Stonewall change definition of transphobia - questioning gender identity ok now

I don’t mind the word “asexual” per se, except for certain things. Firstly its broad definition includes people who have sexual desire. It makes no sense. And this has arisen from people saying “what about me?!” and needing to be fitted in somewhere.

Second, because it’s been validated as an “identity”, children too young to understand themselves have latched onto it as an explanation for their current state of mind, and more worryingly, I have seen it used to dismiss the risks of puberty blockers. Puberty blockers have remove a child’s future sexual function and I have seen it written “child X identifies as asexual, so not concerned about this.” This is hugely concerning to me.

I don’t think a word to describe an absence is particularly helpful, and I would think it focuses the mind on that absence unhelpfully when it could be focused on all the things they are interested in and are important to them.

I disagree. I think it can be very helpful in understanding that person (or yourself, if you are that person), even if it is not the most important or most relevant thing about them.

Just as the word woman is necessary to describe a specific demographic, the word asexual is necessary to describe another demographic. Whether these words are relevant is an entirely different matter. A person's sexuality is irrelevant to which changing room they use, whereas their sex is relevant. And neither is relevant on a name-badge.

What I do mind is all the Pridery, flags, days, etc etc. associated with it by Stonewall et al.

I once made the mistake of telling a friend I thought I might be asexual. She then brought it up in front of her friends because it made everyone in the room "LGBT".

I was uncomfortable with this non-consensual teaming and told her so as a) I didn't like her friends enough to want her to share this and b) it was my business who I told or didn't tell.

She was a very enthusiastic fan of I guess you'd call it "Pride culture" but ironically was very good at referring to people in ways they didn't identify - up to and including misgendering trans people, which one would have thought she'd have taken great pains not to do.

I don't mind the term 'asexual', it does actually describe something which although by no means rare, is perhaps distinctive enough to merit its own word?

What I do mind is all the Pridery, flags, days, etc etc. associated with it by Stonewall et al.

My libido is definitely on the wain in these peri-menopausal years. I was pleasantly surprised to find myself romantically attracted (I think that's the right phrase from the new Stonewall definitions) to Jonathan Bailey in Wicked with lots of lustful thoughts. Well, it might have been sexual attraction but I'm not entirely sure where the line is, given he was on a screen so we had no chance to explore this mutually. Oh, and him being gay might also be a barrier from his perspective when it comes to mutual lust/urge/romance.

Regardless, I'm sure I can have a flag for my demi-sexoromantic-unrequited orientation. And then I can call him a bigot and tell him that the problem lies with him for not recognising my identity. What's next, him demanding a genital inspection and rejecting me on this basis?

Anyway, I'm glad I get to keep the tambourine.

Tambourines all round!

But I’m not going to require them back should you suddenly find a celebrity of either sex wildly attractive and have an unexpected steamy dream.

I am very much 'asexual' as a menopausal woman, but it started long before the menopause. Not interested in the slightest and never have sexual thoughts or dreams. Is it possible to be asexual only for part of your life? If so, can I have a badge and a flag?

A born-again asexual?

You are entitled to a badge and a flag and a tambourine, surely.

@myplace- yes, that's it exactly. Describing the lack of something is a bit strange to me.

I don't really understand visual art. I like paintings that look like photos because I think it's really clever to be able to do that. But aside from that, I just find paintings and sculptures incredibly boring. They don't move me at all in any way and I very often don't understand what the artist is trying to 'say'. I sometimes wonder what it is about my brain that is different to the brains of people who love looking at art.

Music really does move me though. I have a friend who doesn't appreciate music at all- funnily enough the same person who is 'asexual'!

I am very much 'asexual' as a menopausal woman, but it started long before the menopause. Not interested in the slightest and never have sexual thoughts or dreams. Is it possible to be asexual only for part of your life? If so, can I have a badge and a flag?

On the plus side I feel that rainbows can take their rainbowness back. There are so many flags now that the rainbow flag is almost obsolete. The misappropriation of the rainbow is over!

Yey say the rainbows. We have our colours back! ROYGBIV 🤪

Bloody good no one came for them with flags, decades ago

You’re so right. It’s sinister. Any susceptible or even just as per normal slightly confused, young people. It’s a cult that’s more damaging and widespread than any we’ve known before. Horrendous.

The issue with the label asexual, for me, is that it describes people by something which they are not.

Like, I’m not an artist, or a poet, and I dislike arithmetic. I’m not a-arithmatic. I suppose ‘tone-deaf’ is the closest term.

There was a radio show recently investigating people’s response to music. A musician played a piece and described the emotions it roused in him. Another man said, basically, that’s nice for you. He had no response to that piece, or any other music. They found a word for it- can’t remember what it was. But it was irrelevant to him.

I don’t think a word to describe an absence is particularly helpful, and I would think it focuses the mind on that absence unhelpfully when it could be focused on all the things they are interested in and are important to them.

I would probably classify as asexual as my sex drive and interest in relationships is close to non-existent. Luckily for me, I have more options nowadays than becoming a nun.

