Revisiting my asexuality and non-binarism

This post is a contribution to the June 2022 edition of the Carnival of Aces, whose topic is Throwback. My choice to answer is Robin Enby’s call of January 2015 about asexuality and non-binarism. I contributed to the original call, but my gender circumstances have changed so far.

When I wrote my original contribution to that call, I was still questioning my gender, with «demiguy» on the horizon, but later I came across the label «cis-genderless» and finally, distinguishing the separate categories of sex and gender, I realized I am agender, which is under the non-binary umbrella.

Looking backwards, I came to consider the «demiguy» label because, essentially, I was making an average between sex and gender, my lack of physical dysphoria with my deep rejection of both binary genders. Indeed, I was using the square models I discussed in my first contribution to that call. I placed myself midway the masculine axis, which was the midpoint between the origin (my agenderness) and the non-dysphoria.

Then, by chance, In found in an AVEN masterlist the «cis-genderless» label precisely with the definition that fit me. It has several issues, like not being used outside these forums and marking the «cis» prefix for an identity under the trans umbrella. So, despite I came out using it, I left it later when I separated sex and gender, realizing that I was actually agender and that this is what matters for being trans according to the community consensus.

So, now I identify as agender, non-binary and transgender, listed from the micro-label to the macro-label. I have found a lot of references in the non-binary community and I feel I belong to it. Moreover, the non-binary and asexual communities are very compatible, especially when at least a quarter of each one intersects with the other.

Being asexual, aromantic, and not desiring gendered relationships with people, it made me easier to navigate the non-binarism. Moreover, the introspection tools for realizing my gender were acquired in my asexual questioning. And in the attractions which are not sexual or romantic, I am not «mono.» For instance, I am panplatonic. I thank that this lucky alignment of asexuality, aromanticism and agenderness has avoided me further inner conflicts.

My experience at the blurry frontiers between categories

This post is a contribution to the January 2022 edition of the Carnival of Aros, whose topic is In-Between Spaces.

I identify, in order of realization, as aromantic, asexual and agender, but in order to confirm each one, I had to struggle with the blurry frontiers with neighboring categories. In the case of aromanticism, I had to deal with my panplatonism. Indeed, I had to discover this category and realize that I was aromantic and panplatonic. The key concept was squish, the «platonic crush,» which I learnt thought the post Squish! by Trix. This new category of platonic attraction allowed me to confirm my aromanticism and even to speak of my feelings and to form a queerplatonic relationship for some time.

Though I learnt of aromaticism through the asexual resources, it was more difficult for me to confirm my asexuality because I had no idea of the border between sexual excitation and attraction, so I considered myself grey in the dark zone. I needed to confront experiences with other aces in order to realize I was one of them. So, despite I knew of asexuality first, it was the second identity to be confirmed.

Years after, I reconsidered my gender, but I had to clearly distinguish sex and gender and that their identities might be mismatched. Provisionally, I identified as demiguy and later as cis-genderless, but when I did split the two categories, «sex» for the anatomic and physiological while «gender» for the psychological and social, I realized I was completely agender, regardless how I feel about my body.

In conclusion, 3 identities whose borders I had to know in order to know myself better, my position in them, and even my position in the neighboring categories.

Me rather than us

This a late contribution to the September 2021 edition of Carnival of Aces, whose topic is «The ‘we’ of ‘me’.»

After thinking about the prompts of this month, I have realized that I am more an «I» person than a «we» one, mostly by precaution. I may refer by «we» to the asexual community, the aromantic community, the non-binary community, the Spanish people, the people of may age, of my studies, etc., but I try to be cautious and only state in plural the sentences that I’m sure apply to the collective, rather than a part thereof that coincides with me. Or I can even mix first and second person in the plural, which is more evident in Spanish, showing the diversity in the group at the same time as the subgroup I belong to. For instance, «algunos asexuales somos arrománticos y otros no lo son» [«some asexual (we) are aromantic and others (they) are not.»], since in Spanish the pronoun is implicit in the verb form.

Do I belong here?

This is my take for December 2017 edition of Carnival of Aces: Alienation and Belonging.

As I told in my last post, when I entered the asexual community, I was not sure I was completely asexual, maybe hyposexual, but I felt the community was welcoming enough to stay there, even questioning. It was only later that I came across the antisexual elitism, people or groups that kidnap the asexual label for a meaning tailored to fit their convictions, especially of a religious kind. Apart of those, who try to policy who belongs, the community is built around an agreed definition focused on sexual attraction, which makes the rest of the variables free and welcomes the grays. Moreover, there is a tradition to give advice but to leave the last word on their asexuality to the subject.

