Can we stop pretending that “sexual orientation”, and “sexuality” are the same thing…because they aren’t.
One’s sexual orientation is the function in which one experiences attraction to other genders. If you are same gender attracted only you’re either gay, or a lesbian. If you’re multi-gender attracted you’re bisexual (or pansexual if that’s your thing). If you’re opposite gender attracted only then you’re heterosexual. Essentially, your sexual orientation is the “who” in your sexual, or romantic attraction.
Now, one’s sexuality is the function in which you perceive, and experience sex, sexual feelings, and possible romantic feelings. This is essentially the “how” in which people navigate their sexual orientation.
If you’re asexual, that is your sexuality, it isn’t your sexual orientation. Asexuality isn’t about WHO you are/aren’t sexually attracted to, its about HOW you are sexually attracted to other people. In that same vein, aromantism isn’t about WHO you are/aren’t romantically attracted to, but HOW you are romantically attracted to other people.
If you’re asexual, and feel romantic attraction to the same gender only, the sexual orientation you would identify as would be either gay, or a lesbian. If you experience romantic attraction to multiple genders, then you would be considered bisexual (or pansexual, I guess). And, lastly, if you are only romantically attracted to the opposite gender, then you would be considered heterosexual. The same logic applies to aromantic people too.
So, sitting there pretending like asexual, and aromantic people can’t be deemed cishet is completely absurd, and just straight up illogical. You can’t just change the definition of words to suit your narrative. Words have meaning, and words hold weight.