a-polite-melody:

So, I had some thoughts last night when I was half asleep, and I think I want to flesh them out a bit.

The basis of my thoughts? Exclusionists don’t want aspecs of any form in LGBTQ+ or queer spaces at all.

We’ve been seeing, for a long time, posts from exclusionists who make posts that say things like “aces aren’t LGBT,” “aces are homophobes,” “aces are this,” “aces are that.” And inclusionists have time and time again pointed out that this shows that ace discourse isn’t only about the ‘cishet’ aspecs. Exclusionists will usually waffle about how they meant ‘cishet’ aces, but considering how often this keeps happening, I’m pretty sure it’s no longer a mistake. Especially when you factor in the frequent comparing aspecs to horrible groups and people (incels [x] [x] [x] [x] [x], white supremacists and Nazis [x], cults [x], Trump [x] [x] [x] [x], Pence [x] [x], Regan [x], Ayn Rand [x], Alex Jones [x], etc.) that exclusionists often try to pass off as ‘jokes,’ and how much other crap they spew towards aspecs including things like rape [x] and death [x] [x] [x] [x] wishes and threats [x] [x] [x] [x], and… just, I’m going to link this whole thing rather than continuing to pull links. [x]

But, as if that wasn’t enough, there’s more that really makes me think that exclusionists want aspecs – not just the ‘cishet’ ones, but all of them – to be eradicated from LGBTQ+ and queer spaces.

And what is that exactly?

The pushing of getting rid of the split attraction model.

What, exactly, would happen to people who genuinely have split attraction if we weren’t allowed to say that we’re both aspec and another orientation?

Well… we’d have to choose. Are we LGBT or are we aspec?

And there you have it. The reason why exclusionists continue to use “aces” to mean “’cishet’ aces” is because they think that only the ‘cishet’ aces (and aros, when they remember aros) would choose to continue using their aspec label if they were to choose between that and whatever other orientation they have.

They think that someone like me, an arospec bisexual, if forced to choose, would say I’m bisexual, and drop the arospec label. Then, yes, they could exclude all arospecs, because only the ‘cishet’ arospecs would be left identifying with the aro label.

They think the same of acespec people with another LGBTQ+ or queer orientation. They think that making an acespec person choose between their other LGBTQ+ orientation and their acespec one would leave only the ‘cishet’ acespecs left identifyin with the ace label.

And then they would be excluding all aces and aros.

The ‘problem’ they’re having, from their point of view, is that they haven’t established that yet. And so their use of “aces” and “aros” to mean “only the ‘cishet’ ones” doesn’t work the way they intend it to.

But, of course, the real problem is thinking that those of us with split attraction are ever going to stop using the SAM for exclusionists’ ease of making a coherent argument. Or that if we were forced to choose wouldn’t pick our aspec orientations over our other orientation because, god forbid, we feel more connection to our aspec label (which DOES NOT mean we are any less our other orientation, and those who feel more connection to their other orientation any less aspec).

Exclusionists are aphobes. They think our aspec orientations are lesser, not only to us, but in general. They don’t want aspecs at all, regardless of other LGBTQ+ or queer identities.