Against the Binary: A Critical Reply to Demisexual Exclusionism (Part 2)
Broadening Definitions, Broadening Minds
On July 11th, 2021, David Jay and Yasmin Benoit hosted a unique livestream on YouTube. The stream and its associated post on the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) forum were important, in that they formalized what many in the Asexuality community had expressed for a long time; both the use of, and desire for a more inclusive definition of Asexuality.
A few months ago the AVEN Board of Directors voted to update the definition of asexuality on the AVEN homepage from “An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction.” to “An asexual person is someone who experiences little or no sexual attraction.” In many ways this change is overdue: for a long time we’ve been a community that embraced a spectrum of ace experience, and it makes sense to update our most public definition accordingly.
The revision to AVEN’s definition of Asexuality came at an interesting time. The livestream and announcement came just a few days after Michaela Kennedy-Cuomo coming out, an event that also shone a spotlight on Asexuality and the Asexual spectrum. The ensuing conversation of Kennedy-Cuomo’s coming out focused attention specifically on Demisexuals, but this event and the July 11th livestream both highlighted the same basic question: Who belongs in the Asexual community?
I remember a conversation I had with a friend when I was just starting to explore my Asexuality. A self-professed “OG” Asexual, she proudly proclaimed “I just don’t understand Demisexuality at all!”. She expressed her definition of Asexuality as being purely the lack of sexual attraction. That an Asexual could ever experience any degree of sexuality was simply impossible to her. Being Demisexual meant that I couldn’t possibly be anything related to Asexual. I did not belong in her community.
By then, I’d started to be familiar with other Queer people talking on social media about how Demisexuality ‘was just made up’, or ‘was just normal, like everyone else’. But I especially bristled at her words and tone. Since she was Asexual, I thought she would have understood my struggle to understand my own patterns of sexual attraction. But it was clear that simply wasn’t the case. Dealing with gatekeeping from the Queer community isn’t pleasant. But it’s especially difficult to take from others assumed to be on the same side as you.
Circling the Wagons
The general shape of Queer exclusionary discourse is the belief that any groups existing at the margins of a community don’t deserve to participate in that same community. They cannot be included, because they cannot precisely conform to the community’s exact standards. For some, this is a necessary measure to maintain identity in the face of oppression and discrimination. For others, it’s about protection from erasure, and outside threats.
These beliefs are consequently seen in talking points aimed at excluding Demisexuals — and Asexuals as a whole — from the Queer community. But it is also expressed within the Asexual community, with the aim of enforcing a less inclusive vision of Asexuality itself.
I want to be clear in saying that directly confronting these points head-on is important; countering them with positive messages of inclusion is also important. However, it is also useful to address two attitudes I recognize that drive exclusionism in the Ace community: binary thinking and the scarcity mindset. In this piece, my goal is to address these two underlying facets of Asexual gatekeeping. I want to break them down, and examine how they harm the Asexual community.
By dissecting exclusionary arguments — of which I’ve used three general examples that I’ve encountered — we can look deeper at the underlying attitudes and beliefs that drive them. And by doing that, we can hopefully open more conversations about how we can move the Asexuality community forward.
A Discussion of Asexual Exclusionary Points
1. “I don’t understand how someone could be Demisexual.” / “Asexuality is not a spectrum.”
Driving this statement is a specific definition of Asexuality; under this definition, it can only be the complete absence of sexual attraction. Asexuality then becomes a black and white binary, and it cannot be a spectrum. In this universe, only two types of people can exist: Asexuals, and Non-Asexuals (e.g. Allosexuals).
Using a restrictive binary definition of Asexuality is harmful for three major reasons.
First, it leads to the idea of an elite “Gold Star Asexual”. Similar terms have been coined for those who have passed Queer “sexual purity” standards, and Ace exclusionists appear to want similar standards applied to the Asexual community. But where does one draw the line? Who gets to decide who is and is not “Ace enough”? What happens if an Asexual person experiences one specific episode of sexual attraction? Do they lose their Asexual status? What if an Asexual’s sexual history includes one or two experiences of sexual attraction? Does that retroactively invalidate their Asexuality?
This would leave the community in an endless cycle of questioning who is and who isn’t “Ace enough”. It would also lead to stratification within the community, with Gold Star Asexuals given privilege and priority over other Asexuals who have been deemed less worthy. This would do nothing to help Asexuality gain more recognition and visibility in society, and it would only further reinforce the idea that acceptance can only come with comformity to someone else’s sexual norms.
