Not feeling sexual urges makes one asexual by default. Asexuality has nothing to do with romantic feelings, just sexual feelings; however, someone can be both asexual and aromantic.
The distinction matters because romantic feelings aren't always tied to sexual urges. Haven't you ever liked someone romantically, but not sexually? It's like that, but permanent.
Being prone to "cishet dumbassery" has absolutely nothing to do with someone's orientation lmao. Many asexual people don't identify as such and that is fine.
captcha how are you not getting it.... the split attraction thing especially is EXTREMELY shaky since it lets very cishet people into lgbt spaces. it's not for them. and then all the heteroromantic homosexual etc nonsense that validates those sweet sweet internalized issues
That other person who said I do it because I like arguing was right :|
I'll answer your question. Grouping Lesbians, gays, bis, and transexuals and other whatevers, is only a thing in our real world, because they are all oppressed for their sexuality. If there was no oppression, they wouldn't be grouped up the way they would. You're basically trying to make the claim that LGBT is a movement about not being straight and sexual, when it isn't.
Your question is and shows that you're not being critical. "LGBTQ+" was smaller originally but then grew to recognize other non cis groups for being oppressed for the same reason by cis people. If there was a country where these groups weren't oppressed and straight people were, for being straight that is. There would just be a straight movement.
Not feeling any sexual urges makes one asexual by default. It doesn't matter if they can feel romance. If they can, they are romantic, not sexual. aSEXUAL
Haven't you ever liked somebody only romantically, but not sexually? It's like that, but permanent.
I didn't say all heteroromantic people identify as asexual. They can if they want to, though.
if you're straight(the heteroromantic type) but not physically attracted.... how is that special? a whole ton of people who don't id as ace already only care about emotional chemisty and are completely prone to cishet dumbаssery
If a gay person lived in a hypothetical country which had little to no discrimination against gay people, are the gay people there not LGBT?
Plus, if straight people were actually discriminated against in that hypothetical country, could all straight people be considered LGBT just because they faced hardship?
I feel like asexuals do face some level of oppression in relationships where the popular belief is that no sex = no love. I mean people choose to be celibate based on religious choices, etc but it's hard to believe someone can be in love with someone but not want to sleep with them at all, and that can be a rough idea to send their partners. So some level of understanding about this subset of sexuality or lack of is necessary.
That being said and to repeat my prior point but without jokes, I don't understand the the need for exclusiveness on the part of the LGBT community to keep it at that level. Like the whole point was to create a community where these differences in sexuality and gender can be appreciated and celebrated but I doubt the creation of the community was meant to limit itself there. Sure adding letters is stupid but adding people as part of said diversity should be one of the main points of the community yet you guys are showing the toxic side which is sort of ironic, though I understand you're a small subset and this isn't the most socially stable groups to take opinions from.
