The UK is officially an intolerant hellhole for transwomen

Apologies, Butter.

ALittleBitOfButter

But there's no history of illegality or incarceration for asexuality!

Exactly for all intents and purposes being asexual is exactly the same as being heterosexual.

That's not why protected characteristics are protected, Butter.
I was responding to the claim that asexuals had a history of being discriminated against. I was pointing out there was no official state response to it.

Loops, you might also claim homosexuality. In this discussion i am specifically referring to the claim that asexuality and the other sparkle genders belong alongside it.

No wonder people are confused if they cant tell the difference between an orientation and the way that orientation is expressed
Protected characteristics dont need to list all potential permutations. We dont need to list all the different races people can be to offer them legal protection from racism.

Asexuals do experience corrective sexual violence because of their asexuality, they do face increased likelihood of depression and isolation because of their asexuality, they are less likely to be employed or accepted as tenants/housemates, they do not have their sexuality discussed in sex education, they are often viewed differently to sexual people (negatively) by both straight and gay people. The studies on this are small, and that can definitely be improved on, but that in itself shows there is a problem with visibility and understanding.

butter I am not straight, or even heteroromantic, so really I fit through the arbitrary gate you have decided exists. Nobody wants to be oppressed, wtf...

alittle Ok, so if something was never illegal then it's not possible for people to experience discrimination that they deserve protection from?

That's not why protected characteristics are protected, Butter.

You just WANT to feel oppressed.

But there's no history of illegality or incarceration for asexuality!

There's some info here on a study done about asexual discrimination, it's strongly linked to discrimination faced by other sexual identities.

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/without-prejudice/201209/prejudice-against-group-x-asexuals

Lass It's interesting, and sad, that asexuality isn't specifically listed as it does not fall under the other sexualities. I wonder whether you could still use the law as "sexuality" is the protected characteristic, or if you'd need to fit in with the other stuff it says as well.

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

It all sounds like straight people wanting to appropriate gay/lesbian "sparkle rainbow" culture to claim marginalisation. Identity politics pecking orders rely on being marginalised. Here's how heterosexual men have inserted themselves to ensure hegemony, and women have blindly and uncritically flung themselves in there too. Ugh.

Yes. And mumsnet is complicit as hell in this. See all the goady, transphobic "AIBU" concern trolling threads...

Too fast in posting.

The argument you are making about self identification, whereby people need to accept it, smile, nod and move on is fine if there it isn't legislation that requires that individual to legally abide by what you say and feel.

The same argument is currently being used to silence women who have concerns about the legal definition of being a woman including biological males. In fact, the current rhetoric means that this isn't just silenced, but it's labelled as transphobic and violent. Yet, no medical body, that facilitates the transitioning of transpeople does so under the pretence that they are returning a variant of a female body to conform to the standard material reality of being female. Instead, they are rationalising that body in line with the individual's sense of self - to diminish the distress that their body causes for them. I categorically disagree with you that there is any science that suggests otherwise; I've seen people state that they have a biology degree and actually trans women are women, but then they've gone on to cite individual editorial pieces from thoughtcatalog and vice or that one Nature blog article that doesn't actually say what they think it says. But yet we are continuously told, listen to the people that live that experience.

I would expect to be reading a genetics or endocrinology paper that referenced vice or twitter. My own research is into the patient experience of psychiatric care - I do not place their testimonial as empirical scientific fact, because it's not.

The actual law.

The Equality Act 2010 says you must not be discriminated against because

You are heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual
Someone thinks you have a particular sexual orientation. This is known as discrimination by perception.
You are connected to someone who has a particular sexual orientation. This is known as discrimination by association.^
In the Equality Act sexual orientation includes how you choose to express your sexual orientation, such as through your appearance or the places you visit.

Because all of these special orientations fall under one of the umbrella headings of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Except I suppose asexual - but how on earth could you actually discriminate on that basis?

Only heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are sexual orientations defined and protected under UK law.

I didn't realise being asexual was a protected characteristic in terms of sexuality

If by asexual you mean the usual dictionary definition of that word it effectively isn t because goodness only knows how it is possible to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their not having sexual feelings or desires. How would any employer, service provider , public official would even know or care?

(Although it might be a bit like the vegan joke my son's vegan girlfriend tells "how do you know someone is a vegan? Don't worry- they'll tell you)

Ah. Someone did think about it more & have some valid points.

Loops - thanks for replying.

I didn't realise being asexual was a protected characteristic in terms of sexuality. A quick google suggested it was if you were attracted to the same or opposite sex or both. (This doesn't mean I don't think asexuality doesn't exist by the way - just not sure it is, or needs to be a protected characteristic, as mentioned above by others I'm unsure how such people are oppressed in the manner a gay person could be)

I'm a little dubious about comparing racism or homophobia etc to people perhaps questioning the validity of exactly how you identify within your sexuality. If that makes sense. Have to think about that one a bit more.

I agree about the generally just be polite bit. Nothing wrong with that.

Bears. Not bares fgs

Actually, I find the comparison with racism somewhat offensive. Millions of people were shipped across the Atlantic as slaves on the basis of their race, it took centuries and one of the bloodiest civil wars in history to get rid of slavery in the US, well into the twentieth century before the legal aftermath was struck from the statute books, and even now the social, political and economic consequences linger. Similarly in the UK for the legacy of our imperial past.

So when someone black or Asian tells someone white they've done something racist, or hold racist attitudes, they ought to listen, because of this vast legacy of historic and institutional power imbalance which lingers on to this day.

As far as I'm aware, asexuals as a group have never been systematically discriminated against and oppressed because of their asexuality (and mutatis mutandum demisexuality, aromanticism, etc. etc.) In that respect it differs from both race (and homosexuality).

Now you might argue that social expectations to marry have discriminated against asexual people - but if you did I'd respond that you were pinning the blame in the wrong place. This (the expectation to marry regardless of attraction, to attain respectability and economic security) was something done primarily to women as a biological sex because of patriarchal structures. Asexual people weren't the primary target, even if they inadvertently suffered the consequences.

Like, if you are white and a POC tells you you're being racist, you don't get to just say "no I'm not" because they're the ones experiencing the racism, you can say "I didn't mean to be" which is probably the case, but the end result is still the same for them

Um, I don't think what you are postulating bares any comparison. I doubt very much anyone has ever been wrongfully arrested, refused service or otherwise discriminated against because they are "aro", "ace" or whatever else special identity you have come up with. Clearly homosexual people have and still are but the rest of your pick and mix selection - no.

Aren't all these identities another way of describing your personality?

As for 'protections' I think I would already get them as asexuality is a sexual orientation which is a protected characteristic

Most people do not think of asexuality as a sexual orientation. That's your opinion. Do you have any case law you can link to? How would you benefit from specific legal protection in a way a non asexual person wouldn't exactly? Do you expect it to be considered a hate crime if someone made fun of you for not wanting sex? Shitty though that would be.

Like, if you are white and a POC tells you you're being racist, you don't get to just say "no I'm not" because they're the ones experiencing the racism, you can say "I didn't mean to be" which is probably the case, but the end result is still the same for them.

Do you not think it's a little offensive to compare your navel gazing identity issues with racism?