Examining Online Aromantic and Asexual Inclusion in Queer-Serving Organizations

Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity | 2024, p. 1-10

Who Counts? Who Gets Served? Examining Online Aromantic and Asexual Inclusion in Queer-Serving Organizations

Lauren F. Lichty; School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington Bothell

Emely Zapata; School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington Bothell

“Asexuality is a sexual orientation defined as a spectrum where people experience little to no sexual attraction. “Asexual” can be used to refer to a specific identity and/or as an umbrella term for a spectrum of identities, often called the asexual spectrum. Those who identify within the asexuality spectrum may refer to themselves as asexual, “ace,” or other micro labels. In addition to low sexual attraction, the asexual spectrum may include identities that reflect variation in romantic orientations as well… Despite making up approximately 1%–2% of the population or nearly the population of Los Angeles, California, asexuality remains misunderstood, ridiculed, and devalued as a sexual orientation… When examining aro/ace access to formal support, the limited research consistently documents barriers such as anticipating bias, experiencing bias, nondisclosure, and preference for online resources rather than offline… To state directly, explicit inclusion of asexual and aromantic identities matters. Due to marginalization within the queer community and broader society, failure to overtly include aro/ace people within support-oriented services may lead to feelings of lack of safety and support, even from queer-serving organizations. Without explicit inclusion, instead of seeking the care they deserve, aro/ace people may turn away from much needed support (p. 1-3). 

“The goal of this study is to document and disseminate information about the patterns, successes, and opportunities for meaningful aro/ace inclusion in LGBTQIA+ serving organizations. Specifically, this study explored aro/ace inclusion on organizational websites. To answer the question, “What does aro/ace inclusion look like on queer-serving organizations’ websites?,” we adopted a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach to analyzing organizational website content, first documenting the presence of aro/ace keywords and then analyzing the content related to those keywords. Overall, this project evaluated aro/ace inclusion on the websites of 27 LGBTQIA+-serving organizations in 2023. Two primary selection criteria were adopted to identify the final sample of LGBTQIA+-serving organizations: (a) geographic boundaries and (b) type of organization. Geographic boundaries began at the state level. Adopting an exemplar case analysis framework, Washington was selected as the focal state” (p. 4-5).

“This study evaluated website content of 21 King County, Washington, and six national queer-serving formal support organizations (n = 27) to assess how well aro/ace people are included in their online content. Each website was searched for the keywords “asexual,” “aromantic,” or “LGBTQIA+” and results were coded using the emergent categories erasure, representational inclusion, meaningful inclusion, and centrality. Overall, 22 out of 27 organizations either erased aro/ace people completely or included content we labeled as Representational (i.e., six organizations were completely exclusionary, and 15 reflected Representational Inclusion). Only four organizations were rated as meaningfully, centrally inclusive of aro/ace people, with only one doing so consistently. Of those four, two were local King County organizations and two were national organizations. The most inclusive organization was a national organization” (p. 6). 

“The majority of meaningful aro/ace content was buried in websites; not centrally located, not integrated, and not readily accessible to end users…. not the “exemplar” case study we hoped it to be. The content displayed little to indicate an intentional goal to ensure aro/ace individuals felt the organizational services were for them. When organizations used aro/ace inclusive keywords (i.e., “aromantic,” “asexual,” “LGBTQIA+”), the majority of content was riddled with limitations like being inaccessible, redundant or circular, or temporary. The pattern of results replicates the experiences of marginalization within the queer community where aro/ace individuals are not fully included or are excluded. The limited meaningfully inclusive, centrally located content signifies the grand opportunities for organizations to improve their aro/ace inclusive practices” (p. 6-7). 

“Following our analysis, we have a set of recommendations for queer-serving organizations to consider regarding website and content design. First, organizations should evaluate if they intend to, and have the capacity to, cater to aro/ace individuals. If organizations do not have the interest or capacity, then that should be disclosed in their mission and service descriptions. This counteracts the sense of erasure, making it clear aro/ace people exist and are worth acknowledging. If an acronym for the queer community is used, it should be consistent with the individuals they serve. This recommendation to disclose the capacity to serve specific marginalized populations within the queer community and queer acronym alignment applies to any subgroup within the queer community (e.g., bisexual, intersex).

