The UK is officially an intolerant hellhole for transwomen

[pisacake]

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/british-transgender-woman-given-residency-in-safer-new-zealand

"The tribunal deemed it would be “unduly harsh” for the woman to be forced to return to the UK, where she suffered years of “persecution” due to her gender identity disorder. "

In pleading for the woman to be allowed to remain in New Zealand, her lawyer, Kar-yen Partington, presented 20 articles to the tribunal detailing transphobic hate crimes in the UK.

Recent data from the UK shows transphobic hate crimes against LGBTQ people have soared by nearly 80% in the last four years, with more than one in five LGBT people being the victim of a hate crime in last 12 months.

Just seriously curious if (actual) women have ever been granted asylum for being subject to harassment, which in some countries is very extreme. Or is this more trans privilege?

Lass Ok, but what are you struggling with re: reading? A PP (Datun? Maybe, sorry if it wasn't) mentioned "spinsters" I responded using the language in the post, I don't actually call people spinsters? Because IMO it's one of those words that is used to judge women's choices (although I'll admit I don't really know the history of it)

Fortunately I don't care about you either, or how you view my identity. I am lucky to live in the UK, where all Queer people are respected and the government/employers/schools and universities care that people feel accepted, despite gate-keepers on the internet.

Everyone bangs on about that diet Coke ad. But it's interesting, that it's virtually the only one. Society would like us to believe that women are salivating over plumbers, gardeners, and he-man everywhere, but they're not.

Again, it was me who mentioned spinsters. I know it's a word that people don't like, neither do I. I was using it in an historical context.

And intestingly, men too, Datun. Despite the "all men watch porn and think about sex with every man they meet" mythology sometimes pushed by posters on other parts of MN, I have many male friends who are probably what might be called "demisexual".

And of course there are gradations. I personally occasionally see a bloke and just think "phwoarr" on first sight - but it's rare, maybe one in a thousand. I don't default to automatically assessing every man I meet on the basis of "how would he look with his clothes off?" And I think some variation on that is true of all people. Maybe there are people for whom the ratio is one in a hundred, maybe there are those for whom it's one in five, maybe it's even true as a generalisation that overall the ratios may tend to be lower in men than in women (they may typically but not always be closer to the one in five than the one in a thousand end of the spectrum) - but no-one, not even the most dedicated porn-hound, has a one in one ratio.

Datun that's fair, I can't really say how sexual attraction feels...cause I don't experience it. But I'd imagine that when people figure out if they are gay or straight or bi it's because they want to have sex with someone of the same or a different sex/gender. That is what I understand as sexual attraction, when you don't have that, you may be a-spec.

It doesn't matter to me how many other people experience it, or how 'normal' it is, because I don't ID as ace to be special or different, I just am ace. I've talked to enough sexual people to realise that not everyone feels that way, and the language helps us figure out the world and us in it. I also don't mind if someone who I would view as ace based on my own experience doesn't want to ID as such, because their ID being different doesn't mean my ID is wrong.

And if you're really trying to tell me asexual people can have a high libido and want lots of sex, well

When I was dating, I could feel horny, want to have sex, and still not have a reaction to a man's body, that a man might have to mine.

And I don't think that's unusual. You don't tend to see magazines designed for women where they salivate over a man's buttocks, or thighs, or genitals.

However, someone who has a libido, and wants sex, cannot, in my book, convincingly be called asexual.

reeling with shock reading yer(wo)man phil bunce and his promotional info. The balls/ovaries you'd need to foist that on your colleagues. I felt embarrassed tellig the boss I needed maternity leave. I felt embarrassed being pregnant in a city environment.

you can want to have sex without being sexually attracted to that person
What?  why on earth would you want to have sex with someone you aren't sexually attracted to? Surely that's the worst sex ever?

