Do people realise that in constantly saying don’t desexualise disabled characters as an argument or warning against ace people creating ace headcanons for disabled characters, they’re actually saying that desexualisation and asexuality are the same?
Do people realise that ace people headcanoning characters as ace–be that person disabled or abled–are not likely to portray this character as desexualised, because ace people desperately want and need agency, identity and authority in their portrayals and headcanons? Something that doesn’t exist in a desexualisation narrative?
Do people realise that this constant slew of warnings is incredibly, unbelievably harmful to disabled aces? In no way is the experience of being asexual that of being desexualised; to conflate the two strips disabled aces doubly of agency, identity and authority. Yet every time we turn around, we see warnings about never linking two of our identities; we are told that being a disabled ace is the same thing as being a desexualised disabled person.
This constant narrative of warning doesn’t support me, a disabled ace. In fact, I suspect that being told that disabled ace headcanons are a form of desexualisation strips me as much of agency as a disabled ace as does the desexualisation of disabled characters as a disabled person!
Neither, in any way, treats me as a person with agency, identity or authority over my own experience and intersecting identities!
Asexual people do not benefit from desexualisation any more than disabled people do. A desexualisation narrative isn’t an ace-positive one. Allosexual abled people write these sorts of narratives, engaging in both ableism and allosexism because they see both being disabled and being asexual as less adult and less human, thereby linking these in coding that strips the character of agency. When you say that ace people shouldn’t headcanon disabled characters, you are placing the fault for the very allosexism that harms us–the way we are seen as less than adult and human–at an ace person’s feet. The narrative of desexualisation isn’t ours, so why do people insist on denying ace people expression when abled allosexual people are the problem?
When people say “don’t headcanon disabled characters as ace unless you’re disabled”, I don’t feel protected. I just see fewer headcanons–and resulting canon narratives–about people like me, in a world where there’s few ace protagonists and few disabled protagonists created as empowering representation.
We are told, over and over, that being a disabled ace is the same thing as being a desexualised disabled person.
How is that supposed to be good activism?