Young adults who identify as asexual feel excluded from the wider LGBTQ community

The"LGBTQ+ community" doesn't exist except as a manufactured product of queer theory.

If Lesbian doesn't mean same sex attracted, then it's meaningless which is just what Queer theory wants ; no boundaries....
And we know who wants to join the meaningless Alphabet; those who think children can consent to sex.
NEVER

Yes! I think this has to be one of the driving forces behind it.

But these labels are driven by teens, not pervy men. Although arguably a lot of it is teens in reaction to pervy men. Maybe it’s like a call and response; generating labels is a self-protective thing, an attempt to establish boundaries, and the constant erosion of the labels into meaninglessness (like “asexual”) is narcissists or indeed pervy men reacting negatively against the perception of boundaries that don’t include them.

No, what time find sad is the constant search for more and more unique 'identities'. Just be yourself and enjoy yourself being who you are.

As I'm over 50 and was an adult before identity politics became this huge thing, it wouldn't have occurred to me to think about my "identity" - and if I did I would have concluded I based my sense of self on various things (relationships, work, interests etc)

Exactly. Since when does sexuality or lack there of define you?

Perhaps endless labels that don’t really mean anything has the same functional result as no labels or categories at all?

ie no way to draw boundaries that stop pervy men having access to whatever they want.

Two different routes that arrive at the same Queer Theory destination?

There’s an odd conflict between the desire to put labels on everything and the desire to blur all the boundaries of every category, which are both so characteristic of the alphabet movement. That article on “asexual” is a perfect example; it’s basically meaningless. More aggravating is when they do it to gay men and lesbians… throughout history and to this day lots of men have had sex with men without identifying as “gay,” why claim that specific, culture-bound label if you also want to blur the boundaries of what it means?

Obviously this benefits the bored straight white kids who want an oppression label, and presumably that’s why it’s happening. But I’m wondering if anyone has ever addressed the fundamental philosophical conflict. Why have any labels when they don’t mean anything?

@Greenfairydust I see that you've slipped in your own complete redefinition of the word "gay" - no, a gay person isn't someone with a romantic interest in the same "gender". Gay is being SEXually attracted to people of THE SAME SEX. Who are you, that you think it's okay to deny that some (quite a lot of) people are SEXually attracted to their own biological SEX? Make up your own word for your new idea of "romantically attracted to the same gender".

I'm going to sound 300 years old now, but this thread is making me realise that there are people who have grown up now genuinely thinking that having an "identity" that you can expect / demand everyone else to make a fuss about is some kind of human right, or the most important thing about a person.

As I'm over 50 and was an adult before identity politics became this huge thing, it wouldn't have occurred to me to think about my "identity" - and if I did I would have concluded I based my sense of self on various things (relationships, work, interests etc) but not that it was anyone else's business, or that their sense of self-identity was my business either.

That's why a lot of older people react to this stuff by thinking "FFS who cares?". But that doesn't mean we don't care about people being oppressed, or don't recognise or accept difference, etc. Even though I'm in my 50s I've been accepting of homosexuality and defended gay rights all my life, for example.

It means we - or some of us - find this constant jostling to have the most "identity" points or claim the most oppression to be solipsistic and meaningless, and counterproductive when it comes to addressing actual disadvantage and getting things actually changed for the genuinely oppressed.

However asexual you may be, your oppression, if there is any at all, is insignificant compared to that of women in Afghanistan or gay people in Uganda, for example. Actual caring about oppression and difference involves supporting people who have it much worse than you, rather than wanging on insensitively about "lack of awareness" of something that rarely if ever causes any disadvantage.

Excellent point, frostyfifi!
Plenty of older women will rmember the days when the word 'frigid' was flung at any woman who didn't want sex at the drop of a hat, by men who wanted to marginalise and humiliate them.
The significance of that insult was to say "Your lack of interest in having sex with me is an intrinsic aspect of you. You are a certain kind of person - different, freakish - because you don't want to screw me."
We moved past the days when that insult was acceptable. We moved (for a while) towards a recognition that women's desire for sex was crushed when aggressive external pressured her into sex that she wasn't really up for. Now we seem to be going back round again to a point where people who don't want sex are labelled.

I can imagine men responding to a sexual rejection by sneeringly asking 'Are you asexual?' and I can imagine women feeling pressured into saying 'Yes, I am' because they feel that is the only way they can legitimately get someone to back off and leave them alone.

Surely, instead of yet another identiy, what we really need is an assertion of the rights of individuals (and especially individual women and girls) to be treated with empathic respect in relation to sex, to be given space to want sex or not want sex, on their own terms.

Hypersexualisation in our society is a women's rights issue. It affects all women, regardless of how little or how much they want to have sex, because all women are subjected to hostility from men who hate them for ever saying 'No.', whether that is 'No, not now', or 'No, not with you,' or 'No, not ever.'

I think they should be relieved that they don’t have to bow down to the cult that has taken over what was a wider LGB community.

What a coincidence that asexuality is being pushed as a thing, when a generation of young people are being put on pathways that result in loss of sexual function.

