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

[IwantToRetire]

From a survey of 3,695 young adults aged 18-25 27% said they “rarely or never” feel a part of the LGBTQ community. Aside from those who said they were questioning their sexual or gender identity, asexual people were most likely to say this.

18% said they “rarely” felt included and 9% said they “never” felt included.

30% of asexual young adults said they “always” feel included and 30% said they “sometimes” feel included.

39% of asexual people of colour said they rarely or never felt part of the LGBT+ community, compared to 24% of white asexual young people.

It’s also estimated that between 0.44-1 percent (295,768 to 672,200) of the UK population identifies as asexual.

The data paints a disappointing picture that suggests a significant portion of young adults identifying as asexual don’t always feel like they’re a part of the LGBTQ community.

“I hope that this research makes clear the need for greater awareness of the lived experiences and realities of asexual people, especially as we can see a wider pattern here of LGBT+ people of colour feeling excluded from our community.”

https://www.attitude.co.uk/news/a-quarter-of-asexual-young-adults-feel-excluded-from-lgbtq-community-430087/

Repeating what you’ve said before doesn’t clarify things.

If 1-2% of people have no sex drive, presumably 1-2% of people have very high sex drives - where is their label? Are those with very high sex drives portrayed positively in books? On TV? Do they have adequate recognition? Maybe not, because like asexuality it’s not something that requires any special care or attention for fair and equal treatment in life.

As for the word salad of fake sexualities - it honestly reads like a Freudian psychoanalysist has put a label to all the ways people’s pasts and personalities affect how they develop relationships, it doesn’t mean they are actual sexualities. There is no need for all these labels that young people proudly display to as many people who will pay attention, and if people don’t pay attention, don’t acknowledge and congratulate them, or we dare roll our eyes and wait for these inevitable teen phases to pass (as we did goths and emos)(and the teen phase refers to the high need for validation and attention), then we’re hostile.

I don’t give two hoots if someone is asexual or demisexual, or any other made up word to pigeon hole a personality trait, but the recent trend for shoving these details at people is very disturbing. It’s got nothing to do with me who others have sex with, or not, and as a middle aged adult I can honestly say that the topic of conversation, on meeting someone new, has never come up. I would give short thrift to anyone wanting to share intimate details of their sexual preferences unless I was very close to them.
It’s nothing like the recognition that the LGB fought for - they were losing jobs, being imprisoned, weren’t allowed to have civil partnerships or get married. Everything else in the TQ+ is attention seeking bollocks that literally anyone could identify into if they navel gaze hard enough, they all have the same rights that we all have.

When would you have time to get anything done? All the swooning and mooning around would play havoc with the ironing pile.

