I’m open to changing my mind on this, but it seems like Aces kinda limped into the conversation

Since when was pain a requirement to be included and supported?

I don't mean to be rude but that's like saying that soldiers who aren't dead shouldn't be celebrated because "they haven't experienced pain like the others". You can give other letters more support than aces but that doesn't mean they don't deserve support at all.

I never said they don't deserve any support at all. Are you able to respond to what I said or can you only respond to what you wish I said?

Sorry if I came off as rude, but I presume your point is that the A should not be included in LGBTQ+ because they haven't faced injustice like the other letters have, and what I mean is that they should because no matter what we should include people despite how much they may have or have not suffered, and don't you think that not including them because they haven't been oppressed is oppression in itself? Plus, what else would we do with the A? LQBT+ stands for gender and sexual identities and asexual is a sexuality, so it makes sense to include them. And I don't see why not to, it's not like it hurts the community to include them.

No, what you just described is not oppression. Oppression is when the government writes laws telling individuals who they can marry, that they can't join the military, that they have to use certain bathrooms etc., which is something the asexual community has never faced when all the other letters have. Hetrosexuality is a sexuality, but that one is not included because because they have not faced the institutional oppression faced by those under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. I'm asking why that standard isn't applied evenly and so far I have not heard a good answer.

OK, I see. I'm not exactly too educated in LGBT+ but from what I currently understand, we should include A because there honestly is no reason not to, and yes they may not have been oppressed like others but that doesn't mean much. No matter what anyone's suffered through, we all as humans deserve the freedom to express and show our true identity, or just anything that differs from the 'norm' according to society. Lastly, the whole point to LGBT+, in exact words is "The initialism LGBT is intended to emphasize a diversity of sexuality and gender identity-based cultures. It may refer to anyone who is non-heterosexual or non-cisgender, instead of exclusively to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender." (Wikipedia). I don't see anything against asexuals.

If you don't know what you're talking about and need to use Wikipedia as a source then aren't really in a position for your feelings to matter to me.

Do you have a source for your argument?

I didn't present an argument I stated an objective fact. Do you understand the difference?

Okay, you stated a fact. Now, can you please reply to my argument?

You literally said you don't know a lot about this issue so I'm not wasting my time on someone who is too lazy to learn about a topic they want to discuss. Your feelings mean nothing to me.

You seem to be avoiding my discussion. It would seem you are more interested in discussing my experience rather than my point. You would assume that because I don't know every nook and cranny of LGBT that I'm worthless, but I'd recommend you reconsider. Most of what you have told me is a simple rejection of my ideas without proper explanation or reasoning, demonstrating a lack of forward knowledge. You have been quite rude and rejective so far, so I'd like for you to explain properly, WHY asexuals should not be included in LGBT with an explanation and evidence, OR disprove my final point, which is that suffering should not be a requirement for inclusion and support. Do not say you won't discuss 'because I don't know anything, you need to discuss my point.

Let's not get too aggressive here, just because I'm not familiar with the ENTIRE subject does not mean I don't understand the topic. I'm asking you to reply by discussing my thoughts and opinion, what I stated, rather than my sources or knowledge. I'm just trying to express an opinion. Now, listen to me: LGBT+ refers to ANYONE who is not straight or cisgender. It refers to a culture of genders and sexualities, instead of EXCLUSIVELY to people who are les, gay, bi, or trans. There is no reason not to include A. What would you even consider someone who is asexual? That's obviously not the 'norm'.

Well I am familiar with the topic so discussing with someone who admits that they don't is a waste of time. Just because you have an internet connection does not mean you need to have opinions on everything.

Can you reply to my argument rather than my source or experience? I want you to discuss what I told you, not what my experience is.

They're the only letter of the bunch that has never experienced any kind of institutional prejudice, so it seems odd to randomly include them. Why not have furries or feet fetishists included too?

LGBT stands for
Lettuce Grilled Bacon Tomato Quaterpounder Artificialy Investigated