Oh I can give you an example of that. Back in the day I was someone who was very picky about physical appearance but required no emotional involvement (I've lost track of what particular group Loop would put me in - basically I shagged a lot of pretty men)

I do recall there was a bloke in my halls of residence who was spectacularly physically unattractive and possibly on the autism spectrum. I recall discussing with a (male , heterosexual) friend that I was intrigued by the idea of shagging this bloke. I didn't- mainly because it would probably have been the worst sex ever and my motives were rather unkind.

It's ok loopsdefruit.

It's interesting to have a conversation.

Like prickly, I can't remember many times if any, where I would look at someone and think phwoar.

There, definitely, have been times where my eyes will follow a man, and there is a distinct feeling of something, quite difficult to define actually. But I know what horney feels like, and it's not that. Although, it's obviously related to what they look like. Perhaps that's the difference between men and women? It might be the distinction between admiration and objectification?

Lass I suppose that would have made you a little bit shallow lol but that's ok haha I also wouldn't put you in a group, because it's not anyone else's place to decide how people should identify.

Datun I think that (admiration/objectification) plays a part definitely. It's also not impossible that all asexual people just haven't met the right person yet, or haven't experienced their sexual awakening yet. However, that would be something for the asexual person to think about themselves, it's not really appropriate to say that to someone...because it's just like saying that to a gay person.

Out of interest though, how do you feel about the 'fluidity' of sexuality? I think that's important to understanding the differing views of labels, cause for young people sexuality is really fluid and so 'labels' are more about defining your experience at the time, than something concrete you can't ever change.

It's odd, isn't it lass? What motivates women to have sex.

'Traditional' good looks has never been part of my criteria. It's not something I've consciously decided, it just doesn't count. Doesn't get the juices flowing, as it were.

I'm not saying appearance doesn't count, because it certainly does. But it would never count on its own.

Prickly I wish I could give you a round of applause. 👏

Lass I suppose that would have made you a little bit shallow lol but that's ok haha I also wouldn't put you in a group, because it's not anyone else's place to decide how people should identify

But you can't have it both ways.

You are the one defining all these personality traits as separate categories. You are the one who posited you can want to have sex without being sexually attracted to that person.

So is you can want to have sex without being sexually attracted to that person a meaningful category or just a bit shallow?

As for putting me in a group- all I meant was I had lost track of which of your myriad definitions I would have fallen into had my self- absorption been deep enough to care.

loopsdefruit

Are you talking about whether someone is straight, gay or bi?

I'm probably not qualified to talk much about anything other than heterosexuality. Whilst I can quite easily see how a woman's sexuality might be more fluid than a man's, I can't imagine falling in love with another woman. Lesbian sex, to me, does not feel at all offputting. It must be quite useful to have someone who understands how the female body works. But, again, I don't think I could fall in love.

Which might be where asexuality comes in. If your sexual attraction, for want of a better word, is low, or zero, it won't really matter which sex you go for.

If you have sexual attraction, my benchmark is always been what do you masturbate to? What fantasies are in your head? To me, that will demonstrate your orientation.

lass ok, so "you can want to have sex without being sexually attracted" is not a category, it's just a fact. It's a fact that can exist within any sexuality or romantic attraction or combination of them. The definition of asexual is 'does not experience sexual attraction', it's not a thing that happens to you. Saying that, I wouldn't make someone ID as asexual, or tell them they are, even if they told me that they don't experience sexual attraction, it's not up to me (or anyone else) to tell someone how they ID or who they are.

So is you can want to have sex without being sexually attracted to that person a meaningful category or just a bit shallow?

And that's where it all falls apart.

Loop, I hate to break it to you, but no matter how many labels you put on yourself, you just sound like a typical young woman, with the typical feelings, or not, of attractions to another person. You're no more different or unique than my friends and I were at your age. But, feel free to put a label on yourself, if it makes you feel validated. I think my generation would probably been as daft, had said labels been around, when we were young.

I agree, that loop is just putting labels to what has always been there. Prickly nailed it when she said it seems to be a necessary part of the younger generation's navigation through our pornified society.