Abroromantic / aro flux: someone who fluctuates between experiencing romantic attraction and not experiencing it, and/or experiencing romantic attraction to different strengths.
Abrosexual / ace flux: someone who’s experiences of sexual attraction fluctuate; they may go through periods of asexuality and periods of experiencing sexual attraction. The strength of their attraction could also fluctuate, going through phases of weakness and intensity.
Ace: an abbreviated term for ‘asexual’.
Akoiromantic/lithromantic: a person who experiences romantic attraction but has no desire or need to have their feelings reciprocated. Sometimes an akoiromantic person’s attraction may fade if a romantic relationship is established.
Akoisexual/lith(o)sexual: someone who experiences sexual attraction to people but has no desire to have those feelings reciprocated. For some, if the attraction is reciprocated, their feelings may fade and they will no longer be attracted to that person. ‘Lithsexual’ is also sometimes used to describe someone who does not like to receive sexual contact but may be happy to give it.
Alloromantic/zedromantic: someone who does experience romantic attraction. An alloromantic person may be allosexual as well, but not necessarily.
Allosexual/zedsexual: someone who does experience sexual attraction, and therefore not on the ace spectrum.
Apothisexual: someone who is asexual and sex-repulsed.
Aro: an abbreviated term for ‘aromantic’.
Aromantic: someone who does not experience romantic attraction.
Asexual: someone who does not experience sexual attraction.
Autochorissexual/aegosexual: someone who is aroused by sex that does not involve themself; it is a disconnection between oneself and the sexual object/activity. Someone who is autochorissexal might have sexual fantasies, or enjoy reading erotica or watching porn, but will have no desire to be involved in the activities themselves. This identity did not arise within the ace community and isn’t necessarily an ‘ace’ identity.
Cupioromantic: someone who does not experience romantic attraction but has a desire to be in a romantic relationship.
Cupiosexual: someone who desires a sexual relationship, but does not experience sexual attraction.
Demi: an abbreviation for demisexuality and demiromanticism.
Demi(a)romantic: someone who only experiences romantic attraction after establishing a strong emotional connection to someone.
Demi-(a)sexual: someone who only experiences sexual attraction after establishing a close emotional and/or romantic connection with another person/persons.
Frayromantic: someone who experiences romantic attraction, but this attraction fades after getting to know the object of attraction.
Fraysexual: someone who initially experiences sexual attraction upon meeting someone, but this attraction fades after getting to know them.
Grey-(a)romantic: someone who sometimes, occasionally, or rarely experiences romantic attraction. The attraction they experience may be weak, or it might be infrequent. Also used as an umbrella term for all romantic orientations that fall between alloromantic and aromantic.
Grey-(a)sexual: someone who sometimes, occasionally, or rarely experiences sexual attraction. The attraction they experience may be weak, or it might be infrequent. Greysexuality describes any sexual orientation that falls somewhere between asexual and allosexual. It is often used as an umbrella term to encompass other identities on the grey area of the spectrum, including demisexuals, lithsexuals, ace flux, etc.
Perioriented: describes a person whose romantic and sexual orientations align, for example, a homoromantic homosexual person, or an asexual aromantic person.
Varioriented: describes a person whose romantic and sexual orientations don't align, for example, a homoromantic pansexual person, or a homosexual demiromantic person.
Quoiromantic/WTF-romantic: someone who finds romantic attraction confusing, or cannot differentiate between platonic and romantic attraction, or is unsure of whether they experience romantic attraction.
Quoisexual: someone who is unsure whether they experience sexual attraction, or is unsure about what sexual attraction is.

Looking at this whole list, like others, I’ve probably been all of them, sometimes in the same day. Am I just super special? Is there a special name for me?

Similar with the full form of the LGBT+.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Pansexual, Two-Spirited, and Asexual.

According to Stonewall’s trans umbrella most of us could identify as trans if we wanted. Intersex is a medical condition that shouldn’t be there. Questioning is ambiguous and meaningless, and again, a high percentage of us probably fit that at some point or other. Pan is just bi but believes in however many genders we are now up to. Two spirit is cultural appropriation, ironic from a group that are usually hot on the tail of any cultural appropriation that they personally disapprove of. And asexual, which is neither a gender nor a sexuality. The whole this is pointless codswallop.

Just live your lives, and teach your children not to immerse themselves into this brain sucking bullshit.

Have now trudged through all the comments and cannot understand how anyone could have missed the point of posting it.

The issue is why would anyone think that the so called LGBTI+ community is one that anyone young person should be referred to?

They are a highly reactionary misogynitic money grabbing fake contstruction.

I am appalled that any one in a position of influence over young people (as for instance Nimbostratus100 has described herself) should be so ignorant in light of the many threads on FWR, newspaper articles etc., would put them forward as somewhere offering appropriate support to a young suggestible person

It is, if not as bad, but in the same region of dangerous unresearched, unempathetic, action as Sarah being referred to a support group who say that women must accept trans women in a rape survivors support group.

I am genuinely shocked that anyone could so unquestioningly just tag along with the highly manipulative and unrepresentative group that the queer project has created.

I was in no way demeaning those who think they are asexual. Being old enough to be part of Women's Liberation there were groups for women who were celibate, some because there were heterosexual but didn't want to be intimate with men because of their feminism, some who were maybe wondering about their sexual orientation, and some who were genuine celibate (asexual) though choice.

