I'm making this because I've seen an uptick in aphobic content lately. I'm not sure if it's just a loud minority pushing into a-spec tags, or if it's a bigger, more active problem—but either way, it's happening, and it's worth addressing.
I’m an a-spectrum individual. I’m not super active online or in queer spaces in person, but even with that limited engagement, I’ve seen enough aphobia to know this is important.
It refers to individuals who experience little to none of, or a significant difference in attraction. There’s many different forms of attraction, most commonly known is the sexual and romantic.
For example: I’m aromantic and cupioplatonic. That means I don’t experience romantic attraction or platonic attraction in the traditional sense, but I still deeply desire friendships. That doesn’t mean I’m heartless, or incapable of connection, or that I have antisocial personality disorder. I don’t. Being any of those things does not devalue someone's identity to be clear.
Because when individuals claim a-spec folks aren’t queer, they’re not just excluding us—they’re actively minimizing the amount of queerphobia we face. Suggesting that individuals who try to pathologize, medicalize, or outright erase our identities are somehow signs that we’re “too accepted” is absurd.
Pretty much, if there's a type of attraction, there's someone who doesn't experience it—or experiences it differently. That’s what the a-spectrum is about: the diversity in how (or if) individuals experience attraction.
For simplicity, I’m going to focus on four common types of attraction that I’ve noticed discussed most online: Asexual, Aromantic, Asensual, and Aplatonic.
Each refers to having little or no attraction—or experiencing that type of attraction in a different way than what’s considered typical.
There are a lot of labels out there, but let’s start with a few of the most common and recognizable ones:
Gray-: Someone who experiences attraction rarely, weakly, or only under certain circumstances. This is a broad umbrella and means different things to different individuals.
Demi-: Someone who doesn’t typically experience attraction unless they form a close emotional bond. Even then, it might only happen toward that specific individual.
Fray-: The opposite of demi for some—someone who feels attraction initially, but that attraction fades after forming a close bond.
Flex identities: Aceflex, Aroflex, Asenflex, Aplaflex—these refer to individuals who move in and out of attraction or across the spectrum over time. It’s about fluctuation and fluidity.
Quoi-: A label for those who find the concept of attraction confusing or hard to identify. Sometimes individuals describe it as “What even is platonic attraction, anyway?”
Cupio-: Someone who doesn’t experience—or experiences very little—of a certain type of attraction, but still desires that type of relationship.
Example: I’m cupioplatonic. I don’t experience platonic attraction, but I do want deep, platonic relationships.
There are way more than just these—I’ve found at least 66 different a-spec terms, many with overlapping or branching definitions. Some are similar, but many describe very different lived experiences. And that’s kind of the point: the a-spectrum isn’t about a single definition, it’s about making space for individuals to describe how they connect with others—or how they don’t—in their own words.
Queer is a reclaimed term that historically was used as a slur, but today it’s often used as an umbrella for individuals who don’t fit into amatonormative, heteronormative, and cisnormative boxes—whether that’s in terms of gender, sexuality, or even relationship structures.
It’s not just about who you date or sleep with. It’s about challenging the societal expectations around attraction, identity, and how we’re “supposed” to live our lives.
That’s a huge conversation—so if you’re interested, I’ll be going deeper into the political and historical evolution of the word “queer” in the future.
A-spec individuals challenge a lot of unspoken “rules” about how attraction, relationships, and even adulthood are supposed to work.
First, let’s talk about amatonormativity—that’s the belief that romantic relationships are the most important or "default" kind of relationship. Society tells us that finding “the one,” getting married, and building your life around that person is the ultimate goal. A-spec folks—especially aromantic individuals—push back on that idea just by existing.
Then there’s sexual scripts: these are cultural expectations about how attraction and intimacy are supposed to unfold. From flirting, to dating, to sex, to commitment—it’s a script that doesn’t account for individuals who don’t feel sexual or romantic attraction at all, or who experience it in ways that don’t fit the mold. Asexual individuals especially tend to run into this.
