“Cisgender” can be used to describe a privilege that cis people have over trans people. But gay people, lesbians, bisexual people, pan people do /not/ have the same privilege over asexual people as straight people do. It is less of “cis have power over trans people” being parallel with “allosexual people have power over asexual people” and more “asexual people are oppressed under heteronormativity in the same way as sga people are”, and just because sga people can be acephobic does not mean they have the same privilege over asexual people as straight people.
An example I have of this is lesbophobia and biphobia- lesbians and bi people do not have a word to define all non-lesbians / non bi people and neither should asexual people. I’m sure if they did it would be treated in the same way I’m treating allosexual.
You can also easily discuss acephobia within or outside of the lgbt+ community without having to use allosexual. And no- it doesn’t become “asexual vs normal” it becomes “asexual vs non-asexual”- I.e “people who aren’t asexual have no say in ace discussions”, which is non problematic.
I also love the ignoring of “I don’t want to talk about this”, but *shrugs*
Allosexual just is a way of describing people who aren’t asexual. That it. It’s not a big deal, it’s just a shorter way of saying not-asexual.
Then say “non-asexual”.
If it’s as little of a deal as you say, there will be no issue doing this, especially since other people have expressed such discomfort with the term.
Alright, you’re displaying a blatant misunderstanding here. first of all, might i point out that the spectrum that designates what genders someone is capable of being attracted to (and to what degree) is a completely separate spectrum from the one that designates how much sexual attraction a person is capable of feeling.
therefore your argument that “allosexual” is similar to if lesbians had a word for all non-lesbians (gay men and bisexual people included) is a false equivalency, and the flaw in your logic is a mile wide, as in your hypothetical, lesbians would be seperating themselves from other people who are oppressed based on their same-sex attraction- while asexuals are coining a term that separates themselves from people who feel are capable of feeling sexual attraction, with the genders the person is capable of being attracted to being completely irrelevant.
lesbians and bisexuals do not have a word to define all non-lesbians/non-bi people- but since the spectrums of sga and the ability to feel sexual attraction are totally separate, this has no baring at all as to whether it is appropriate for asexuals to have a word for allosexuals. because, the fact of the matter is, if lesbians and bisexuals had terms for people who are not lesbians/bisexual, they would be putting up barriers between themselves and other groups who are oppressed for reasons similar to their own.
i have never in my life seen a logical comprehensive argument for why allosexuals do not hold a place of privilege above asexuals, besides acephobic women screaming “They’re accusing us of having a form of privilege that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact we’re lesbians, and we find that to be lesbophobic for some reason, even though it does not target us specifically in any way, shape or form. In fact, the fact that straight people are also being accused of holding this privilege is part of the problem we have with it.”
As a lesbian, media hardly ever caters to me in any way, shape or form. I’m under-represented in every way imaginable. I hardly ever see female characters that experience same gender attraction the way I do.
But as an allosexual, I’m not sure that I’ve ever viewed a piece of media that didn’’t cater to me in some way- By presenting me with other characters that are also capable of feeling sexual attraction. By assuming that I’m capable of feeling sexual attraction and attempting to cater to that part of me (aside from media intended for young children, which hopefully will not attempt to cater to its viewers sexually.)
You seem to be severely misunderstanding something, and that’s that having privilege for being allosexual does not take away from any oppression you may face based on same-gender attraction. The fact that media caters to your ability to feel sexual attraction does not take away from the fact that the media in no way represents/caters to your ability to feel same gender attraction. This is an example of how an allosexual may be afforded a privilege on the grounds of being allosexual, but still be oppressed in regards to their SGA.
We as allosexuals are so use to being represented by the media that we don’t consider it a privilege, we consider it “normal”. Which implies that there’s something freakish or abnormal about not experiencing sexual attraction. And anyone who experiences sexual attraction holds this privilege, regardless of whether they’re oppressed in other unrelated ways (such as SGA).
Because the ability to feel same-gender attraction and the ability to feel sexual attraction in general are two totally separate fronts, and you are perfectly capable of being privileged on one front and oppressed on the other.
The fact that words like “pansexuality” and “bisexuality” “homosexuality” and “asexuality” all share the suffix “sexuality” deceives one into thinking they all span the same spectrum. but the first three terms i presented span the spectrum of what genders someone is attracted to- while “asexuality” spans a seperate spectrum of being capable of feeling sexuality at all.
And because these spectrums are separate, it is possible to hold a place of privilege on one of them and a position of being oppressed on the other.
The arguments I’ve seen acephobes make as to why “Allosexual” is problematic in some way, usually can be chalked up to “You’re accusing me of having a form of privilege, and I’m a whiney piss baby who will do whatever verbal gymnastics I have to to make it sound like it’s homophobic to do so, even though the type of privilege you’re accusing me of having has nothing to do with my SGA, and in no way detracts from the oppression I face for my SGA.”
