NOTE: I am only speaking about myself, and nothing in this post should be interpreted as a prescription for how anybody else should identify.
I feel like my experiences have a lot in common with many people who identify as ‘WTFromantic’ or ‘quoiromantic’. For example, I am often unsure what ‘romance’ is, and whether certain experiences I’ve had are romantic or not.
So why do I still call myself ‘aromantic’?
First of all, by the time I was really conscious of terms such as ‘WTFromantic’, I was already comfortable with IDing as ‘aromantic’.
I also feel that I’ve established that, whatever romance is, I do not experience to nearly the same degree as most adults do. I originally typed ‘same way’, but there is such diversity in how people experience romance that I think it is the degree, and not the way, which distinguishes me from the majority.
Identifying as ‘aromantic’ to me means “I don’t entirely get ‘romance’, but I think I understand it well enough to figure out that it is mostly not relevant to my life”. And I still prefer the term ‘aromantic’ to ‘quoiromantic’ when describing myself because ‘aromantic’ much more clearly indicates that I do not consider myself someone who participates in ‘romance’ AND that I think I understand romance well enough to know that I am not experiencing what most people mean by ‘romantic’ feelings.
Of course, ‘WTFromantic/quoiromantic’ and ‘aromantic’ are not mutually exclusive, as luvtheheaven demonstrates.
Maybe, if I had been introduced to the concept of ‘WTFromantic/quoiromantic’ at an earlier time, I would have chosen that lable over ‘aromantic’. Or maybe not. However, ‘aromantic’ is my broken-in pair of shoes with regards to romantic orientation, and as long as it’s a comfortable fit, I’m keeping it.