The UK is officially an intolerant hellhole for transwomen

Butter Like, they are viewed as broken, mentally or physically ill, immature, creepy, aliens, not fully human. I think asexuality was included in the DSM within hyposexual desire disorder before it was specified that some people being considered for HSDD may be asexual.

Lass What level of evidence would you need? Like, there's books, studies, personal experiences, she was a researcher into discrimination, not sure what level of academic you'd find acceptable, it's not like she's a random person on tumblr

It wasn't much better than that.

Presumably asexual people give off "not interested in flirting" vibes, so how could a 'sexual' person discern if the asexual person is not into THEM personally, or people in general?

I did that. Unless it was one of pretty men I was interested in my "not interested in flirting" vibe was glacial and pretty all encompassing. I discriminated against the fat and ugly.

Asexual people don't want sex. Fine, don't have it. Sex is hard to get anyway.
I wonder how many socially inept and spectrummy young women identify as asexual nowadays because they don't understand flirting or find it weird/contrived (as I did)?

Loops, the purple-red scale was first proposed on reddit. This isn't a credible source to derive an understanding of sex and sexuality. What credentials does the person have other than identifying as asexual themselves and being able to rig up a table in photoshop?

You said earlier than people get their research from tumblr - you've provided a blog post and a reddit table.

The more I think about it, the more I suspect that any discrimination against asexual people is actually more likely to be homophobia, as people who say "I'm not really into dating" are often presumed to be gay but not fully at ease with their homosexuality

Butter Haha ok, you can be queer cause of your hairy legs if that's how you feel the most comfortable identifying, doesn't bother me lol I'd support your campaign to make leg hair a protected characteristic

they are often viewed differently to sexual people (negatively) by both straight and gay people
I reckon it's not true, or not in a pejotative sense. In what scenario anyway? In a meatmarket night club? Yes. At work? Nope. As a distant relative? Nope. (Wouldn't want to get it on with them anyway).

Presumably asexual people give off "not interested in flirting" vibes, so how could a 'sexual' person discern if the asexual person is not into THEM personally, or people in general?

Sexual people often consider fat people and people with big noses or slopey shoulders or whatever as sexually uninteresting. Are they discriminating against these categories in the same way? Asexual people have taken themselves off the table but the fat and ugly haven't. So who is really discriminated against here?

this could equally apply to someone in an asexual relationship with someone of the same sex

The axis of discrimination here is perceived homosexuality. Your asexuality is not relevant, unless homosexual sex is illegal in the place of concern (although I highly doubt that in places where homosexuality is still illegal there are asexuals, aromantics or demisexuals going around claiming to be queer).

* You are just being offensive now. I was BORN with hairy legs. They're part of my IDENTITY. Are you saying i should conceal that integral part of me to make more people sexually attracted to me?*

Exactly - some people are hairy, some people aren’t -deal with it. Why should I have to pretend to be hairless by shaving my legs when I’m not? Why should I be discriminated against for jobs where I would be required to where a skirt, have pressure from men I’m seeing, from family members to conform to the ‘normal’ level of hairiness for a woman? When it comes to it, the expense and societal pressure to shave legs is much more acceptable to those around me than the pressure to have a sexual relationship!

pisa So? People post stuff here ALL the time from dodgy sources, doesn't mean their work isn't useful or that it isn't widely accepted as an explanation of something. You don't have to love Kinsey as a person, but his work is widely accepted as a good explanation of sexual attraction. There's also the purple-red scale, but you probably wouldn't like that either as it was created by an asexual person.

Flora If someone wanted to ID as an asexual homosexual, then I'd accept that, it's a useful way to get other people to understand what you mean. But by definition you can't be both, but you can ID however you feel comfortable.

Lass What level of evidence would you need? Like, there's books, studies, personal experiences, she was a researcher into discrimination, not sure what level of academic you'd find acceptable, it's not like she's a random person on tumblr.

Olennas 1) I'm not saying it's not illegal, just that it is discrimination. 2) I think that's part of it, but also the fact that asexuality isn't often discussed or understood leads to people feeling that there's something wrong with them or that they are weird/alone. Obviously not like that's the intention of society, but it's also not being addressed on any meaningful level. 3) Yeh, I think it's 'if the people know' it's more likely, same with being gay. 4) Yeh, this is important I think, cause abstinence is not the same at all (it's a choice) and young people who just don't experience sexual attraction are at more risk from peer pressure or isolation/feeling 'strange'. 5) Like, viewed as not fully human (sex is seen as a key part of being human) or as immature/permanent children, less able to understand complex relationship dynamics, or as 'tease's.

Ridiculous article, it makes us sound like ISIS.

I mean I doubt the number of people passed over for jobs for any of these reasons is anything more than vanishingly small to non- existent.

they are often viewed differently to sexual people (negatively) by both straight and gay people

There might be something in this but I agree along the lines that tee totallers/ vegetarians get.

I doubt the number of people passed over for jobs for any of these reasons is vanishingly small to non- existent.

Flat shares may well be higher but that is going to be for reasons of not fitting in- a group of asexual, teetotal, female vegans might well turn down a heterosexual, male, beer drinking carnivore as a flat mate.