A non-sexual sensuality expectation: This is purely based on American culture, where it is expected for you to hug, hold hands with individuals you care about and kiss those you're dating. Love is traditionally sensual, sexual, and romantic, and if you don't have all three of those, you're doing something wrong according to the mainstream.
The pathologicalization of aplatonic individuals: Some assume that just because someone doesn't want to have friends they must be without empathy or unable to care, but we care very deeply we just don't get that connection. I care about a stranger just as much as anyone cares about a friend. Yes, some of us have antisocial personality disorder. That doesn’t make anyone an automatic monster. Another time, I’ll cover why villainizing mental illness and personality disorders is problematic at best…
And let’s not forget the relationship escalator: the idea that relationships have to move in one direction—casual to serious, dating to exclusivity, sex to marriage, and so on. A lot of a-spec individuals build meaningful connections that don’t follow that path at all—like queerplatonic partnerships, chosen families, or solo polyamory.
What all of this shows is that lack of attraction doesn’t mean lack of depth. Our relationships aren’t broken, cold, or “less than”—they’re just different. And that difference, that refusal to conform to the expected structure of love, sex, or friendship, is deeply queer.
Whether it’s by choice, nature, or a bit of both, a-spec individuals live outside the models that society pushes—and that alone is a radical act.
There are a few recurring arguments individuals make when trying to exclude a-spec folks from queerness—and a lot of them boil down to gatekeeping.
Some say, “You're not oppressed enough.”
Others argue, “You can still be in straight relationships, so you’re not really different.” Some even claim we’re trying to “water down” queerness by including too many identities.
Let’s break that down.
First: Queerness isn’t defined solely by oppression. Queerness simply refers to individuals who fall outside of heteronormativity, cisnormativity, and amatonormativity. We push back against the scripts and norms society expects everyone to follow. Queerplatonic for example: It’s loving someone in a non-traditional way and setting your own rules outside of societal rules around relationships.
Second: Visibility ≠ privilege.
A 2020 study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that asexual individuals reported significant minority stress and discrimination—even when they were in relationships others might view as normative. We still face pathologization, erasure, and even corrective behavior, especially in medical and mental health settings.
Third: The “made-up” argument.
A-spec identities are often dismissed as “new” or “invented”—but that ignores both historical examples and lived realities. Take Artemis from Greek mythology: a goddess who swore off both men and marriage. Whether or not she’d identify as aroace in modern terms, she’s a cultural example of how these ways of being have always existed.
And in modern times, aroace activist Yasmin Benoit describes a common experience many a-spec individuals go through:
“Everyone came up with their own explanations—which were ironically rooted in the idea that I must be somehow slow or stunted or sick with something…”
(BBC Radio 1Xtra interview)
That experience—being pathologized just for existing—doesn’t sound “privileged” to me. It sounds queer. And a-spec folks? We belong here.
I'm an aromantic, pansexual, cupioplatonic, trans man. I'm also autistic. So many A-spec individuals land on multiple different marginalized identities. There is Ace individuals of color, Aroace trans individuals, aromantic neurodivergent individuals, pansexual Aplatonic, etc… etc…
Identity is not a one-size-fits-all thing; it's not something you can neatly categorize at the end of the day; it's based on how you feel in, with, and as the label and how it represents you. So pick a label that best fits you either for yourself, or to better describe yourself to others.
We go against the heteronormative amatonormative Society by existing. And although we do experience discrimination from both the lgbtqia+ community and the cis/het/allos; it's not because of the discrimination, it's because we exist outside of the norms.
I encourage you to learn more about the full spectrum of queerness and all the shapes and colours we come in.
If you have any questions that aren't mean spirited, I'll be happy to answer at queer.education1000@gmail.com
And remember; You can't change anyone's Minds by policing who can be themselves, so just be kind.
work in progress
