Asexual people are not heterosexual, so are queer

The argument

This argument holds that asexual people belong in the LGBTQ+ community because the community is fundamentally defined as the home of those whose sexuality or gender falls outside the heterosexual, cisgender norm — and asexuality, by definition, falls outside that norm. The 'plus' in LGBTQ+ explicitly signals an inclusive umbrella that extends beyond the named identities to encompass the full range of people who are not straight and cisgender. Asexual people, who do not experience sexual attraction in the way the heterosexual majority does, are not heterosexual; their orientation diverges from the default that the community exists, in part, to provide an alternative to. The argument draws on the meaning of 'queer' as an inclusive term for any non-normative sexuality or gender. If queer encompasses everyone whose experience of attraction or identity departs from the straight, cisgender standard, then asexuality clearly qualifies: it is a distinct orientation marked precisely by its difference from the presumed norm of sexual attraction. To exclude asexual people would require drawing an arbitrary line within the non-heterosexual spectrum, admitting some who differ from the norm while turning away others who differ in a different way, which proponents argue is inconsistent with the community's inclusive purpose. From this standpoint, the community's defining principle is solidarity among those whose sexuality or gender is not the heterosexual, cisgender default, and asexual people meet that criterion straightforwardly. Belonging is not contingent on experiencing a particular kind of attraction, but on falling outside the norm — which asexual people do. Because asexual people are not heterosexual and are therefore queer, this argument holds, they should be included in the LGBTQ+ community.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Those who take the opposing view argue that the argument's defining premise — that the community is simply "everyone outside the heterosexual, cisgender norm" — is exactly what is in dispute. On their account the LGBTQ+ community is grounded historically in the shared experience of same-sex attraction and gender nonconformity, and the stigma attached to it, which is a narrower criterion than mere non-normativity. They add that "any non-normative sexuality" is so broad a test that it would sweep in many groups, so the boundary is not arbitrary but drawn around common experiences of marginalisation. On this view the question is whether asexuality shares that specific experience, which the argument assumes rather than establishes.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That the community is defined as "everyone outside the heterosexual, cisgender norm" is precisely what opponents dispute; many define it by the shared experience of same-sex attraction and gender nonconformity, a narrower criterion. [Rejecting P3] "Queer" as "any non-normative sexuality" is so broad it would admit many groups; opponents argue the line is drawn not arbitrarily but around shared experiences of stigma, which is the point the argument assumes.