The whole thing is hugely rapey and encourages the idea that if you don't like having sex it's part of your identity, but you should consider doing it anyway, and certainly continue to be a consumer of pornified capitalism.

Yeah and we hit every note on that word salad from wiki.

I demand my ace identity is acknowledged and my flag is flown from all nearby buildings. Do we have a secret handshake too?

I notice here that the title is "young adults". Because no-one clearly gives a shit about middle-aged, menopausal women who don't want sex or a relationship, they're just dull and boring.

What is an a-sexual sub-identity?

So,
now it is LGBA and not LGB-z?

well at least the non-camel kid HAD tons of friends (talking about camels) that they could feel excluded and ostracised from!
Spare a thought for those that don’t have any friends at all.
That are bullied and lonely, and nobody cares about their sexuality because nobody cares at all.

I will reserve my concerns for those kids, even if they don’t fit in the alphabet-salad.

Yeah, the idea that it's normative to want to fuck anyone any time is bizarre.

So basically, ‘asexual’ is ‘just a word’ that can can be used as a self descriptor by anyone who isn’t up for sex 24/7 as well as those who don’t really fancy anyone much and those who only have sex within an established relationship.

🤷‍♀️

There's a lot of misinformation here. Asexuals can have a sex drive. Having a sex drive and experiencing sexual attraction are two different things. You can have a sex drive snd not ever fancy anyone or want to be intimate with anyone.

Thought I’d give you all time to catch your breath, here’s the next bit of the definition…

Asexuality is often abbreviated as ace, a phonetic shortening of asexual,[18] and the community as a whole is likewise referred to as the ace community.[19][20]
Despite lacking sexual attraction, some asexuals might engage in purely romantic relationships, while others may not.[4][21] Some who identify as asexual report that they experience sexual attraction, though lack the inclination to act on it, citing no desire to engage in sexual activity—some asexuals also lack the desire to engage in non-sexual physical activity such as cuddling or hand-holding, while others choose to do so.[8][9][12][14] Asexual people may seek relationships without romantic or sexual activity, known as "queerplatonic relationships".[18] Certain asexuals may participate in sexual activity out of an intellectual curiosity.[12] Some may also masturbate as a form of solitary release, while others may not feel a need to do so.[14][22][23]The desire for masturbation or other sexual activity is often referred to as sex drive by asexuals, who disassociate it from sexual attraction and being asexual; asexuals who masturbate generally consider it to be a normal product of the human body rather than a sign of latent sexuality, and others do not find it pleasurable.[12][24] Some asexual men are unable get an erection and are unable to attempt penetration.[25] Asexuals also differ in their views on performings sexual acts—some are indifferent and may engage in sexual activity for the benefit of a romantic partner, while others are more strongly averse to the idea, though they are not typically against sex as a whole.[12][14][23]
Many who identify as asexual also choose to adopt other identities, which often include gender identity and classification of romantic orientation.[26] These are often integrated with a person's asexual identity, and asexuals may still identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, or bisexualregarding romantic or emotional aspects of sexual orientation or sexual identity in addition to identifying as asexual.[21] The romantic aspects of sexual orientations may also be indicated by a variety of romantic identities, including biromantic, heteroromantic, homoromantic, or panromantic, and those who do not experience romantic attraction may identify as aromantic.[14][21] Individuals who are both aromantic and asexual are sometimes known as "aro-ace" or "aroace".[27] The term "gray asexuality" refers to the spectrum between asexuality and non-asexuality (also referred to as allosexuality).[28]Individuals who identify as gray asexual may occasionally experience sexual attraction, or only experience sexual attraction as a secondary component once a reasonably stable or large emotional connection has been formed with the target, known as demisexuality.[14][29]

They’re called bisexuals love. You know, the B in LGB…..

You must be defining ‘clear’ very differently to the rest of us!

From Wikipedia:

Because there is significant variation among those who identify as asexual, the term asexuality can encompass broad definitions.[14]Researchers generally define asexuality as the lack of sexual attraction or the lack of interest in sexual activity,[4][12][15] though specific definitions vary—the term may be used to refer to individuals with low or absent sexual behavior or exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships in addition to low or absent sexual desire or attraction.[12][16] The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), an online forumdedicated to asexuality, defines an asexual as "someone who does not experience sexual attraction", as well as adding that asexuality "at its core" is "just a word that people use to help figure themselves out", and encourages people to use the term asexual to define themselves "as long as it makes sense to do so".[17]

^^

According to that definition I'm asexual. Well, I never. I've not had sex in years, happily single, no interest in men or women, or relationships or sex. I've never had an identity before. Shall I get myself a ring, or a flag perhaps so people know? Or should I just carry on with my life as normal? It's very confusing knowing I now have an identity. I'm 46 and having an existential crisis. Good job I've lost weight lately and can see my navel, otherwise I'd need a mirror to gaze at it all day.

I imagine it makes them bisexual.
If the definition is quite clear, why can't you just say what it is? The usual fudge, to avoid explaining the unexplainable 🙄

Also @Nimbostratus100 I think you mean "some gay people". Because describing people as "some gays" is othering and dehumanising.