Aspec Exclusionist

A-Spec Exclusionists are people who believe that A-spec people are not, or should not, be part of the LGBT+ community. This is often due to the claim that the the LGBT+ community is for people who are "same gender attracted" (SGA).

People who are for the inclusion of a-spec people are called inclusionists and the argument between the two groups is often called "Ace Discourse" or simply "Discourse".

A-Spec Exclusionist Ideology
Because A-spec exclusionism is fairly widespread, there are many different types of A-spec exclusionist ideology. This ranges from the belief that A-specs should make their own community, to the belief that A-specs do not exist. The following list will cover the most common a-spec exclusionist beliefs.

Cishet A-specs
The word Cishet is a term originally from, and used by, trans people to refer to someone who is Cisgender, Heterosexual, and Heteroromantic. However, it was adopted by A-spec exclusionists as a dogwhistle referring to A-spec people. Originally, it was only used that way to mean Heteroromantic Aces or Heterosexual Aros, but for some A-spec exclusionist it has come to mean Aroace people, or even all A-specs in general.

Some A-spec exclusionists claim to be accepting of Transgender A-spec people and A-spec who experience "same-gender attraction", but A-spec exclusionists may also harass A-spec people regardless of their other identities, because they do not consider being A-spectrum is inherently LGBT+.

The root of their exclusionism of Cishet A-specs could be summed up by their belief that being A-spec is not enough. It is important to remember that no A-specs are to blame for exclusionists beliefs. It is not the fault of Heteroromantic Aces and Heterosexual Aros, it is not the fault of Cisgender Heteroromantic Aces and Cisgender Heterosexual Aros, and it is not the fault of Cisgender Heterosexual Heteroromantic A-specs.

Denying their A-specness though, such in the case of the pushback against "Cishet Aspecs aren't LGBT+" using arguments saying Cishet A-spec do not exist because A-specs cannot be Cis Heteroromantic and Heterosexual, erases A-spec people who are Cis and Het^2. And by erasing people on the A-spectrum that experiences attraction or still desire sex/romance, it is also Grey-Aphobic.

Ace-specs
Some A-spec exclusionists will claim that Aces do not exist, for a variety of supposed reasons. Some of the most common include:
 * Asexuals are frustrated about being unable to find sexual partners.
 * Asexuals are straight people who want to be "special" or invade LGBT+ spaces.
 * Asexuals are gays or lesbians who do not admit to their orientation because of internalized homophobia.
 * Asexuals are children too young to experience sexual attraction.
 * Asexuals are sexually repressed or have hormonal disorders.

Many claim that demisexuality and other Ace-spec identities do not exist because "it's normal to not want to have sex with everyone you see", these agruements typically completely miss the point of said Ace-spec identities, incorrectly equate attraction to action, or misinterpreting their own unrecognized demisexuality as a universal experience.

Aro-specs
Similar claims are used against members of the aromantic spectrum. Additionally they may claim that Aros are people unwilling to form emotional attachments and are only interested in very short-term sexual relations like one-night stands. They may also make fun of aromantic terminology, such as queerplatonic relationships, and Aplatonics. They may claim that aromantics have no friends or do not understand friendship.

Some may claim that Asexuality and Aromanticism only act as quasi-modifiers to one's attraction, denying the existence of Aroaces.

Denial of Oppression
A-spec exclusionists will often claim that A-specs are not a part of the LGBT community because they supposedly do not experience oppression. When presented with evidence of Asexual oppression, they may outright refuse to admit that it happened, such as trying to gaslight victims of corrective rape by claiming that said rape never occurred or claim that the oppression experienced was in reality misdirected homophobia or misogyny.

Demonization of A-specs
A-spec exclusionists often go out of their way to mock, discredit, or defame A-specs. They may claim that asserting the existence of asexuality inherently sexualizes all other LGB identities. Similarly, they may also claim that minors cannot identify as asexual based on the belief that asexuality is an inherently sexualized identity. They may claim that asexuals prey on young children, convincing them that they are asexual. Some exclusionists may have identified as asexual in the past before realizing that they were not asexual, and be convinced that every asexual experience is the same.

A-spec exclusionists may also claim that allosexual is a slur used against them because it groups LGB people with straight people. They may also claim that the existence of the term allosexual is shaming people for wanting sex.

A-spec exclusionists may pose as asexuals to troll asexual forums or other ace spaces to make posts about how asexuals are superior to allosexuals and that experiencing sexual attraction supposedly makes allosexuals "dirty". When some people do not realize that such posts were made by trolls, their reactions may be spread in a-spec exclusionist circles as supposed "proof" of all asexuals being homophobic.

Queerphobia
There is a large amount of overlap between A-spec exclusionism and other exclusionist groups. Many A-spec exclusionist originally took part in so-called "bisexual discourse" in which they excluded bisexuals using many of the same or similar arguments. Along with biphobia, exclusionists also gatekeep the LGBT+ community against pansexuals and non-binary people. A-spec exclusionists often dislike anyone who does not strictly identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or Transgender; as such, many dislike the usage of the word Queer, as they believe it to be too inclusive of people they believe should not be part of the LGBT+ community. They may also claim that Queer is a slur that should not be used at all. A-spec exclusionists may also be transmedicalists or trans-exclusionary radical feminists.