The core of the “Allosexuals aren’t privileged, and saying we are is homophobic” argument is that it is supposedly bigoted to accuse someone of being part of a privileged group, if they are also part of a totally unrelated oppressed group. Accusing a non-ace lesbian of having allosexual privilege is not lesbophobic, for the same reason that accusing a NT POC of having neurotypical privilege is not racist.
Because you are in no way invalidating other forms of oppression they face. A neurotypical person of color may be represented by a particular character in a work of fiction, in that the character is also neurotypical- but this same character might not represent them in regards to being a person of color.
Along this same vein, a non-ace lesbian may be represented by a character, as the character is also capable of feeling sexual attraction- but this same character might not represent them in regards to experiencing same gender attraction.
“So asexuals believe lesbians have privilege over them?”
No, asexuals rightfully believe that allosexuals have a place of societal privilege over them- you are the only one drawing the distinction of “lesbians”, because you’re desperate to accuse asexuals of bigotry in an attempt to silence them. There are asexual lesbians who do not hold allosexual privilege, therefore any argument that the word “allosexual” targets us as lesbians in some way is moot.
Because the fact of the matter is, “allosexual” does serve the same purpose for asexuals as “cisgender” does for we transgender people. It separates them from a privileged group, and allows them to form safe spaces apart from that group.
Is “Cisgender” homophobic because it accuses we lesbians (and all other cis people) of being catered to by the media? No, because it doesn’t accuse lesbians of being catered to by the media because we’re lesbians- it accuses us of being catered to by the media for being cisgender.
Is “Allosexual” homophobic because it accuses lesbians (and all other allo people) of being catered to by the media? No, because it doesn’t accuse lesbians of being catered by the media because we’re lesbians- it accuses us of being catered by the media for being allosexual.
I’ve heard arguments that “Allosexual” is homophobic because it lumps gay people together with the heterosexuals, into the same privileged group. As the original asker above said, the term “Cisgender” does precisely the same thing- but it’s alright because the term “Cisgender” lumps gay people and straight people together under terms that have nothing to do with the spectrum of SGA- they’re being lumped together because they hold a place of privilege on a totally unrelated spectrum- the spectrum of gender identity.
However, “Allosexual” is fine in doing this for precisely the same reason. The term “Allosexual” lumps gay people and straight people together under terms that have nothing to do with the spectrum of SGA- they’re being lumped together because they hold a place of privilege on a totally unrelated spectrum- the spectrum of how much sexual attraction a person is capable of feeling.
Both terms exist to allow an oppressed group the ability to separate themselves from people who hold a more privileged position on their respective spectrums, which in turn allows them to create safe spaces for sanctuary and discussion.
I’ve also heard arguments that the word “Allosexual” is problematic, as it assigns a person a specific place on the spectrum of whether they’re capable of feeling sexual attraction (we need to come up with a shorter name for this spectrum.).
And all I can think to say is…Really? It does? The same way the term ‘cisgender’ assigns a person a certain space on the spectrum of gender identity? If they are not cisgender, they are free to find themselves identifying as transgender- and if they are not allosexual, they are free to find themselves identifying as asexual. The label is not being forced upon them, it simply describes a portion of their identity so as to protect an oppressed group from privileged individuals who mean them harm.
As lesbians, we’ve faced horrific oppression, and have for centuries. The term “Allosexual” doesn’t detract from that fact. Allosexual people are given characters in media who represent them in that the character also feels sexual attraction, but the character may not represent them in regards to SGA.
However, I’ve never encountered a character that uses the word “asexual” to describe themselves, unless they were referring to reproducing via mitosis. At that, I’ve never encountered a character that is blatantly asexual-coded by the author, who hasn’t been implied to be thought of as freakish because of it.
I came across a blog recently where a woman said she was “Tired of asexuals mentioning that they’ve endured corrective/marital rape for centuries. They’re obviously trying to take away from the fact that lesbians have also endured this.”
And I felt furious at the implication that an oppressed group discussing their own oppression was somehow an attack against a different oppressed group- simply because they also experience that same form of oppression. It was the most concise example I’d ever seen of people in Tumblr’s community of lesbians using accusations of homophobia to silence any asexual who tries to discuss their own oppression, or call out acephobia.
Denying an oppressed group their right to a word for people who aren’t part of their oppressed group is a very clever way to deny them their ability to form safe spaces, and arguing it in such a way as to accuse them of bigotry allows you to paint any asexual who dares to ask for this basic right as being a bigot.
the vast majority of the community of lesbians on this website are deeply entrenched in acephobic viewpoints.
Denying asexuals the word “allosexual” is an act of acephobia, and fabricated narratives designed to accuse them of bigotry are intended to silence them.
I could keep typing. Really, I could.