Should asexual people be included in the LGBTQ+ community?

Asexual people face discrimination and alienation

Question: Should asexual people be included in the LGBTQ+ community?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, asexual people be included in LGBTQ+
Argument‹2 of 2: Asexual people face discrimination and alienation

Asexual people should be able to find community in a world which is hostile towards them.

The argument

(CONTENT WARNING: acephobia, sexual violence) Asexual people are discriminated against on many levels, so should be included in the LGBTQ+ acronym to give them a place to find community, share experiences and resources, and be recognised for their suffering. 43.5% of asexual people in a poll of 8000 reported being victims of sexual violence. Much of this is corrective rape, an attempt to "fix" someone's sexuality. Asexual people are also mocked frequently in pop culture, with asexually coded characters being frequently mocked by their friends as a running gag. A well-known example of this is Sheldon Cooper from the popular American sitcom 'The Big Bang Theory'.

Premises

[P1]Asexual people are discriminated against on many levels, with 43.5% in one poll of 8,000 reporting sexual violence, much of it "corrective" rape meant to fix their sexuality. [P2] They are also frequently mocked in pop culture, with asexually coded characters like Sheldon Cooper played as a running gag. [P3] Inclusion in the LGBTQ+ acronym would give them community, shared resources, and recognition of their suffering. [C] Therefore, because asexual people face discrimination and alienation, asexual people should be included in the LGBTQ+ community.

Counter-arguments

Those who argue against inclusion reply that facing discrimination is not, by itself, the criterion for LGBTQ+ membership — many groups face prejudice without belonging to a community historically organised around same-sex attraction and gender-minority status. The corrective violence and mockery asexual people face are serious harms that deserve recognition and support, but that recognition, critics argue, does not by itself require inclusion under this particular umbrella. They add that asexuality is a distinct axis — the absence of sexual attraction — and that some, including some asexual people, question whether cisgender, heteroromantic aces share the specific experiences the acronym denotes. On this view the boundary question is genuinely contested within the community and turns on what the umbrella is for, not on whether asexuality exists or matters.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Facing discrimination is not by itself the criterion for LGBTQ+ membership — many groups face prejudice without belonging to a community organised around same-sex attraction and gender-minority status. [Rejecting P2] Corrective violence and mockery are serious harms deserving recognition, but recognition and support don't necessarily require inclusion under this specific acronym. [Rejecting P3] Asexuality is a distinct axis (absence of sexual attraction), and some — including some asexual people — question whether cis, heteroromantic aces share the experiences the umbrella denotes, so the boundary is contested within the community.