

Yes the whole LGBT ---> LGBT+ is a sort of maslows hierarchy of needs in a way. Were many countries are still at the bottom of the pyramide and the movements are concerned with people fearing for their lifes. And some other countries have come farther so the questions are more about belonging and self actualization.

[Kojote]

33 minutes ago, Holmbo said:

I agree with this. Could one talk about a queer-movement perhaps? Sort of a general movement for it to be accepted to not be like "the norm".

 

There once was. There was the Queer Nation movement in the 90s. You might know the slogan "We're here we're queer, get used to it". It's when LGBT became LGBTQ and while it was mainly started for L, G, B & T rights and visibility, it was all inclusive and wanted to give everybody a voice, but than tumblr and the 21st century happend and a lot of people said, that queer was a slur that is meant to hurt and could only be reclaimed by certain people (aka those it has been used against, which, incidentally, is a really tough definition for someone like me, who's mother tongue is not english).

 

It'd be an understatement if I said that the conversation (pro and con) is really heated on both sides of the argument and, as far as I can see, there's no consensus to be found anywhere anytime soon. 

[Holmbo]

3 minutes ago, Kojote said:

 

There once was. There was the Queer Nation movement. You might know the slogan "We're here we're queer, get used to it". It's when LGBT became LGBTQ and while it was mainly started for L, G, B & T rights and visibility, it was all inclusive and wanted to give everybody a voice, but than tumblr and the 21st century happend and suddenly a lot of people said, that queer was a slur and could only be reclaimed by certain people (aka those it has been used against, which, incidentally, is a really tough definition for someone like me, who's mother tongue is not english).

 

It'd be an understatement if I said that the conversation (pro and con) is really heated on both sides of the argument and, as far as I can see, there's no consensus to be found anywhere anytime soon. 

I see. I recognize that slogan but don't really know anything about it.
It would be good to have some sort of "against normality" movement were everyone who wants the freedom to not be "normal" in some sense can join. Which would be everyone because everyone is different from the norm in some way. And we could have this made up "them" who are the normal people who judge everyone. I think every movement needs an "us" and a "them" in order to unite. It's sort of old tribalistic instincts.

 

 

 

[DeMorgan]

6 hours ago, Cassiopeia said:

What about the T part? 

 

Ack, you're right.  I suppose that I'd have to redact what I said, or at least how I said it.

[Philbo Wiseroot]

I wouldn't say that, being ace, I might be able to use the resources and stuff that LGBTQ+ communities have if I need them, but I agree with @Mark that my (larger in proportion) Aro side is "too different" for the different people. 

[Zae]

Well, I think the common goal of LGBT+ etc. is acceptance~

And while it's true that LGBT is slightly seperate from + and mainly fighting for their rights, the + part is trying to get visibility. This often includes Aromanticism. Many aros want visibility and acceptance.

 I generally think all aros should be able to get support from the LGBT+ community if they want to. Some need it~

Though I have to say, that I don't really like the LGBT+ acronym. It's just an endless string of letters that no one can agree on.

[Untamed Heart]

I don't personally feel like I need or belong in LGBT+ but I think the door should still be open if LGBT+ could benefit anyone else.

[Mark]

On 02/12/2016 at 4:17 AM, meesemouse said:

IWhereas some other LGBT orientations and sexualities are more noticeable, for example, if you see two guys acting lovey dovey, then you can infer that they are gay.

Possibly wrongly since there are more bisexuals than homosexuals or you have misgendered one of them.
 

On 02/12/2016 at 4:39 AM, DeMorgan said:

    In my opinion, the LGBT(+) community is one uniting people of traditionally non-normative sexualities.  As aromanticism does not decide sexuality, it certainly isn't a community that I would expect to—or even want to!—include aromantics.

Not quite that simple in that they have also campaigned, very sucessfully, for normative romanticism...

 

On 02/12/2016 at 5:28 PM, Kojote said:

There once was. There was the Queer Nation movement in the 90s. You might know the slogan "We're here we're queer, get used to it". It's when LGBT became LGBTQ and while it was mainly started for L, G, B & T rights and visibility, it was all inclusive and wanted to give everybody a voice, but than tumblr and the 21st century happend and a lot of people said, that queer was a slur that is meant to hurt and could only be reclaimed by certain people (aka those it has been used against, which, incidentally, is a really tough definition for someone like me, who's mother tongue is not english).

 

It'd be an understatement if I said that the conversation (pro and con) is really heated on both sides of the argument and, as far as I can see, there's no consensus to be found anywhere anytime soon. 

The history is a lot more tangled than that. In the 1960's and 70's the most common term was "gay community". Even though there were people prominant in the Stonewall Riots and the start of Pride who were bisexual, transgender and/or non-monogamous.