For queer organizations that intend to serve aro/ace people, they should evaluate their content to assess the visibility, depth, and accessibility of aro/ace content, possibly using our indicators of representational, meaningful, and central inclusion as a starting place. Consistent with the AMA recommendations for creating a welcoming waiting area (AMA, n.d.-a), if organizations have the interest and capacity to serve aro/ace individuals, then this should be immediately noted on main landing pages, in “about us” organizational pages, and other spaces where services and target population are described. Other examples of inclusive content include dedicated, central, stable web pages defining and describing aro/ace identity and/or experience relevant to organizational services; glossary entries that include aro and ace accurately defined; events or services specifically designed for or inclusive of aro/ace people; easily accessible blog or newsletter entries focused on aro/ace folks that promote aro/ace awareness; and recommendation lists (e.g., books, movies, shows, online communities) dedicated to aro/ace individuals.

Organizations can revisit the acronym used by their organization if an acronym is used. We recommend consistent use of “LGBTQIA+,” paired with additional content related to asexuality and aromanticism. As noted, the inclusion of “A” within “LGBTQIA+” does not automatically signify inclusivity to aro/ace identities. Therefore, organizations should not use “LGBTQIA+” alone, explicit elaboration that the “A” in the acronym means “asexual” and “aromantic” is needed. Without these elements, it leaves the individual to determine the level of inclusion of their identity on their own. This is especially important for aromantic individuals as some organizations have used the term “asexuality” as inclusive of aromanticism while others do not. It is important to distinguish the two groups as these are two separate identities, and aromantic people may not feel supported or included without such direct references. 

All aro/ace content should be easy to find, ideally within only a few clicks. Organizations should evaluate whether quality content is getting buried within their website (i.e., web pages may be searchable through Google, but not found within website navigation or due to the rolling nature of content like blogs and events). Good content and inclusive intentions may be lost to aro/ace end users without attention to the placement and searchability of items. Web developers and coders may assist organizations to ensure meaningfully inclusive aro/ace content is continuously accessible” (p. 7-8).

“Findings from this exploratory study should be interpreted with several limitations in mind. First, exemplar case sampling was adopted to help identify “best practices” in a largely urban and suburban queer context. We expected organizations to demonstrate moderate to high levels of aro/ace inclusivity. Given that meaningful, central inclusion was low among the sample, it is possible the factors we identified as likely predictors of quality were not actually relevant. Random sampling approaches across multiple counties could help paint a more general portrait of aro/ace inclusion across queer-serving organizations.

Second, this study excluded for-us-by-us mutual aid social support settings. That does not mean those are unimportant sites of care, survival, and belonging. Future research exploring aro/ace inclusion in self-made queer settings would provide further illumination into aro/ace queer support-seeking options and opportunities for improving inclusion.

Third, the researchers leading this work are not website design experts. Future projects would benefit from working with website developers and researchers who have more user-experience expertise. Ideally, experts on existing inclusive, trauma-informed practices or limitations in the field could provide applied, technical guidance.

Fourth, this project examined organizations across multiple fields of support and care. While useful for a broad strokes portrait of inclusion, this diversity of services limited our ability to consider more refined expectations and recommendations for what inclusion might look like within specific disciplines. For example, Ussher et al. (2023) demonstrated the value of specificity when reviewing “LGBTQI” content specifically for cancer patients in Australia. Future research would benefit from more focused engagement with specific fields (e.g., mental health vs. housing support). Professional guidelines for working with aro/ace people could be integrated into a field-specific evaluation of aro/ace inclusion leading to more tailored insight and recommendations.

Finally, all sites were coded by the two authors, a queer woman who identifies with aro/ace experiences, and a queer, genderqueer researcher. Other aro/ace individuals were not engaged in this project. Additional aro/ace involvement would strengthen the credibility of the approach and findings. Adopting participatory methods where researchers listen to aro/ace people and support them codefining meaningful inclusion, and where members of the aro/ace community share needs, wishes, successes, and barriers to organizational inclusion would provide impactful insight for researchers and organizations” (p. 8).