In real life, I feel discriminated as aromantic and single than as asexual. In my current circles it doesn’t matter if you get laid or not, but having a steady partner matters a lot, and has a lot of unfair advantages. As I haven’t explicitly come out, I don’t know if I would be discriminated for being asexual. Another chapter is what would happen if I came out publicly, but this was treated in the carnival theme Unassailable Asexual of August 2014.

An answer to exclusionists of asexuality

Although I don’t listen to those who spread hate and exclusion of asexuality while nominally fighting against hate and exclusion of sexual minorities, but restring it to the tetragrammaton LGBT, I listen to the complaints of asexual activists who have suffered it first-hand. These haters use to exclude both asexuals and non-binary genders with the excuse that they are not oppressed, as if the oppression-privilege rhetoric were a truth, especially in the contexts where they try to extrapolate it. Unfortunately, this rhetoric has already crossed the sea and is heard even in Europe, where it was not even applicable its very initial example, and activists uncritically adhere to it, both for attacking and defending asexuality and non-binary genders.

While non-binary people are deemed by the exclusionists «not trans enough,» the asexuals are directly regarded as cis-hetero, ignoring the diversity of the asexual community. Some exclusionist know a bit about this diversity and claim «asexuality is not queer per se, but some asexuals may be LGBT if they are homo/bi/panromantic or transgender.» What neither of them wants is to admit any cis-heteroromantic people among them, regardless of how asexual they are. Aromantics are usually ignored or grouped together with heteroromantics in order to exclude them, since their very existence disrupts their preconceptions, so they may prefer not to analyze it in depth.

If the reader doesn’t mind the Gospel and the patriarchal whiff of its parables, I’ll retell one I find relevant for the topic (Matthew 18:23-35) discarding most of the patriarchal features: A slow-paying debtor gets, out of mercy, a deferment for a one-million debt, but applies for an impoundment in order to get paid a one-thousand debt. Then, the original creditor says «as I was merciful with you and waived several thousands in interest, you should have had mercy with your debtor in a business much smaller,» revokes the deferment and applies for an impoundment.

Although the LGBT community doesn’t owe anything to the cis-hetero one, the former asks for inclusion to the latter. If the LGBT community excludes asexual and non-binary people, it may happen to them as to the unmerciful debtor who asked for mercy. So, my answer to these exclusionists is the following: If you include, you may be included. If you exclude, you will be excluded.

Heterogeneidad en la comunidad asexual

English version

Esta entrada es una colaboración para el carnaval de blogs, que este mes trata sobre diferentes formas de ser asexual. La he traducido del inglés, que es el idioma de este carnaval, por sugerencia de su anfitriona. [Hay addedum de 2020.]

A pesar de no haber dos asexuales iguales, incluso dentro de cada subcategoría, todavía percibo una gran división entre románticos y arrománticos. Aunque la frontera entre ambos es borrosa, habiendo una amplia y diversa zona gris, todavía encuentro útil la distinción entre románticos y arrománticos. Mientras que la división entre asexual con y sin libido, la cual completa el modelo ABCD ahora obsoleto, tiene que ver con asuntos más privados, la división según la atracción romántica tiene que ver con cómo los asexuales se comportan socialmente, en especial respecto al emparejamiento. Tenemos que lidiar con presiones sociales muy diferentes. En mi primera quedada asexual, el anfitrión dijo en la presentación «supongo que todo tenéis experiencia sexual», a lo que yo respondí «ni la tengo, ni me he visto presionado a tenerla». La clave estaba en que yo era el único arromántico en la quedada y esto hacía mis experiencias acerca del sexo muy diferentes de las de los demás. Aunque hay quienes, siendo arrománticos e ignorándolo, sucumben a la presión por emparejarse y así tienen que soportar también la presión por practicar sexo, la mayoría de las experiencias que he oído de asexuales podrían clasificarse grosso modo como, bien felizmente solteros y célibes, bien en pareja y con problemas acerca del sexo. Cada grupo suele sentir una sola de las susodichas presiones sociales, con excepciones. Por ejemplo, algunos chicos felizmente solteros, ya aceptados como solteros empedernidos, sufren presión para echar un polvo.