I've also met quite a lot of self-described asexual people, having been a student in the last 10 years. But I never met one who wasn't either diagnosed with, or had a lot of traits of, ASD or ADHD. I'm diagnosed with one, share a lot of traits with the other - I suspect my weird brain doesn't produce hormones in the right quantities, but I always put off going to the GP in case they tried to tell me I was just asexual.

I do think your no is respected a little more* if you say you're asexual rather than you're neurodivergent and don't do relationships.

*Which is to say not a whole lot.

Is being bisexual the most interesting or important thing about me? Hopefully not, but it’s still useful to have a word that briefly describes this aspect of myself to people. Maybe one day we won’t need these labels and everyone can just be a complex and unique individual. But it seems to me right now people are still quite keen to put others in an easily understood sexuality category

But what I don’t like is the suggestion that asexual people aren’t entitled to a term by which to describe themselves to the world.

But is that the most important thing about them? And is the world interested?

Most people of my acquaintance want to know whether a person is a professional and reliable colleague, a good friend, honest, interesting to talk to, good company, that kind of thing.

That sounds like people who are gay or bi (or indeed straight) saying “I don’t like labels” or “I don’t like to be put in a box”. It’s fine, you don’t have to use any of those terms to describe yourself, and no one has to call themselves asexual. But what I don’t like is the suggestion that asexual people aren’t entitled to a term by which to describe themselves to the world.

Considering that a lot of young girls choose the aromantic label, is it an extremely cynical ploy by Stonewall to get their fingers in the mangle and introduce the idea that accepting everyone under the umbrella has having equally valid orientations is a good thing? IME children of the 10/11/12 kind of age are still in a simplistic 'everyone should be nice and there shouldn't be any wars' mindset.

Labelling sexuality from a young age is scandalous.
It’s sexualising children. 12 yr olds shouldn’t be encouraged to spend time wondering who they want to have sex with. They don’t need a frikin’ label if they don’t want sex yet, love their friend more than anyone else, fancy a boy they see at the bus stop.

And yes, lots of ‘never dated’ people in DH’s family. Pretty sure they are all autistic as well. Bloody good no one came for them with flags, decades ago. Sadly I have a they niece. One of her mums would without doubt been transed as a teen, with a history of abuse etc. There’s no sign yet of hormones and surgery thank God.

It’s also not fair on people like Nothardtounderstand’s DD that people claim an “asexual identity” on the basis of only wanting or enjoying having sex with people they have a connection with. Apart from people who enjoy regular one night stands, this is pretty much everyone else in the entire human race. Claiming this as some form of identity is indicative of how a certain cohort of people need the validation of identity politics to feel like they have a place in the world, instead of being just boring old humans with different personalities like the rest of us. And organisations like Stonewall validate this way of thinking.

@Nothardtounderstand, I have a friend like your DD. Not interested and has never been interested in romantic relationships or sex.

But she doesn't use the word 'asexual', she's just who she is. 🤷🏼‍♀️ I don't see the need to pathologise it, and it's not an 'identity'- just part of the rich tapestry of humanity. There are many more interesting things about my friend than the fact she isn't interested in sex.

Well of course we all know that asexuality is real. Sexologists have been studying it for maybe 100 years, and anyway we can all observe that there's a small but significant proportion of the population who just aren't interested in sex or relationships. And there's nothing wrong with that!

I think what we find concerning or sometimes funny are other things that go under the ace umbrella.

The kids embracing the label as a shield when they're asked their sexual orientation, as if that's an appropriate question for kids of 11 or 12.

The dodgy adults going around saying "Hey kids! Just because you're asexual doesn't mean you can't have lots of sex!"

Stonewall and similar orgs, not content with making up infinite niche sexual identities, trying to turn the absence of sexual desire into a sexual orientation with its own flag and pride events, to increase their political clout.

I don't think anyone has a problem with actual asexual people. We've more of a problem with the Captain Oveur types who are all over ace identity.

I can't ride a unicycle. Can I have a flag?

MarieDeGournay · Today 20:21

I think Mr. Whimsy ate 6 cans of Alphabetti Spaghetti soup, threw up on the rug and poked the results with a stick. It was most likely the magic mushrooms that caused the vomiting.

The jokes are about the fact that people who do not experience sexual attraction - which is nothing new - now have a label, a flag and all the other trappings, and they apparently think it is something special worth sharing with the world.
It's been 'Stonewalled', so to speak.

In answer to your question - yes I know a few people who have never had sexual relationships, and I wouldn't be surprised if every family had at least one unmarried aunt or uncle who, as one of my uncles used to say, 'was just never bothered with that kind of thing.' No big deal, that was just one aspect of how he lived his full and happy life.

I hope your daughter also lives a full and happy life without sexual attraction, like asexual people have throughout history - except those who have been forced into unwanted sexual relationships of course.

It's as though no-one will respect your boundaries - or as though you don't feel entitled to have any - unless you can justify them with a scientific-sounding label of some kind that implies they are baked in and therefore involuntary.

It's a similar dynamic to having to call yourself an actual boy in order to be a tomboy with short hair.

It would be interesting to know whether both sexes go in for this kind of self-labelling at the same rate, what labels they choose, and when they deploy them.

The Guardian will just do complete radio silence. Standard.