FYI: "Asexuality exists on a spectrum, because sexual attraction is notoriously hard to define, and people who feel they might experience sexual attraction in some limited way are still allowed to identify as asexual."

The issue: Being excluded from the "+" part of the LGBTQ+ group because of people's narrowed assumption and definitions of asexuality and other issues. In a Psychology of Women course as well as from my VA LGBTQ+ social work mentor in the Pacific Northwest, LGBTQ+ is a fluid group, so anyone can define themselves as anything and SHOULD be accepted. It's a different group from mainstream heterosexuality for a reason. Therefore, asexuals can self-represent, and excluding them with other non-inclusive terms like "celibate" instead of "asexuality" is the antithesis of what the group is supposed to be for, and part of the exclusion that I've felt, which is the point of this post. It's to be inclusive, which is what the LGBTQ+ group is supposed to stand for - not exclusive. Some even add "IA" to include both intersexuals and asexuals, in addition to allies.

Having other people trying to define how I am by white privilege or heterosexual privilege is more harmful than good - even for traumatized asexuals who self-identify and will differ from other "typical asexuals" that are privileged with their own definitions. Trauma should also be inclusive, and that is what is being taught in diversity and cultural competency programs, lest they be banned by the privileged groups for being too non-conservative. We don't always fit into a cookie-cutter definition that white privileged non-heterosexuals also rule. There is more inclusivity than that when it comes to those groups, which are yet again divided because of white supremacy, when truly studying and believing in the tenets of CRT and the harms that many non-white LGBTQ+ members have constantly experienced. Such microaggressions are offensive, segregating, judgmental, and harmful.