Al contrario que la división discutida en el párrafo anterior, que puede reconocerse a partir de la historia de cada asexual, hay otro dato que debería proporcionarse para saber de dónde viene cada asexual y cómo les trata la sociedad: el sexo asignado al nacer. No me refiero a la identidad de género, que suele proporcionarse en el perfil de usuario, sino del sexo asignado al nacer, el que es socialmente reconocido, en especial por los más conservadores, salvo que vivan como su género preferido manteniendo en secreto su sexo. Mientras que la identidad de género es necesaria para tratar con respeto a los demás usuarios, el sexo al nacer es necesario para entender adecuadamente las reacciones sociales y poder aconsejar más acertadamente. Cuanto más conservadora sea la sociedad donde vive el asexual, más relevante será el sexo asignado al nacer. Yo soy un chico cis y así lo tengo puesto en mi perfil. Si fuera trans y no me sintiera identificado con mi sexo de nacimiento, consideraría alguna fórmula para hacerlo saber en mi perfil. Pero, aludiendo al tema del mes pasado, es una decisión de privacidad personal qué datos compartir en la red.

A pesar de su utilidad en las presentaciones, las categorías antes discutidas no son divisiones nítidas, pues Natura non facit saltus [la Naturaleza no hace saltos]. No debemos reemplazar un estereotipo homogéneo de la asexualidad por un conjunto discreto de ellos, pues incurriríamos en el mismo error a otro nivel. Quiero finalizar traduciendo una palabras del Informe Kinsey:

El mundo no se divide entre ovejas y cabras. No todo es blanco o negro. Es un fundamento de la taxonomía que la naturaleza raramente trata con categorías discretas. Sólo la mente humana inventa categorías y trata de forzar los hechos en nichos separados. El mundo vivo es un continuo en cada uno de sus aspectos. Cuanto antes aprendamos esto en relación al comportamiento sexual humano, antes llegaremos a un claro entendimiento de las realidades del sexo.

PD. Otra división, en este caso dentro de la comunidad arromántica, se discute en esta entrada de A Life Unexamined. A grandes rasgos, separa los arros dirigidos al emparejamiento o a la soltería. El estereotipo de arromántico que mencioné se correspondería con el de aquéllos dirigidos a la soltería. De todos modos, la conclusión de la autora es similar a la mía.

Addedum de 2020: No quiero alterar lo que escribí en 2017, antes de reconocerme como agénero, pero ahora mismo redataría el párrafo «Al contrario…» empezando por el final, enfatizando que es una cuestión de privacidad y libertad el decidir si compartir el género asignado al nacer, pero que es útil de cara a explicar la situación a otros asexuales y que puedan proporcionar consejo relevante. Las razones son las mismas que las aducidas, e incluso el contenido es formalmente el mismo, pero el énfasis es el contrario, y me parece preferible enfatizar la privacidad y la libertad sobre la relevancia de los consejos intracomunitarios. Y, sin bien ya no es cierto que me considere cis, lo que sí es cierto es que actualicé los perfiles en el sentido indicado. Quizás los vuelva a corregir, pero todavía me parece relevante indicar MAAB [male assigned at birth].

Heterogeneity in the asexual community

Esta entrada es una colaboración para el carnaval de blogs, que este mes trata sobre diferentes formas de ser asexual. Escribo en inglés porque es el idioma de este carnaval, pero hay una traducción aquí. [See the 2020 addedum.]

Despite not being two similar asexuals, even within subcategories, I still notice a great divide between romantics and aromantics. Although the border between both is blurred, existing a wide and diverse grey zone, I still find useful the distinction between romantics and aromantics. Whilst the divide between asexual with and without libido, which completed the now-obsolete ABCD model, deals with more private issues, the divide about romantic attraction has to do with the way the asexuals behave socially, especially about pairing off. We deal with very different societal pressures. In my first asexual meet-up, the host said in the introduction «I assume you all have sexual experience,» to which I replied «No, I don’t, and I’ve never felt pressured into it.» The point was that I was the only aromantic at the meet-up, and this made my experiences around sex very different to others’. Although there are people who, being aromantic in ignorance, succumbed to the pressure to pair off and so had to bear the pressure to have sex too, most experiences I’ve heard from asexuals could be roughly classified as, either happily single and celibate, or with couple issues around sex. Each group use to feel only one of the two aforesaid societal pressures, with exceptions. For instance, some happily single guys, once accepted as confirmed bachelors, feel pressure to get laid.