You have to come out and say you're not a part of that, and demand that that's respected. Because currently, it does seem to be considered a negative thing. Not my generation, certainly. But maybe the millennials have to make a stand.

It's a pretty poor show that being completely normal and not wanting to jump in bed with everything with a pulse, or not finding the right person (maybe never) is considered an identity that needs respecting.

Loop I don't think "asexual" means what you think it means.

I have to say at age 58 I'm absolutely loving being lectured by you on the extent of the spectrum of possible human emotions and sexual responses as if this were some wonderful revelation. A point Prickly made pages ago.

Datun yeh, essentially. All we have to go on as humans is our experience up to the current moment. If you've never experienced sexual attraction to a woman (as a woman) it's reasonable to ID as straight, then you meet one woman and you're not straight...or maybe you are, just not for this person. Labels aren't concrete IMO, things can always change because not all women are the same (or men, or redheads, or whatever).

Romantic attraction and sexual attraction are also different, maybe you can see yourself being in love with a woman, but don't want to have sex with them, you'd quite like to marry a woman, or live with them, cuddle, kiss, care for, have babies with etc... but you're not sexually attracted to them.

Sex and love aren't combined for everyone, especially asexual people. Also love, for aromantics, doesn't always mean the same as it does for sexual/romantic people.

I am not romantically attracted to men, for now anyway, I do want to get married, have babies, be in a relationship, with a woman. But I don't want to have sex with them, or rather if I did have sex with them it would be because they wanted/needed it rather than because I did.

The masturbation question is also interesting, because I don't masturbate and never have, it does nothing for me, and I really feel that is because I don't experience sexual attraction. But some asexuals do masturbate, despite not being sexually attracted to other people.

Brains are weird

lass except it does mean that books.google.co.uk/books?id=isIaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT300&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

" if I did have sex with them it would be because they wanted/needed it rather than because I did."

Please do not ever do this to someone or to yourself. Get over to the relationship board and read the threads from people of both sexes on what it is like, as someone with a sex drive, to be married to someone who does not have one. It will destroy both of you utterly. It is not an aspect of your life where you can "fake it till you make it".

I can see why you would want a companionate marriage and a chance to adopt children (or have them via sperm donation) with a woman you felt emotionally close to. But if you genuinely are asexual (and you certainly seem to be), please limit your dating pool to other women who are similar asexual and seek a companionate marriage.

Hope that doesn't sound patronising, but honestly (I'm in my 50s same as lass) by my age, you've watched your friends go through/have experienced yourself most of the available permutations of mismatches in personality, attraction, sex drive that failing relationships can throw up - and mismatched libidos is one of the worst. As the higher sexed partner, either you'll end up feeling undesired, or if you become aware that your partner is "going through the motions to please you" you'll feel like a sexual abuser. Most people with a sex drive would hate to have sex with someone they loved under those circumstances - it would make them feel sick to the stomach. Part of a healthily functioning sexual relationship is mutual desire and the feelings of reciprocity that come with that.

prickly no absolutely!! I definitely don't want to do that, which is why I'm not currently dating, and why if I did I would be super up front about how I feel and my boundaries before beginning any kind of relationship. I wouldn't want to make another person unhappy or uncomfortable, any more than I wish to be unhappy or uncomfortable.

God prickly, you talk so much sense. Always. One of the most articulate, analytical woman I've ever seen.

I'm one of those people who can do a Topol on almost any subject - on the one hand…on the other hand. Probably because I think most people crave understanding. And if I can manage to do that whilst maintaining my disagreement (if I still have it), it's a bit of a win all round.

And loops. Prickly is absolutely right. A mismatched libido is the deathknell to a relationship.

Many people start a relationship with the best of intentions, in the first flush of passion. Only to find that the libido aspect shakes down a year or so in, and stops working because it's unequal.

The fact that you are fully aware of your own libido, will stand you in good stead. As long as you choose someone who is similar.

And for what it's worth, I didn't start masturbating until well into my 20s. It's a bit of an acquired skill, to be honest.