[Kojote]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

The history is a lot more tangled than that. In the 1960's and 70's the most common term was "gay community". Even though there were people prominant in the Stonewall Riots and the start of Pride who were bisexual, transgender and/or non-monogamous.

Yeah it is definitely more tangled. I just didn't wanna go into a history rant and thought I'd just "briefly provide the word you'd need to google" to read up on it. 
But isn't it true that early (pre-90s) "gay community" movements really majorly focused on L&G rights to break the anti-gay legal system (because of course they were. they faced oppression on a grand scale), while the Queer movements in the 90s build upon that foundation and also pushed for B, T and + visibility? 

[Ettina]

The way I see it, lesbians and gays get picked on for two things - not wanting to have romantic/sexual relationships with the opposite sex, and wanting to have romantic/sexual relationships with the same sex. In my impression, homophobes seem to be about equally upset by both of those, although men get more flack for same sex relationships and women for refusing opposite sex relationships.

 

Bisexuals violate only one of those two standards, because they're interested in the same sex but don't lack interest in the opposite sex.

 

Meanwhile, asexuals and aromantics don't have enough/the right form of interest in the opposite sex, but (unless they're gay/bi/pan on one dimension) don't violate the standard of not having same sex attraction. So the way I see it, we're kind of in the same boat as bisexuals.

 

Transgender people are more out of place than aros and aces. Their primary issues don't even have to do with attraction at all. A homosexual FtM or MtF is perceived as straight if they don't insist on being seen as the correct gender. Plus, bigots freak out about trans or trans-seeming kids who are way too young to feel attracted to anyone. And yet despite being so different from cis LGB people, trans people are generally accepted as LGBT.

 

I personally do very much want to be part of the LGBT movement. They're people who get a lot of the things I experience that cishet allos don't experience. They know what it's like to get hit on by someone your orientation isn't attracted to, to get very confused by sex education because it presumes heterosexuality, to have to look to adoption or ART to have a child, to have people tell you you're too young to know how you're feeling or you should choose to feel different feelings, etc. Plus the only other aces I've met in real life have been involved in the LGBT community, so without that community I'd have never met other aces in person.

[Mark]

8 hours ago, Ettina said:

The way I see it, lesbians and gays get picked on for two things - not wanting to have romantic/sexual relationships with the opposite sex, and wanting to have romantic/sexual relationships with the same sex. In my impression, homophobes seem to be about equally upset by both of those, although men get more flack for same sex relationships and women for refusing opposite sex relationships.

 

Bisexuals violate only one of those two standards, because they're interested in the same sex but don't lack interest in the opposite sex.

 

Meanwhile, asexuals and aromantics don't have enough/the right form of interest in the opposite sex, but (unless they're gay/bi/pan on one dimension) don't violate the standard of not having same sex attraction. So the way I see it, we're kind of in the same boat as bisexuals.

There is fairly common meme that anyone who is not (or does not act) str8 must be gay...
Displaying the "wrong form" of interest in the opposite sex can also also be an issue.
e.g. heterosexual aros (especially men) seeking (QP) friendships.

There are also plenty of gender based double standards here. Such as two men showing affection towards each other being a lot less acceptable than two women.

 

8 hours ago, Ettina said:

Transgender people are more out of place than aros and aces. Their primary issues don't even have to do with attraction at all. A homosexual FtM or MtF is perceived as straight if they don't insist on being seen as the correct gender. Plus, bigots freak out about trans or trans-seeming kids who are way too young to feel attracted to anyone. And yet despite being so different from cis LGB people, trans people are generally accepted as LGBT.

Quite often they will freak out more over boys than girls in this respect. It's notable that there is no male parallel of the term "tomboy".
Which could explain the greater visibility of MtF over FtM.

 

 

[aussiekirkland]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

Quite often they will freak out more over boys than girls in this respect. It's notable that there is no male parallel of the term "tomboy".
Which could explain the greater visibility of MtF over FtM.

Honestly and unfortunately I think the parallel for tomboy is gay. Feminine boys are almost always assumed gay, even before puberty which always wierds me out (not that the entire concept of feminine = gay doesn't weird me out, it does).

[Mezzo Forte]

Honestly, even as a trans person, I only really feel comfortable in certain online spaces for LGBTQ discussion. Most of the live spaces I know of are (understandably) very focused on politics/activism, and I'm simply not a fighter. Plus, I never really clicked with others in those spaces, be they LGBT, ace, or trans specific. (Honestly, I fear that I'm so far deep in the rabbit hole of music academia that it's starting to become one of the only communities I can truly connect with.)

 

I'm much more on the side of inclusivity in these groups since they can genuinely benefit some people; I'm just not terribly interested in them on a personal level.