Contrary to the divide discussed in the previous paragraph, which can be recognized from the asexual’s story, there is another piece of information that should be provided in order to know where the asexual comes from and how society treat them: the so-called sex assigned at birth. I don’t mean the gender identity, which is stated in the user’s profile, but the sex assigned at birth, the socially recognized, especially by the most conservative ones, unless they go stealth. Whilst gender identity is necessary for politely addressing the other users, the sex assigned at birth is necessary for properly understanding the societal reactions and giving better advice. The more conservative the society where the asexual lives, the more relevant their sex-at-birth is. I am a cis guy, thus I state so in my profile. If I were trans and felt mislabeled by my sex-at-birth, I would consider using a formula in my profile that let other users know. But, recalling the previous month’s topic, it’s a matter of personal privacy to decide what data to share online.

Despite, their usefulness at introductions, the aforesaid categories are not clear cut, since Natura non facit saltus [Nature doesn’t make jumps]. We should not replace a homogeneous stereotype of asexuality with a discrete set of them, since it would be the same mistake at another level. I want to end with some words from Kinsey Report:

The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex.

PS. Another divide, in this case inside the romantic community, is discussed in this post at A Life Unexamined. Roughly speaking, it divides between aros driven to couplehood or driven to singlehood. The stereotype of aromantics I mentioned would correspond to those driven to singlehood. Anyway, its author’s conclusion is similar to mine.

2020 addedum: I don’t want to modify what I wrote in 2017, before realizing I was agender, but I would now reword the paragraph «Contrary to…» beginning from its last sentence, emphasizing that it’s a matter of privacy and freedom to decide on sharing the gender assigned at birth, but it’s useful in order to explain the situation to other asexuals so that they may give relevant advice. The points for this are the same I explained in the post, and even its content is formally the same, but the emphasis is the converse, and I thing it’s better to emphasize privacy and freedom over relevant intra-community advice. And, although I don’t identify as cis anymore, what remains true is that I updated my profiles in the mentioned direction. I might update them later, I still deem relevant to show MAAB [male assigned at birth].

Naming and discovering new categories

Esta entrada es una colaboración para el carnaval de blogs. Escribo en inglés porque es el idioma de este carnaval.

When I first came across the asexual community and read the descriptions of the terms it used, I didn’t identify with it initially, though these distinctions made a lot of sense to me. Despite the definition of the word “asexual” was a bit undefined that time because of the vagueness of “sexual attraction,” I considered really necessary to separate sex drive, sexual attraction and romantic attraction. Because of the lack of a good definition of “sexual attraction,” I considered myself hetero-hyposexual, but I immediately felt that the word “aromatic” described myself, so I wrote in my AVEN description “strongly aromantic.” Through discussion of the concept of “sexual attraction,” I finally recognized I had always been asexual, but I didn’t feel as identified as when I learnt of aromanticism. But the best word I found in the asexual community for describing myself was “squish.”

My reference for the definition of squish has always been the blog post Squish! by Trix. I had experienced squishes before, but I misidentified them heteronormatively as crushes if they were on girls and irrelevant if they were on boys. In the terminology of an older post, lacking the platonic category, I misclassified the girl squishes as romantic and the boy squishes as social. I think they would have been better classified as social, but amatonormativity made me consider some of them actual crushes. But they were platonic, and the word “squish” opened my eyes to a new category where I could recast many relevant feelings of my life. The platonic category has simplified the understanding of my feelings since I was aware of it, and the word “squish” has allowed an accurate communication with other members of the asexual community about my feelings.

The word “squish” was a breaking point of my policy about translation of asexuality terms between English and Spanish. Initially I kept a dictionary so that I could speak of asexuality in both languages, but I couldn’t find a word for “squish,” and the Spanish word “platónico” is quite different from the English word “platonic.” Anyway, the platonic category was so useful that we needed to use it in Spanish regardless the denomination. Some years later, some Spanish-speaking aromantic activists proposed terms for this category, like “arrobo” or “arrobamiento” for “squish” and “afectivo” for “platonic”, but the years when I had to use the English ones made hard for me to adapt to the new ones, especially “afectivo” because of it’s prone to confusion.

Other people may live happily unaware of the platonic category, but for me it was lacking words for one of our senses. If we identify the platonic feelings with hearing and romantic feelings with sight, my previous life was lacking terms for the sounds, being blind in a visual society. When I heard music, I thought I had to be seeing something. Realizing I was blind and that sound was a sensible reality, I could enjoy the music for itself.

My experience with asexuality, marriage and Christian religion

Esta entrada es una colaboración para el carnaval de blogs, que este mes trata sobre asexualidad y religión. Escribo en inglés porque es el idioma de este carnaval.

