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?

It all sounds like straight people wanting to appropriate gay/lesbian "sparkle rainbow" culture to claim marginalisation. Identity politics pecking orders rely on being marginalised. Here's how heterosexual men have inserted themselves to ensure hegemony, and women have blindly and uncritically flung themselves in there too. Ugh.

There's some info here on a study done about asexual discrimination, it's strongly linked to discrimination faced by other sexual identities.

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/without-prejudice/201209/prejudice-against-group-x-asexuals

Lass It's interesting, and sad, that asexuality isn't specifically listed as it does not fall under the other sexualities. I wonder whether you could still use the law as "sexuality" is the protected characteristic, or if you'd need to fit in with the other stuff it says as well.

I don't really know how you'd 'know' someone was gay either though, unless they told you. It's not like you'd be having sex in front of them. If for the law to work someone needs to assume you're gay or straight or bi and treat you badly, fine...they're bigoted and wrong lol

But there's no history of illegality or incarceration for asexuality!

You just WANT to feel oppressed.

That's not why protected characteristics are protected, Butter.

alittle Ok, so if something was never illegal then it's not possible for people to experience discrimination that they deserve protection from?

butter I am not straight, or even heteroromantic, so really I fit through the arbitrary gate you have decided exists. Nobody wants to be oppressed, wtf...

Asexuals do experience corrective sexual violence because of their asexuality, they do face increased likelihood of depression and isolation because of their asexuality, they are less likely to be employed or accepted as tenants/housemates, they do not have their sexuality discussed in sex education, they are often viewed differently to sexual people (negatively) by both straight and gay people. The studies on this are small, and that can definitely be improved on, but that in itself shows there is a problem with visibility and understanding.

No wonder people are confused if they cant tell the difference between an orientation and the way that orientation is expressed
Protected characteristics dont need to list all potential permutations. We dont need to list all the different races people can be to offer them legal protection from racism.

That's not why protected characteristics are protected, Butter.
I was responding to the claim that asexuals had a history of being discriminated against. I was pointing out there was no official state response to it.

Loops, you might also claim homosexuality. In this discussion i am specifically referring to the claim that asexuality and the other sparkle genders belong alongside it.

ALittleBitOfButter

But there's no history of illegality or incarceration for asexuality!

Exactly for all intents and purposes being asexual is exactly the same as being heterosexual.

Apologies, Butter.

Butter It is not a 'sparkle gender' (it's not even a gender??) it is an orientation, and has been one forever, it's on the kinsey scale (separate to the other orientations). I literally don't understand why you think you know better than people who studied this historically. I am not gay, or straight, or bi. I am asexual, I also have a totally separate romantic attraction which is irrelevant to a discussion about sexual orientation.

You can't be asexual AND heterosexual, or asexual and homosexual...because they literally mean sexually attracted to other people of some description which doesn't exist in asexuality.

Writers argues that demisexuality is different, and can exist with other sexualities. That's fine, and not a view I'd actually come across from a demisexual person before, like I said, the way you personally choose to ID is fine, if you want to say you're demisexual homosexual or demisexual heterosexual then that's great. You can use whatever combination of words best describes your experience, and it's nobody else's right to tell you that you're wrong.

lass but heterosexuality is a protected characteristic? Despite that not having a history of discrimination either. So sure, asexuality can be treated the same...as a protected characteristic.

I have hairy legs.

Hairy legged women do experience jeering, catcalling and negative sexual attention because of their hairy legs, they do face increased likelihood of depression and isolation because of their hairy legs, they are less likely to be employed or accepted as tenants/housemates, they do not have their hairy legs discussed in mainstream women's magazines, they are often viewed differently to sexual people (negatively) by both straight and gay people. The studies on this are small (and done by me), and that can definitely be improved on, but that in itself shows there is a problem with visibility and understanding.

Can I be queer too?

Sorry, cocked up a bit there:

*they are often viewed differently to hairless legged people (negatively) by both straight and gay people.

