The Instigator
Zozo235
Con (against)
The Contender
UtopianBrainwash
Pro (for)

Are asexuals/aromantics inherently LGBT+?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Argument Due
We are waiting for UtopianBrainwash to post argument for round #3. If you are UtopianBrainwash, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
01day20hours50minutes18seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2019 Category: People
Updated: 1 day ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 113 times Debate No: 119836
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Zozo235

Con

To some, Asexual and aromantic people are inherently part of the LGBT+ community. What I believe is that in order to be LGBT+, You need to experience attraction to the same sex, Both sexes, And or have gender dysphoria. Cishet aces (Cisgender and heteroromantic asexuals) do not meet those requirements. Some people may argue that since asexuals and aromantics are a minority and thus should be included no matter what. If all minorities were included, Then being a person of color would be considered LGBT+, Which makes no sense.

Please keep this civil and respectful. Bring up any points that I didn't mention for a more interesting debate.
UtopianBrainwash

Pro

What is the necessity of categorizing such benign states of personality? Does it serve to isolate a genetic correlation? I think this question is highly political and too much in the realm of identity politics for me to address appropriately. However, The term "aromantic" seems to describe myself after being introduced to family court in MN and studying the statistics of Domestic Violence, Divorce, And child custody/family court compounded with "toxic masculinity" rhetoric that is so popular in this post #metoo western environment. I have become aromantic for sure, I would rather use the term "red-pilled" or "jaded". Chivalry and feminism have killed romance. This topic reminds me of the herbivore men of japan and mgtow men of other western countries. Men going their own way, Especially those who abstain from sex and even masturbation, Going "monk" if you will. As far as the term "LGBT" is concerned, Asexual means not interested in sex and/or taking a personal oath of abstaining from sexual activity. It is a term usually associated with not being attracted to either sex, Therefore conflating the terms "aromantic" (which is myself and most "mgtows") with asexual is a mistake.

Asexual: not interested in sex and/or not attracted to either sex or "any" identification.
Aromantic: Romance has been filed under "fiction" for these jaded souls.
Therefore, I believe, Both of these traits are not "LGBT" as LGBT is a term used to categorize sexual orientations and gender identifications.
Debate Round No. 1
Zozo235

Con

Zozo235 forfeited this round.
UtopianBrainwash

Pro

UtopianBrainwash forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Zozo235

Con

Zozo235 forfeited this round.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Some_Internet_Person 1 week ago
Some_Internet_Person
It depends on how you see the LGBT+ community. Do you see it as a group of strength or vulnerability?
Some groups are based on some "strength" - e. G. White supremacy sees being white & rich as a "strength", And thus they create groups that are exclusive to such people. That's just the most simple and obvious example, Not trying to draw any comparisons. Other groups are built upon vulnerability. They are built upon the vulnerable sides of people, They embrace them and see the fear and oppression or invisibility as what unites them.

I would argue that the LGBT+ community is a group of vulnerability specifically for gender and sexual/romantic orientation minorities (which is why pedophilia - a philia, Not a sexuality -, Furries - a kink or hobby, Not a sexuality - and minorities that are discriminated based on other factors, Are not inherently LGBT+. Asexuality and aromanticis on the other hand are orientations, Not lifestyles, Hobbies, Choices or kinks. ). We're all here because we one way or another don't fit with the rest of the population due to our gender identity or sexual/romantic orientation. I focus on the fact that both ace and gay, Trans, Bi etc. Representation is rare. I would focus on the fact that we are all in some way ignored or erased, Some more than others, But that doesn't change the fact that we are all united by our vulnerabilities that stem from our gender and/or sexuality.
Someone who argues that the LGBT+ community is a group of strength might focus on the things that seperate aces from the rest of the LGBT+ community. They might say that aces aren't oppressed and not killed for being ace for example - but to be oppressed, You must first be visible, Don't you? They might see same gender attraction, Multiple gender attraction or having a mismatched gender identity as the "strength" in this case. It really comes down to what you think the purpose of the community is.
Also, Gay pride is a seperate topic from this model, Before someone attacks
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.