Straight supposedly is never lgbt+

I wonder if people realise that when they attempt to strictly define LGBTQIAP+, with whatever arguments it is they have.. They make a ton of people feel unwelcome, even if by your standards they possibly should be.

To start of though: Intersex people deserve to be in LGBTQIAP+ spaces, they deserve to feel welcome, they deserve to be included in the scope of all LGBTQIAP+ rights activists. Intersex people are often the most directly affected by sex essentialism, even from birth.

Also, there is “shared history”. Often aro ace people (section 1.1, 1.6, 2.1) identify as sga, mga, non-binary, or trans. When you explicitly go for aro/ace people, and the fact that so many people leave it open for interpretation. Makes many aro/ace people feel unwelcome, like their inclusion is less valid, or like a lot of people within the community either secretly or openly hate people “like them”. I think making it inherently about straightness, also holds ill implications with straight trans people. Why are we not shoving a non-inherency idea of cisness, why straightness? I feel like this is a very unequal thing, because there’s an implied more welcomeness for cis sga/mga people than there is for trans straight people. Because people often say straight or cishet, but never emphasise cis not being welcome.

Not only this, but when you start gatekeeping, you are encouraging gatekeeping as a concept. This has often lead to things like bi and pan people’s experience as sga people are less valid than gay people’s (sorry no source since sga is kind of not an explored term, but a lot of bi-erasure revolves around this concept). It’s lead to things like non-binary people not feeling welcome in trans spaces. And a lot of other things.

Now, what is this shared history? Just because it’s only talked about today, or it seems like an alien concept. We live in the 2010s as I am writing this post, history is relevant to historical contexts. It should not be used as an argument for current communities.

I once heard a person say there should be a seperate community created. Do you not think this also encourages the same sort of things? This would create a mentality like “You’re in that group that don’t welcome us, you have a space, so even though you’re aro/ace, you’ll be specificly made to feel unwelcome.” The same sort of thing that has come with people arguing that gendered issues are supposedly different and unrelated from sga issues, causing sga/mga trans people to feel unwelcome in spaces specificly for sga/mga people. Creating new communities because someone supposedly doesn’t fit the historical criteria, makes people that belong in several communities unwelcome in all of them. I say this from personal experience with all the variants of LGBTQIAP+ spaces (with exception being intersex, I do not know if I am intersex).

The resource I linked to previously mentioned this, but I feel I should add that I’ve talked to a lot of people that are on the aro/ace spectra. And many of them are trans and sga (exception being aromantic people), 90+% of the people I’ve had personal conversations with are sga/mga/trans/nb and some have been intersex. And they almost all feel unwelcome in LGBTQIAP+ spaces, and feel their presence is very dependent. Often being unable to tell non-aro/ace people’s supposed experiences with the aro/ace “community” and genuine acephobia apart.

Important thing to note: This is not about horrible people with disgusting discourse, and this is not about reclamation of any slurs. It is specificly about LGBTQIAP+ inclusion and not words like queer. Also, a few people in a community should not be an example for the “community”.