The point of posting this was to point out the stupidity of this fake rainbow coalition which is destroying the ability of genuinely affiliated groupings, eg same sex attraction from having their own voice, being properly represented, saying this group must also be hauled in under their umbrella.

The arrogance of a group presuming they should be the one to represent a group of people who have said we dont feel part of it - because it is not relevant.

So in the same way as the group should not presume to be able to represent everyone, no one should presume to say that the LGBTQI+ community represents someone.

Because they dont.

And no young person should be advised or pressured to believe that whatever their issue is about their sex or sexuality they will receive genuine support from a group of people who dont even believe in the reality of biological sex.

Am I reading mumsnet FWR or have I drifted into the Guardian lifestyle columns.

Yes it's way past the point now that being trans, queer or LGBTQ+ can easily apply to absolutely anyone. Anyone who doesn't subscibe to gender ideology is, for example, because they're "agender". Anyone who has had romantic or sexual feelings that change over time or are different in different circumstances, which is everyone pretty much, can proclaim they're one of those aroace/blah/wibble categories.

And I think that's part of the point of the whole "queer" movement - alongside its boundary-dismantling/"queering" agendas - that anyone can identify into it. That gives white, middle class people in rich western countries a way to join the "oppressed" and be in a "marginalised" group, which means they can shrug off their guilt at being the oppressor. It also means that organisations and companies can tick their EDI boxes by making a big fuss about these categories, that include mainly already privileged and advantaged people, instead of doing the work to be genuinely inclusive of real disadvantaged groups.

In my field of work I have seen organisations immediately become more "inclusive" by someone who's already inside the organisation announcing they're non-binary or queer. Hey presto, "marginalised" (not) person being centred and celebrated even more than they were before, and company gets brownie points

From a survey of 3,695 young adults aged 18-25 27% said they “rarely or never” feel a part of the LGBTQ community.
I'm sorry if I'm missing the point of this thread, but it seems like there's something important missing from this description of the survey.

If the sample were representative of all 18-25-year-olds, I'd expect a lot more than 27% to not feel part of the LGBTQ community, so what population is the sample supposed to represent? Is it readers of Attitude magazine? Is it people who identify as LGBTQ (but not necessarily as part of the LGBTQ community)? Does it include those who identify as L, G, B, T or Q but not as LGBTQ (perhaps like the "get the L out" lesbians)? Does it explicitly include identities not covered by those five letters? If so, which ones?

There are so many possibilities, and the survey results are really meaningless if we don't know what the inclusion criteria were and what population the sample aims to represent.

Is this explained somewhere else? Have I just not read it properly?

Also, it's not obvious that people who say they don't feel part of the LGBTQ community are feeling excluded: they may just not be interested in being part of it. That seems like a significant distinction.

The whole thing really disgusts me; fake niche identities.
I remember around 2010 being out and No One Cared! I was just another normal person like everybody else. it was so great. I loved it.

If you are asexual fine, do form a social group to find a partner ( the asexual lesbian I know never did in our L social group) and then live your life like everyone else.
We need to embrace our shared humanity.

One of the elements that makes these discussions a little confusing at times is that even the traditional sexualities are really self-defined and don't have a clear scientific explanation, and it's also clear that there are cultural influences at play in terms of people's behaviour and also self-perception.

The current common wisdom is that sexuality is inborn and unchangable, but that's more of an assumption than something that can be shown to be objectively true, particularly if you are looking to measure it in some way apart from what people do. It works fine in general as an assumption for most people, but in terms of trying to create some kind of scientific or even anthropological basis to support it, it's just not at all clear that its the case.

What that means here is that it's difficult to say definitively that all these other sexual identities are really clearly a different kind of thing.

The other thing that strikes me is that left wing models of sexuality often seem to treat it as an identity, not just an alliance of people with certain political interests in common, or who might potentially be interested in romantic/sexual relationships with each other. - and maybe that opens the door to people who see other types of sexual interests as an identity. A fairly mainstream view on the right tends to not see sexuality as an identity at all, and you see people who take that view tend not to really engage in many of the more identity based elements - they don't usually join in with Pride celebrations, or join a gay men's choir, or that kind of thing. You don't hear such people use identity type language to describe themselves in quite the same way either.

