The UK is officially an intolerant hellhole for transwomen

It has to do with your seeming belief that you and your friends have discovered something new and special about human sexuality which you are labelling all over the place like crazy while at the same time saying anyone can claim any of these labels based on whatever criteria they themselves think are relevant.

Yes, exactly. And that belief is perpetuated by curated echo chambers like tumblr.

While it would be silly to expect people to understand something they have never come across,

I think that's the problem loops.

Most people have come across it. And found it unremarkable. These different orientations aren't just something that happened in the last 10 years. They've been around since the dawn of time.

Most people know someone who is not into sex. Or only have sex if they have an emotional attachment. Or struggle to get emotionally excited over anyone.

My oldest friend is one of them! Strangely, I've only just realised this. She is just who she is. Never married. Doesn't miss sex. Doesn't want a romantic relationship.

I respect her and her decisions, without calling it an identity. It never occurred to me. Or her.

Although, to be fair, I imagine she does get asked questions. And therefore if she had a label and an identity that all her peers had been educated to just accept, then those questions might not occur.

So yes, maybe I can understand a little better.

I should clarify, from my earlier post: I don’t see being demisexual as a sexuality in the way hetero/homo/bisexual is. As I said, my partner is heterosexual but fits the criteria for demisexuality, which I consider is how his heterosexuality is expressed. And transsexuals don’t fit into this at all: that’s to do with their perception of self, not their sexuality.

When I was growing up I didn't envisage any kind of romantic future with anyone, male or female. I never wanted to do the married with kids thing until I met DH (and even then it was a very specific "I want to marry him and have his babies"). I don't think I'm particularly unique in this, but nowadays it seems that I would have labelled myself aro, but then became straight when I met DH

It has to do with your seeming belief that you and your friends have discovered something new and special about human sexuality which you are labelling all over the place like crazy while at the same time saying anyone can claim any of these labels based on whatever criteria they themselves think are relevant.

I'm struggling to think of any sort of discrimination a person might face on the grounds of asexuality that might require legal protection. For one thing, who on earth would know or care .

justanother "Identify in any way you want using any terms you like. Why not. But can you expect everyone to understand ace, aro, demi etc?"

While it would be silly to expect people to understand something they have never come across, it isn't silly to expect them to either try to learn about it, or just accept it (smile, nod, move on). It's not really reasonable for someone who doesn't understand something to turn round and tell someone their identity is stupid/doesn't exist/is attention seeking/is just heterosexuality.

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 believe you are justified in being upset if people reject these labels and don't want to use them? Can you expect the same protections as gay people have?"

I mean, if someone were to call me a lesbian as opposed to a homoromantic asexual, eh, it's fine. If they called me 'straight' I'd be more annoyed, because it's just factually inaccurate. If they told me asexuality didn't exist and I was being stupid or making it up for attention, I'd be really annoyed (although I doubt I'd do anything).

As for 'protections' I think I would already get them as asexuality is a sexual orientation which is a protected characteristic, so were I to face any discrimination on the grounds of my sexuality then I could seek recourse...if I could prove it.

myvisions that's a fairly reasonable rule, although I would encourage a more nuanced view, sometimes Tumblr posts some factual and interesting things, and sometimes Buzzfeed is full of crap lol always worth trying to fact check through other sources.

Flora I don't think that has anything to do with anything? For one, sexuality and romantic attraction can be quite fluid, for another sometimes people do just experiment or think about experimenting outside of their usual orientation. Maybe all these women are still bi, or they're not, it's fine to ID how you like.

Back in the 90s when bisexuality was all the rage, a number of women friends said they could see themselves having sex with a woman but wouldn't want to be in a relationship with a woman. Now all those women are either single or married to men and don't consider themselves queer.

Not new, not a special sexual orientation, not oppressed and doesn't need a label.

sorry, that was directed at the internet in general, and not at anyone specifically. I'm not having a go, I'm just fed up with being told I should thought police myself to avoid hurting anyone's feelz.

