terflies:

lesbocourse:

terflies:

…because they don’t exist!

It’s an oxymoron; asexual and aromantic people are, by any meaningful definition, not cishet.

(Though, yeah, they shouldn’t call themselves ‘gay’ even though ‘queer’ is okay—but do any?)

they can be cis and straight. if they can be completely gay while still being ace or aro then they can be completely straight while being ace or aro. and if they’re cis, they’re by definition cishet. none of this cis het het bullshit or whatever you guys seem to think it is

‘Ace’ people cannot be “fully straight” because straight society does not view them as straight.

‘Gay’ and ‘straight’ are not equivalent in this regard. ‘Straight’, like ‘cishet’, describes the norm from which deviation is punished. ‘Gay’, like ‘queer’, describes this deviation. That’s how the discrimination and oppression operates and that’s what our language reflects.

There’s no reason to define ‘cishet’ as [cis AND [heterosexual OR heteroromantic]] that is not arbitrary or specifically to justify calling ace/aro people “cishet”. It loses its actual meaning of describing the privileged norm, and it’s utility (from specificity) as a descriptor.

You can scoff as “cis het het bullshit”, but that’s preferable to using one definition to denounce asexual people and one definition to denounce aromantic people.