I am not religious nowadays, but I was raised Roman Catholic, which is the traditional religion in Spain. I am asexual aromantic, and singlehood is my natural state, though I lacked unmarried role models in my childhood, except in the Church. So religion was for me the proof that marriage is a choice, and not something unavoidable and irresistible everyone experiences when grown up. It is therefore understandable that I considered becoming a priest when a child. Later I detached myself from the Church because of the hypocrisy of its people, who make prophetic the words of Matthew 23 that Jesus addressed to the Pharisees.

Fortunately, when I left the sheepfold, I already knew that marriage is a choice, but I still had to bear the societal pressure to match, maybe tempered by the Catholic tradition. I don’t know from experience what happens in Protestant societies, but from what I read in the asexual blogosphere, the pressure to marry is stronger there, probably because they lack unmarried role models. But I think that, though the priestly celibacy is questionable, the Catholic doctrine of celibacy is righter than the Protestant one. The latter, who allegedly follow the sola scriptura policy, are forgetting the doctrine of Saint Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, who clearly states the following.

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. […] But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. — 1 Corinthians 7:1-2,6-9

I had to remind this passage a few times in AVEN because the Protestants ignore these verses. I shall assume bona fide they did for ignorance, but I feel tempted to think that they are teaching as God’s commandment what is plainly human tradition, as Jesus himself condemned.

Another biblical passage that I had to quote in AVEN, though less clear than the Pauline excerpt above, is the so-called verse of the eunuchs. I know there is controversy because of the exact meaning(s) of the word «eunuch» in the verse, with the Christian gay groups preaching it refers to homosexuals, but I shall not enter here the discussion. I will only notice that «eunuch» did not mean exclusively «castrated», as the Justinian compilation proves, but I may blog about this in another occasion. The verse, in context, is the following.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. — Matthew 19:9-12

Jesus is clearly speaking of marriage in this passage, clearly claiming that marriage is not for everybody. The verse of the eunuchs is an (obscure) explanation of this statement. This «marriage is not for everybody» thing is something that the Protestants are forgetting again. So I’m glad I had been raised in Roman Catholicism rather than in Protestantism because of its acceptance of unmarried life.

Asocial: the final frontier?

Versión en español

This post is a translation of the relevant parts of Asocial: ¿la última frontera? (in Spanish).

In the short history of asexuality we have witnessed twice a reaction against which we should be cautious in order to avoid committing it a third time. I mean the denial of asexuality by the (allo)sexuals who, unable to conceive that someone may lack what they feel, deny that asexuality might exist arguing that sexual attraction is universal and lacking it would result in inhuman beings incapable of loving. In reaction to this, the romantic asexual raise the flag of love without sex and reply things like «asexuals can also fall in love,» invisibilizing and denying the aromantics. Moreover, forgetting the way they were attacked, they now defend the universality of romantic love and even claim that its lack would result in inhuman beings incapable of loving. In reaction to this second denial, the aromantic asexuals discovered the squish and reclaimed the (queer)platonic relationships. This sounds again as the invisibilizing and denying cries of the (allo)sexuals and the romantics, and I would not want that these findings so useful to our emotional lives were used for the invisibility and denial of the aplatonics. I have read claims of universality of platonic love, although I still have not read that its lack would result in inhuman beings incapable of loving, and I would not like to see it happened. We know that the aplatonics exist and are capable of loving. Even the aplatonic aromantic asexuals show other kinds of affection for other people: for their family, their non-platonic friends and their close acquaintances. Apart from family love, the affection toward this kind of friends could well be called social. The coinage is not mine, since I had already read «homosocial» before, especially in the context of «heterosexual and homosocial.» In the same way we are socially conditioned into heterosexuality, we are also socially conditioned into homosociality, but I think that in past times more than nowadays.

This social affection would correspond with social attraction, which would be what we call «to take to,» in my opinion. Thus, according to the social attraction, a person could be heterosocial, homosocial, bisocial (well recognized terms en sociology) and even pansocial or, why not, asocial. Nevertheless, does the term «asocial» do justice to the people lacking this affection? We have spoken out in favor of the aplatonics and would not want to see another turn in the cycle of oppression described above, but it seems that the various senses of the term «asocial» does yield the same meaning. Do I miss anything? A person can be asexual, aromantic, aplatonic… and asocial; is «asocial» the final frontier of human attraction? I can at least say that, being platonic, I am not an interested party in setting the frontier precisely in the first kind of attraction I experiment in this digging of attractions: sexual, romantic, platonic and social. Though I can’t be accused of partiality, I don’t want to boast of objectivity either, so I would like to get feedback from the readers. You may post your message either as a comment below or, if you prefer privacy, through the contact form. I would like to get replies especially from aplatonics and from asocials.