I can't quite see that approach as being that likely to fall prey to the thinking that everyone has to have a sexual label for their exact feelings at this moment in time.

''@ReadersD1gest

Gay is something you are, as opposed to something you're not. Why can't you see the difference, and stop trying to conflate two things that are completely unrelated?''

This thread really makes grim reading.

The lack of knowledge and understanding is astonishing.

Being asexual is also something you are.

It is not a choice/fad/a defect.

Someone could also be gay (seek romantic relationships with someone of the same gender) and be asexual (not want that relationship to include sex).

It just seems to me to boil down to same issue:

Too many people don't seem to accept that others can be different and they prefer that people keep quiet about their difference.

Very, very sad.

This seems like a self fulfilling prophecy. Not many people care if you’re asexual and it’s difficult to describe any discrimination faced by asexual people (that isn’t imposed on anyone, especially women, who choose to remain single for whatever reason.)

so if you go around saying you’re discriminated against because you’re asexual you’ll get pushback…

Which you can then interpret as evidence of anti-asexual prejudice.

(And describing asexual as “difference” is really pushing it. It’s one end of a continuum of normal experience, and most people experience low libido at some point in their lives. If you choose to label yourself that way, it’s… fine.)

Too many people don't seem to accept that others can be different and they prefer that people keep quiet about their difference.

Very, very sad.

if you read the thread, most of us accept “difference” and diversity of sexuality etc just fine. It’s a ridiculous straw man and worn old cliche to imply that people “don't seem to accept that others can be different” when lots of people on this thread clearly accept, understand and are fine with homosexuality (or are even gay themselves). Many mums of MN also have loads of experience of having kids with ND conditions and special needs, and so on. This is not about rejecting any kind of “difference” and you know it.

The much more complex discussion on this thread is about the recent tendency for a lot of people to try to make an “identity” out of any completely normal or unpersecuted personality trait, like or dislike in an attempt to leap onto the now almost meaningless LBGTQ+ bandwagon and claim special status. Whether that applies to asexuality is being debated, but you could join the debate and make a clear case for why you think it should be given such a status, or why it needs awareness raising about it, or how it affects people negatively, for example. Then others might change their minds, that’s how debate works.

Just attacking people for supposedly not tolerating difference is daft. Basically crying “bigot” because people have valid points you don’t like, instead of making a clear counter argument. I can’t think of anything I have more tolerance and understanding of, than people not being interested in sex. I am totally fine with it and, as a CSA survivor and separated older woman, very sympathetic. That is a separate issue from the discussion about whether it is a sexuality, or makes you “queer” or disadvantaged in any way.

Difference is fine.

We’re all different to each other.

In your example a gay person (depending on sex) will have, in the fairly recent past, been discriminated against (no right to marry their chosen partner) and even criminally prosecuted for their choice of sexual/romantic partner/s (if male).
In many countries, this still happens.

Within a gay (or straight!) relationship, asexuality is only a problem if the lack of sex is not a mutual choice.
At no point in UK history have asexuals been criminally prosecuted or forbidden from marrying on the basis of their asexuality.

Some asexuals do have sex, btw, so there is no agreed definition of what human asexuality is. Not sure how media is supposed to better represent an identity that has no fixed definition.

Whereas homosexual relationships are easy to represent in media because there is a very clear visual difference between a homosexual relationship and a straight relationship - two partners of the same sex!

Please do educate us on what asexual representation and acceptance would look like and how it differs from anyone else who doesn’t want to engage in sexual activity/doesn’t like sex/doesn’t want a sexual relationship. We’d genuinely love to hear a reasonable explanation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

I think it is quite clear what the definition is, and some gays have straight sex, doesnt make them less gay

Well it's not clear to me what the definition is.

Please explain to me , a Lesbian, how we have 'straight sex.' I am very confused.

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

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 🙄

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.

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]

^^

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

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]

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.

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.

🤷‍♀️

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

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.