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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Bears. Not bares fgs

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.

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

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)

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

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?

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.

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