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/

What is an a-sexual sub-identity?

I notice here that the title is "young adults". Because no-one clearly gives a shit about middle-aged, menopausal women who don't want sex or a relationship, they're just dull and boring.

Yeah and we hit every note on that word salad from wiki.

I demand my ace identity is acknowledged and my flag is flown from all nearby buildings. Do we have a secret handshake too?

What a coincidence that asexuality is being pushed as a thing, when a generation of young people are being put on pathways that result in loss of sexual function.

The whole thing is hugely rapey and encourages the idea that if you don't like having sex it's part of your identity, but you should consider doing it anyway, and certainly continue to be a consumer of pornified capitalism.

I think they should be relieved that they don’t have to bow down to the cult that has taken over what was a wider LGB community.

Excellent point, frostyfifi!
Plenty of older women will rmember the days when the word 'frigid' was flung at any woman who didn't want sex at the drop of a hat, by men who wanted to marginalise and humiliate them.
The significance of that insult was to say "Your lack of interest in having sex with me is an intrinsic aspect of you. You are a certain kind of person - different, freakish - because you don't want to screw me."
We moved past the days when that insult was acceptable. We moved (for a while) towards a recognition that women's desire for sex was crushed when aggressive external pressured her into sex that she wasn't really up for. Now we seem to be going back round again to a point where people who don't want sex are labelled.

I can imagine men responding to a sexual rejection by sneeringly asking 'Are you asexual?' and I can imagine women feeling pressured into saying 'Yes, I am' because they feel that is the only way they can legitimately get someone to back off and leave them alone.

Surely, instead of yet another identiy, what we really need is an assertion of the rights of individuals (and especially individual women and girls) to be treated with empathic respect in relation to sex, to be given space to want sex or not want sex, on their own terms.

Hypersexualisation in our society is a women's rights issue. It affects all women, regardless of how little or how much they want to have sex, because all women are subjected to hostility from men who hate them for ever saying 'No.', whether that is 'No, not now', or 'No, not with you,' or 'No, not ever.'

I'm going to sound 300 years old now, but this thread is making me realise that there are people who have grown up now genuinely thinking that having an "identity" that you can expect / demand everyone else to make a fuss about is some kind of human right, or the most important thing about a person.

As I'm over 50 and was an adult before identity politics became this huge thing, it wouldn't have occurred to me to think about my "identity" - and if I did I would have concluded I based my sense of self on various things (relationships, work, interests etc) but not that it was anyone else's business, or that their sense of self-identity was my business either.

That's why a lot of older people react to this stuff by thinking "FFS who cares?". But that doesn't mean we don't care about people being oppressed, or don't recognise or accept difference, etc. Even though I'm in my 50s I've been accepting of homosexuality and defended gay rights all my life, for example.

It means we - or some of us - find this constant jostling to have the most "identity" points or claim the most oppression to be solipsistic and meaningless, and counterproductive when it comes to addressing actual disadvantage and getting things actually changed for the genuinely oppressed.

However asexual you may be, your oppression, if there is any at all, is insignificant compared to that of women in Afghanistan or gay people in Uganda, for example. Actual caring about oppression and difference involves supporting people who have it much worse than you, rather than wanging on insensitively about "lack of awareness" of something that rarely if ever causes any disadvantage.

@Greenfairydust I see that you've slipped in your own complete redefinition of the word "gay" - no, a gay person isn't someone with a romantic interest in the same "gender". Gay is being SEXually attracted to people of THE SAME SEX. Who are you, that you think it's okay to deny that some (quite a lot of) people are SEXually attracted to their own biological SEX? Make up your own word for your new idea of "romantically attracted to the same gender".

There’s an odd conflict between the desire to put labels on everything and the desire to blur all the boundaries of every category, which are both so characteristic of the alphabet movement. That article on “asexual” is a perfect example; it’s basically meaningless. More aggravating is when they do it to gay men and lesbians… throughout history and to this day lots of men have had sex with men without identifying as “gay,” why claim that specific, culture-bound label if you also want to blur the boundaries of what it means?

Obviously this benefits the bored straight white kids who want an oppression label, and presumably that’s why it’s happening. But I’m wondering if anyone has ever addressed the fundamental philosophical conflict. Why have any labels when they don’t mean anything?

Perhaps endless labels that don’t really mean anything has the same functional result as no labels or categories at all?

ie no way to draw boundaries that stop pervy men having access to whatever they want.

Two different routes that arrive at the same Queer Theory destination?

As I'm over 50 and was an adult before identity politics became this huge thing, it wouldn't have occurred to me to think about my "identity" - and if I did I would have concluded I based my sense of self on various things (relationships, work, interests etc)

Exactly. Since when does sexuality or lack there of define you?

No, what time find sad is the constant search for more and more unique 'identities'. Just be yourself and enjoy yourself being who you are.

Yes! I think this has to be one of the driving forces behind it.

But these labels are driven by teens, not pervy men. Although arguably a lot of it is teens in reaction to pervy men. Maybe it’s like a call and response; generating labels is a self-protective thing, an attempt to establish boundaries, and the constant erosion of the labels into meaninglessness (like “asexual”) is narcissists or indeed pervy men reacting negatively against the perception of boundaries that don’t include them.

If Lesbian doesn't mean same sex attracted, then it's meaningless which is just what Queer theory wants ; no boundaries....
And we know who wants to join the meaningless Alphabet; those who think children can consent to sex.
NEVER

The"LGBTQ+ community" doesn't exist except as a manufactured product of queer theory.

Why do people need more and more obscure 'communities'?!

The Q+ is a big catch-all term and the only people who are excluded are the ones who believe in sex over gender.

I hate the constant emphasis on sex, and I suspect that people who are not interested in having sex really don't want to be spending lots of their time (in real life or online) with a group of people who are obsessed with sex, and often kinky sex. There is no reason to define people this way. I'm really not interested in football. That's why I don't join spend my time with people who spend their lives watching, playing and discussing it. I also don't define myself as a "doesn't like football person".

Exactly. Who cares whether someone enjoys sex or with whom they enjoy sex...?! Why define yourself that way??

Going back to the original question, I think there may have been a moment in Year 9 where my daughter was the only girl who was not panasexual/asexual/bi/gender-fluid. She was a minority.

What did any of it mean in practice, besides everyone being desperate to be different and special?

Is this like being vegetarian but wanting to be part of a food appreciation society for carnivores?

Why are your sexual fantasies even discussed in public/school? What an odd topic to talk about...?!

I suspect that in year 9 (ages 13-14) there are probably some children who haven’t yet started experiencing sexual feelings so how can they know that they’re asexual or whatever?

I feel so sorry for teenagers growing up in today’s world of labels and identities.

Yes, pretty much. Some people can't be left out of anything, even things they don't actually want to be a part of 🤷🏻‍♀️