I don't really know how you'd 'know' someone was gay either though, unless they told you. It's not like you'd be having sex in front of them. If for the law to work someone needs to assume you're gay or straight or bi and treat you badly, fine...they're bigoted and wrong lol

Are you serious? So all the lesbian and gay people who have persecuted over the years must have been having sex in front of someone otherwise how would anyone have known? How about they were trying to establish a relationship with someone, holding hands with their partner in public, actually having a relationship and being found out. That's in addition to carefully monitoring behaviour so as not to display gender non-conforming characteristics which might lead to an accusation of being lesbian or gay.

This posts really demonstrates your cluelessness on this whole topic to the point of actual offensiveness.

I have to hide my hairy legs when going for job interviews.

You can't be asexual AND heterosexual, or asexual and homosexual

Are you telling people how they can identify? I thought that wasn't allowed.

' kinsey scale' ? Kinsey was an evil evil evil cunt. He paid paedophiles to abuse kids. Evil bastard.

That article you posted is one of the least convincing pieces I have seen on any subject.

There is absolutely no history of prejudice and discrimination of asexuals in the way there was and is of homosexuality.

Asexuality isn't and never has been illegal for starters.

Until pretty recently for an unmarried woman living a publicly asexual life would be the expected and acceptable norm.

I understand some asexuals might be depressed and lonely but that has no justification whatsoever to demand legal protection under the law. That is just someone with a miserable personality.

Your suggestion asexuals are discriminated in the job or housing markets lacks any credibility.

Asexuals do experience corrective sexual violence because of their asexuality

This is already illegal through existing laws on rape and sexual assault

they do face increased likelihood of depression and isolation because of their asexuality

Is this because they are asexual, or because part of being asexual means that they are less likely to form meaningful relationships with a long term partner?

they are less likely to be employed or accepted as tenants/housemates

Here's where I'm starting to struggle.... I've applied for dozens of jobs in my time, and been a tenant / house mate over and over. I've never had any questions to answer or done any exercises that would give the interviewers any clue about whether I was hetero, homo or asexual. Perhaps if there was a house full of blokes and they asked a prospective house mate if they liked going on the pull this might come up, but otherwise? How is this discrimination possibly occurring? Are interviewers really ascribing asexuality to a stranger then using it as a reason not to give them the job / room? If anything, someone might be discriminating against them on the basis that they are gay (if they decide that there's something a bit different about them), which is already illegal.

they do not have their sexuality discussed in sex education

Agreed. Though sex ed is woeful in many ways. I suspect any mention of asexuality gets swept up with general abstinance.

they are often viewed differently to sexual people (negatively) by both straight and gay people.

Can you unpick what you mean here a bit? Is it like the way that people who like to drink regularly can be a bit disparaging about teetotallers, or carnivores think that vegans can't possibly know what they are missing?

butter having hairy legs is a choice? You are born asexual, you don't choose it, and therefore you have no way to escape the discrimination. Same with having tattoos or piercings, you shouldn't be able to discriminate based on them, but people do and it's not protected because it's a choice to go against social norms. Doesn't make you queer though.

Flora this could equally apply to someone in an asexual relationship with someone of the same sex, the outward expressions are the thing that gets you into trouble, but that still doesn't make a person not ace.

Arguably I face more discrimination for my romantic attraction than my sexual one, but romantic attraction isn't protected and in order to be protected under the Equality Act I'd have to just say I'm homosexual.

Someone could say they were being discriminated against for being heterosexual and be covered under the Act where an asexual person would not be.

You are just being offensive now. I was BORN with hairy legs. They're part of my IDENTITY. Are you saying i should conceal that integral part of me to make more people sexually attracted to me?

they are often viewed differently to sexual people (negatively) by both straight and gay people

There might be something in this but I agree along the lines that tee totallers/ vegetarians get.

I doubt the number of people passed over for jobs for any of these reasons is vanishingly small to non- existent.

Flat shares may well be higher but that is going to be for reasons of not fitting in- a group of asexual, teetotal, female vegans might well turn down a heterosexual, male, beer drinking carnivore as a flat mate.