Second, it introduces anxiety and shame over not being “Ace enough”, both internally and externally. Externally, it is the fear of people judging one’s Asexuality as insufficient or invalid. (As if any one person or body could ever judge that.) This leads to fear of being excluded from Queer or Ace spaces. In turn, this discourages people from accessing community resources when they are needed, in turn preventing them from creating new connections and learning further information about concepts like the Split Attraction Model, or Grey-Asexuality. The result is still further isolation for those new to, or curious about Asexuality.
Internally, it is the corrosive self-doubt experienced from questioning one’s own Asexuality. This parallels how Transphobes use metaphysical skepticism to cut down a Trans person’s identity. However, this is metaphysical skepticism directed at oneself. Arguably, the blades of gatekeeping and exclusionism are at their sharpest when directed inward.
Third, it immediately casts doubt on those discovering Asexuality, and strips people of a potentially healthier sexual identity. People’s individual sexual histories and journeys are a diverse mosaic of lived experiences. Not everyone would be willing or able to be pigeonholed into the narrow categories of “100% Ace” vs. “0% Ace”. Only some could then see themselves as being “Ace enough” to join the community. Others would just be “straight”, regardless of how much Asexuality resonates with their experience. This deprives people of what could be an empowering way to better understand themselves.
A narrow black and white binary view of Asexuality, then, clearly hurts everyone in the community. It hurts Asexuals, Grey-Asexuals, and those new to, or curious about Asexuality.
To circle back to the original point, I would ask “What?” and “Why?” — What is it about Demisexuality that they cannot understand, and why? When we are open to discussing this in good faith, we can explore why binaries are harmful. From there, we can also explore why they need dismantling.
2. “Including Demisexuality alienates people who don’t experience sexual desire or sexual attraction.” / “Including Demisexuals takes away from the meaning and value of Asexuality.”
This implies that Asexuality is a space limited in both size and attention. Therefore the community can’t accommodate both Demisexuals and Asexuals. Under this view, there is not enough space for Demisexuals and Asexuals in the community, and there is not enough attention to address both Demisexual and Asexual issues. Asexuality then becomes a zero-sum game. If we include Demisexuals and Grey-Asexuals in the community, Asexuals stand to suffer. On an emotional level, including Demisexuals lessens the value people gain from their Asexuality.
Under this scarcity mindset view of Asexuality, Demisexuals become competitors to Asexuals in accruing resources. Examples could include social capital and recognition (through influence and presence on social media), access to Queer and Ace spaces, or even political power through activism. Emotionally, the value and meaning of Asexuality becomes a commodity; it would suffer devaluation, if it was more widely available.
The scarcity mindset view ignores the shared struggle faced by Demisexuals, and Asexuals. The struggle is rejection from an amatonormative, heteronormative and patriarchal society. It is exclusion and erasure from Queer spaces. It is the devaluing and wilful ignorance of lived experiences by colleagues and family. Demisexuals then, are in firm solidarity with Asexuals against the same harmful societal structures.
Contrary to this view, Asexuality is not a zero-sum resource. What if more people can use the identity ‘Asexual’? That does not bar me from using the label ‘Asexual’. Furthermore, it does not equal the cheapening of that label as I use it. If I identified as ‘Asexual’ last year, that doesn’t change if I value and use it in the same way today. It still doesn’t change if that label has expanded to include my friends or neighbors.
An Asexual who has never experienced sexual attraction in their entire life is no less an Asexual on July 12th, 2021, than they were on July 10th.
Instead of seeing Asexuality as a limiting resource, we can see it as a collective body that can be grown. Including Demisexuals (and other Grey-Asexuals) in the community adds more to its voice and strength. Demisexuals and Asexuals are not competitors for attention, recognition or value in society. Instead, they can unite to demand more from it. Together, they can demand more recognition of non-amatonormative and platonic relationships. They can demand more acceptance of non-heteronormative expressions of sexuality. They can apply more pressure for political and media representation. They can fight for more liberation from obsolete patriarchal structures in society. And they can fight for more justice and equity for those at the intersections of Asexuality and race, and disability.
This also means that the entire Aspec community has much to offer the Queer community in the fight for both Queer and women’s liberation, and justice for the marginalized.
To return to the original point, again my question to this is “Why?” as well as “How?” I hope these questions open the door to a wider conversation about the struggles shared by Demis, Aces, and Queer folx. From there, we can talk about fighting these struggles in a way that is positive, empowering, and affirming.