I have a rule of thumb for DD (who is 15) - if she announces "I was reading something about...", if it came from Tumblr then it's made up, if it's from Buzzfeed then it's probably harmless rubbish (apart from some political analysis, which is weirdly quite good), and if it's from her friends Instagram or Snapchat, then it's most likely exaggerated.

I'm afraid I put all these different categorisations of sexually/romantically attracted/not attracted to same sex/opposite sex gender stereotypes under the same spotlight. With a big dose of "do you really think us oldies weren't shagging around back in the olden days with whoever we felt like and generally they had long hair and lots of black eyeliner regardless of sex ?" It's all far too much navel gazing, and not enough real life for me I'm afraid.

That ended up being directed a lot at you Loops. Might have been fairer to be more general. I mean anyone who subscribes to these labels.

Having said that I am interested in what you think

I agree, there are all sorts of unusual combinations of attraction but the Internet has provided people with a means of identifying like-minded individuals and hooking up.

It's probably quite reassuring. But, like others, I hope I don't have to do anything to validate it specifically, because to me it's a little self-centred.

And I certainly wouldn't want any kind of legislation to be built around it.

This thread makes me feel old & I'm only 32.

I was going to comment in a more lengthly fashion but hinged speculum (there's a username!) said it far better.

Identify in any way you want using any terms you like. Why not. But can you expect everyone to understand ace, aro, demi etc? (I must admit I don't understand what being asexual is by your def, and I'd never heard of the other terms.)

Do you believe you are justified in being upset if people reject these labels and don't want to use them? Can you expect the same protections as gay people have?

if you don't Loops then I have no argument. If you do...

Ok that was quite lengthy.

Also sorry but I am going out for a bit to dance class, but I will return I haven't left :)

Sorry guys! Doing my best to keep up :)

hinged Ok! Yes, I get you now :) yeh I agree that some groups do use less than good science to back up their claims, this isn't a good thing and should absolutely be challenged. I do think that there are differing views on something like the trans debate, with scientists on both sides and their work being used to support each argument. Honestly? Selfish as it may be, as I am not trans, I am quite happy to just let trans people get on with it, and the government to make whatever decisions they see fit to support trans people. I don't feel under attack from the trans community, or the proposed legislation, so I have more pressing things in my life to campaign about. I don't know who is 'right' in that situation, although I feel it's probably both sides and neither.

I take most things people say online with a hefty pinch of salt, although sometimes you're right, believing people with little evidence can lead to messes and you as an individual looking dumb.

lass the definition generally accepted is that an individual does not experience sexual attraction, I'm sorry you weren't able to access the link. The wikipedia link also links to the book (google books preview) I linked and the quote from wiki is:

"Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity."

also

"Asexual people, though lacking sexual attraction to any gender, might engage in purely romantic relationships"

I know wiki isn't super reliable, but those quotes are referenced. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

Datun It may be rare yes, from what you were saying earlier re: identifying your sexual orientation via fantasies, I think that works with romantic attraction too. So you might fantasise about getting married, and your partner in these fantasies is always a woman, but your sexual fantasies are of a man. Bit basic but yeh :/

I think as well, it's not that if you are romantically attracted to men you always want a romantic relationship with every man you have sex with. It's just that you see a romantic future with a man at some point, even if you predominantly like sex with women (or vice versa).

loops

Are you saying that you can have romantic feelings towards a man, say. Cuddling up, drinking Horlicks, raising a family. But not be attracted to him, but be attracted to women instead?

I don't just mean in order to satisfy convention. I mean genuinely, feel that way?

If so, is that not quite rare?

loopsdefruit
Lass so, someone who is asexual but desires a romantic relationship with someone of a different sex to themselves is straight by your definition? Even though straight to you means heterosexual, and they are not, because they are asexual?

I have no idea what you mean by asexual. The dictionary defines it as without sexual feelings or associations. The link you posted doesn't work on a phone but from the contexts you use it in I think you think it means something different.

