"aces and aros are technically queer/LGBTQ+, but not all of them identify that way. they are welcome if they feel a connection to the queer community."
while this might be true, it bothers me that aces, aros and some other identities after the T get that caveat but the others don't. there are many lesbians, gay men, bi and trans people who don't identify as queer/LGBTQ+, but no one ever says "lesbians are technically queer but some don't identify as queer". it seems to only be us weirdos after the T who get the caveat.
also, have you considered why aces and aros aren't identifying as queer? maybe more of us would identify as queer if unconditional inclusion was actually modelled for us. "if they feel a connection to the queer community" - how was i supposed to feel connected to this community when ace inclusion was never modelled for me? when i was a baby ace 9 years ago, i thought i was cis and straight, and the only queerness that was portrayed to me was LGBT, nothing else, not even nonbinary people. where exactly was that connection meant to come from? how was i meant to feel a connection to a community that was constantly discoursing over my existence?
i only felt a connection to the community when i realised i was enby. only after that i learned that my asexuality was queerness all along. my queer gender was literally the stepping stone for a connection to the queer community based on my asexuality.
ace and aro exclusion needs to be unconditional. it doesn't feel like inclusion of aces and aros get this weird caveat but most other identities don't. it feels like aces and aros are still held to higher standards and that LGBT(no +) people are more inherently and unconditionally queer than aces and aros.
either everyone should get that caveat or no one.