You are just being offensive now. I was BORN with hairy legs. They're part of my IDENTITY. Are you saying i should conceal that integral part of me to make more people sexually attracted to me?

butter having hairy legs is a choice? You are born asexual, you don't choose it, and therefore you have no way to escape the discrimination. Same with having tattoos or piercings, you shouldn't be able to discriminate based on them, but people do and it's not protected because it's a choice to go against social norms. Doesn't make you queer though.

Flora this could equally apply to someone in an asexual relationship with someone of the same sex, the outward expressions are the thing that gets you into trouble, but that still doesn't make a person not ace.

Arguably I face more discrimination for my romantic attraction than my sexual one, but romantic attraction isn't protected and in order to be protected under the Equality Act I'd have to just say I'm homosexual.

Someone could say they were being discriminated against for being heterosexual and be covered under the Act where an asexual person would not be.

Asexuals do experience corrective sexual violence because of their asexuality

This is already illegal through existing laws on rape and sexual assault

they do face increased likelihood of depression and isolation because of their asexuality

Is this because they are asexual, or because part of being asexual means that they are less likely to form meaningful relationships with a long term partner?

they are less likely to be employed or accepted as tenants/housemates

Here's where I'm starting to struggle.... I've applied for dozens of jobs in my time, and been a tenant / house mate over and over. I've never had any questions to answer or done any exercises that would give the interviewers any clue about whether I was hetero, homo or asexual. Perhaps if there was a house full of blokes and they asked a prospective house mate if they liked going on the pull this might come up, but otherwise? How is this discrimination possibly occurring? Are interviewers really ascribing asexuality to a stranger then using it as a reason not to give them the job / room? If anything, someone might be discriminating against them on the basis that they are gay (if they decide that there's something a bit different about them), which is already illegal.

they do not have their sexuality discussed in sex education

Agreed. Though sex ed is woeful in many ways. I suspect any mention of asexuality gets swept up with general abstinance.

they are often viewed differently to sexual people (negatively) by both straight and gay people.

Can you unpick what you mean here a bit? Is it like the way that people who like to drink regularly can be a bit disparaging about teetotallers, or carnivores think that vegans can't possibly know what they are missing?

That article you posted is one of the least convincing pieces I have seen on any subject.

There is absolutely no history of prejudice and discrimination of asexuals in the way there was and is of homosexuality.

Asexuality isn't and never has been illegal for starters.

Until pretty recently for an unmarried woman living a publicly asexual life would be the expected and acceptable norm.

I understand some asexuals might be depressed and lonely but that has no justification whatsoever to demand legal protection under the law. That is just someone with a miserable personality.

Your suggestion asexuals are discriminated in the job or housing markets lacks any credibility.

You can't be asexual AND heterosexual, or asexual and homosexual

Are you telling people how they can identify? I thought that wasn't allowed.

I have to hide my hairy legs when going for job interviews.

I don't really know how you'd 'know' someone was gay either though, unless they told you. It's not like you'd be having sex in front of them. If for the law to work someone needs to assume you're gay or straight or bi and treat you badly, fine...they're bigoted and wrong lol

Are you serious? So all the lesbian and gay people who have persecuted over the years must have been having sex in front of someone otherwise how would anyone have known? How about they were trying to establish a relationship with someone, holding hands with their partner in public, actually having a relationship and being found out. That's in addition to carefully monitoring behaviour so as not to display gender non-conforming characteristics which might lead to an accusation of being lesbian or gay.

This posts really demonstrates your cluelessness on this whole topic to the point of actual offensiveness.

Sorry, cocked up a bit there:

*they are often viewed differently to hairless legged people (negatively) by both straight and gay people.

I have hairy legs.

Hairy legged women do experience jeering, catcalling and negative sexual attention because of their hairy legs, they do face increased likelihood of depression and isolation because of their hairy legs, they are less likely to be employed or accepted as tenants/housemates, they do not have their hairy legs discussed in mainstream women's magazines, they are often viewed differently to sexual people (negatively) by both straight and gay people. The studies on this are small (and done by me), and that can definitely be improved on, but that in itself shows there is a problem with visibility and understanding.

Can I be queer too?

lass but heterosexuality is a protected characteristic? Despite that not having a history of discrimination either. So sure, asexuality can be treated the same...as a protected characteristic.

Butter It is not a 'sparkle gender' (it's not even a gender??) it is an orientation, and has been one forever, it's on the kinsey scale (separate to the other orientations). I literally don't understand why you think you know better than people who studied this historically. I am not gay, or straight, or bi. I am asexual, I also have a totally separate romantic attraction which is irrelevant to a discussion about sexual orientation.

You can't be asexual AND heterosexual, or asexual and homosexual...because they literally mean sexually attracted to other people of some description which doesn't exist in asexuality.

Writers argues that demisexuality is different, and can exist with other sexualities. That's fine, and not a view I'd actually come across from a demisexual person before, like I said, the way you personally choose to ID is fine, if you want to say you're demisexual homosexual or demisexual heterosexual then that's great. You can use whatever combination of words best describes your experience, and it's nobody else's right to tell you that you're wrong.