So far as "straight" I refer you to Ereshkigal's post

No one apart from people on Tumblr thinks of "straight" in that way. To the vast majority of people it means someone who is heterosexual, meaning only attracted to the opposite sex. Like many of your friends

I think we are all understand the notions that you are discussing. That's cool if that's your life philosophy on relationships and you have a particular framework to reference those definitions along with a particular flag that represents that line of thinking.

The difference in the love I have my partner and the love I have for my friends, does not fit your definition. I've also had sexual relationships with people that have not led to a romantic relationships - again this hasn't been due to the reasons and definitions you have listed.

But who cares? It doesn't change those relationships for me, you don't need to adopt my definitions either. I'm not asking for the rationale behind the types of sexual, romantic, platonic, sororal relationships I have formed in my life to be protected through legislation.

In reference to the research - whilst you are your friends might not be doing so - it's naive to say that the types of content regarding self identification are not being positioned as empirical research by other people. Again, I direct you to why "terf" and "swerf" exists as a proper nouns, used by prominent spokespeople that appear across mainstream media as spokespeople and charity representatives.

hinged but we're not 'doing research'...we're just hanging out with our friends. There is plenty of well researched educational content on youtube though, although not all the content on there is (I find makeup tutorials super educational but that's cause I suck at makeup)

Lass so, someone who is asexual but desires a romantic relationship with someone of a different sex to themselves is straight by your definition? Even though straight to you means heterosexual, and they are not, because they are asexual?

Sexual attraction is finding someone sexually appealing and desiring a sexual relationship.

Romantic attraction is desiring a romantic relationship with a person: dating, marriage, living together, the gooey stuff people want from a romantic partner. This may be wanting physical intimacy but not sexual intimacy. (cuddles, kissing, hand holding etc...)

Regular love you'd feel for a friend or platonic love: You don't want sex, or a romantic relationship, but you love and care for a person as a friend. You don't imagine building a life centred around your relationship with that person, but you want them in your life.

Your romantic attraction can be the same as your sexual attraction (same, different, both or neither) or different (heterosexual and biromantic). Demisexuality is someone's sexuality, their romantic attraction may be the same or different.

Datun Yes, sexual attraction doesn't always relate to romantic attraction, although for many people they 'match'.

Personally, I think the 'split-attraction' model is easier to understand if you experience a mismatch, otherwise it is hard to know where the split is.

I'm trying to remember if I have ever questioned my identity

Beyond trying to be more interesting than I actually was?

I was pretty much a drama queen at uni. I once was given a card saying
why be difficult when with a bit more effort you could be bloody impossible

I'm trying to remember if I have ever questioned my identity.

Even when I was a teenager with a maelstrom of conflicting feelings, I can't remember even imagining the concept.

I mean by straight is someone who is entirely heterosexual and heteroromantic

So basically you are making this stuff up. I am entirely heterosexual. I have no sexual attraction to women.

"Heteroromantic" is nonsense. Utter nonsense. Or do you think Mills & Boons and the films of Richard Curtis are real life?

Because if you do then oh look at me. I got married in a registry office in a black velvet dress . Before that I used to have lots of non- emotional sex gee whizz- I'm sooo not straight.

Surely there is a marked difference between analysing/discussing a topic within a fandom and the reams and reams of content that positions self identification as a biological concept.

I would not expect to find cat pictures or makeup tutorials on PubMed.

I would agree that young people might find this patronising, but unfortunately the first thing that an undergraduate on any life sciences degree in this country must learn, is about credible research and peer review.

This doesn't mean that queer scholarship, feminist scholarship, post-modernist scholarship et al, should of course have their places to analyse and unpick things - as well as places for this to happen outside of academia. The fact that the term terf exists, shows that there is a massive problem with the type of ideological information being positioned as fact.

Yes there are good things about social media. There is also a lot of self reinforcement of harmful attitudes and behaviours, lack of critical thinking and social contagion.