3. “You’re just trying to get in a community you have no place in.”
On what basis do Demisexuals (and Grey-Asexuals) not belong in the Asexual community? Because the possibility of sexual attraction in a specific context exists for them? Does the possibility of sexual attraction immediately make them a “normal” Allosexual? This returns us to the issue of binary thinking seen in the “Asexuality isn’t a spectrum” argument. It sets up a vision of Asexuality as being exclusively for people who experience absolutely zero sexual attraction. Again, this is harmful because it also brings us back to the concept of Asexual purity testing, “Gold Star Asexuals”, and all that they entail.
It is harmful because it presents a vision for Asexuality that does not reflect the reality of people’s lived experiences. Some Asexuals have, on very rare occasions, experienced sexual attraction. Someone who identifies as Demisexual may never, or only seldom experience sexual attraction due to a dearth of significant emotional connection. Others may connect and relate to many facets of the Asexual experience — such as alienation from amatornomative beliefs, repulsion from depictions of sexuality, and feelings of detachment from discussions or thoughts of sexual activity — but still find themselves feeling sexual attraction in specific situations. People are not always going to be Asexual in clean, narrowly defined ways. There will always be those on the margins. There will always be people who find themselves identifying with Asexuality, and yet also finding themselves defying one of its core tenets in subtle ways: People whose sexual side is a blurred grey between Asexuality and Allosexuality.
To remove these people from the community is to be blind to the diverse range of experiences through which people interact with their Asexuality.
This statement also implies that the community as a greater body has no room for both Demisexuals/Grey-Asexuals and “conventional” Asexuals. Here, scarcity thinking expresses itself again — for a community assumed to be limited in size, ability, and scope, the Asexual community cannot accommodate people who cannot conform to a “pure” vision of Asexuality. It is blind to the growth potential of Asexuality and the exciting possibilities that come with the inclusion of a diverse array of voices. It is also blind to the struggles that Asexuals and Demisexuals must both face and navigate, in a sexual world that leaves both groups ostracized and rejected.
For Demisexuals it’s arguably not about trying to get into a community they “have no place in”; it’s about trying to co-construct an affirming community with all who are alienated from traditional sexual and romantic norms. We don’t want to be in a place where we don’t belong; we want to be in a place where we are free to be true to ourselves.
Forward Momentum
From across the Asexual community, the demands have been made loud and clear: Better and more widespread media representation, more resources to educate the wider public about Asexuality, and more available community supports for those who are starting to find themselves in Asexuality. While those are all admirable goals in and of themselves, they are important stepping stones to the greater goal of Queer liberation.
For those in the Asexual community, this means more than just struggling to find a place of validity or recognition in wider society. It means changing society as a whole. It means removing the societal barriers that prevent people on the Asexual spectrum and the Queer community from pursuing the life and relationships they seek. It means dismantling amatornormativity and heteronormativity, as well as patriarchy and monosexism.
This all arguably cannot happen until everyone in the Asexual community — including everyone on the Asexual spectrum — is welcomed and accepted. The vocal support that often comes out for Demisexuals and Grey-Asexuals in the face of Ace exclusionism is both deeply heartening and deeply encouraging. But the continued experiences of Demis and Grey-Aces that are seen as not “Ace-enough” still tells us that there is more work to be done.
Expansion of the community does not equal the exclusion of its members. Expansion of community definitions does not equal the erasure of your identity. In fact, it means the opposite: It means a more robust, inclusive and vibrant community. It means an even greater affirmation of your sexual identity through the recognition of shared struggles and goals with others from different backgrounds. It means more political and social power to truly achieve the change that we all wish to see in the world.
Those who view the community with a scarcity and binary mindset appear to want a comfortable walled garden where only the elite can enter. This cannot be the way forward for the Asexual community, not if we want to shed the harmful stereotype of the haughty, prudish Asexual who looks down on “the Allos” while expressing outrage at anything sex-positive.
Those who view the community with an abundance mindset, and a spectrum-positive perspective see Asexuality as a place for liberation. A place where people can find support in shedding themselves of the norms telling them they are “broken”. A place where people can be free to be their honest sexual self: And there is nothing more sexually freeing than discovering you can say “no” to being sexual without the fear of shame and criticism.
We can only achieve this if we work together to ensure that everyone is included and valid in our community.
