I keep seeing these end of the family tree gifs with the aromantic or asexual or aroace flag on them (no hate to the creator/creators doing this)

aromantic and asexual people can adopt or have kid’s biologically or both

People choose to have kids for many reasons

Aromantic or asexual people can choose to be single parents or raise kids with a friend or a partner

I hate how I tell people I'm asexual and their reaction is "oh so you're just freaky but you don't act on it".

I'm asexual. I lack a sexuality. I lack desire, drive, libido, and attraction, although I acknowledge that only lack of attraction is necessary for asexuality. I do not want anything to do with sex, fictional or otherwise. I'm not a fucking "coach", I am not a sexual creature.

I hate how asexuality has become sexualized.

You know what no one ever talks about? How meeting "the one" doesn't make you any less aspec.

Like, you know when aphobes are all like, "You just haven't met the *right person* yet"? It doesn't follow logically.

A few days ago, my queerplatonic partner and I decided that there is a romantic element to our relationship, and that "demiromantic" describes our romantic orientations better. So yes, I "met the right person" and developed romantic feelings. But does that make me any less aro? Absolutely not. I wasn't alloromantic all along and just needed to realize it. You don't NOT develop romantic feelings your whole life and nullify your entire aromantic experience just because you find out you're arospec more than vanilla aro.

So yes, aspecs *might* meet "the one" and develop romantic and/or sexual feelings (not me, though, I'm ace as heck 😂). They might find out they're gray or demi. But that doesn't make them ANY less aspec.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.