Stonewall releases report on "dehumanising" discrimination against asexuals

[GinAllAround]

I'm not doubting that you can be judged socially for saying you're asexual but is it really the same as being gay or lesbian?

Although I agree that it shouldn't be classed as a MH condition, I've never heard of anyone being denied a job or housing for being asexual or being beaten up or taunted in the streets.

And what extra legal protection/rights do asexual people need? Surely they have the same rights as anyone else?

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/new-research-shining-light-‘dehumanising’-discrimination-faced-ace-people

Presumably because the only reason you need to discuss your sex life with a healthcare professional is if it's relevant (e.g. giving blood) and not having sex is unlikely to ever be relevant.

Well, I suppose there's the question that's regularly asked of women, or ever more often, everybody, "Could you be pregnant?"

So then an asexual person* could just say "No", like post-menopausal women - or any woman who hasn't had sex recently for whatever reason - or men.

*who hasn't had IVF

stonewall is a shadow of its former self in the days of people like Ben Summerskill

I don’t think I’ve ever discussed my sex life or lack of it with anyone at work

more broadly I do wonder if we are seeing the impact of a generation that has grown up on line. I was only half joking with my tumblr reference earlier. We do know that more young people are struggling to form relationships in the real world and that some much prefer the online world. Couple that with the onslaught on online hardcore porn and I Can’t say I’m hugely shocked therefore that more of them are identifying as asexual

I don't think I've ever told my healthcare providers I'm heterosexual (though increasingly asexual since having kids and becoming middle aged, we're both too tired most of the time). It's frankly really really inappropriate / creepy to discuss your sexuality unless it's relevant, surely?

I mean when I was pregnant they probably assumed I was heterosexual but I could have quite easily been in an asexual relationship and conceived by IVF for all they knew. When I had appointments on my own they wouldn't have known my spouse was male.

Most of the time at appointments whoever I'm talking to doesn't know I'm married to a man, I could be single (/asexual), lesbian or bi or in a polyamorous relationship. They don't need to know and - like most of the world I suspect - I quite like to keep it that way.

Also, the NHS is fucked enough in terms of provided urgently needed healthcare without HCPs having to waste time discussing people's totally irrelevant sexuality (or lack thereof).

Narcissists really do need to be told 'no' in a context when they're demanding things that will waste HCP time.

Since some asexual-identifying people have sex lives (and presumably it's acephobic to assume that they don't!) I can't see how the "asexual" label choice is ever going to be relevant in a medical context, even when your sex life is. It just means the clinician is going to have to ask the same question again, but with bonus awkwardness. (Almost like creating awkwardness and opportunities to be offended is the whole point.)

I think if you grew up in the era where people were saying stupid shit about consent needing to be "enthusiastic" then they might very well think that.

I think that marriage, among several other purposes, has been seen as (ideally, but sadly often not in practice) a safe place for sex. This was particularly so before fairly reliable contraception, and before antibiotics and other treatments made STIs less terrifying.

I want to claim no shelter under Stonewall's umbrella here (& I'm sure they wouldn't particularly want to represent me), but please don't toss this all out as 'blue-haired exceptionalism'. I'd be really amazed if there weren't some aspects of neurodiversity caught up in Stonewall's asexuality cohort (hence also some of the ROGD girls). And, from my own experience, there really are NHS mental health care ramifications here - and this is already a pretty patchy area for anyone autistic.

I'm okay with making a home for myself on the gender critical side of the debate - but I'm old, grouchy, & no longer need trendy, socially acceptable terms to help me explain who I am. But, I do think we need to find ways to reach out to those who do. God, this would all have so screwed me over as a teenager - I'd have ended up an asexual transman.

@TempestTost

"I think if you grew up in the era where people were saying stupid shit about consent needing to be "enthusiastic" then they might very well think that." - what era is that? And why would people from that era conflate enthusiastic consent with enthusiastic sex?

Marriage is just cohabitation with a contract.

There are plenty of posts on MN from unmarried cohabiting partners, of both sexes, complaining that sexual intimacy is lacking in their relationship.

So evidently many people expect cohabiting relationships to have a sexual element.

It’s worrying if people’s who are struggling to form relationships in the real world are rushing into parenthood. Little is more real world than the demands of children.

Like 5 minutes ago.

It was all the rage not that long ago, that for consent to be "real" it had to be enthusiastic. If you questioned them about what that meant they generally didn't know but would say something about them clearly enjoying the encounter.

I don't think I've ever heard of someone replying "is there something wrong with you?" "Can you have therapy to cure it?" "is it because you've been raped?" if someone says they don't like football. And honestly mean it - obviously people do say stupid things jokingly but those are legitimate responses people have had to asexuals "coming out."

You only have to look a few posts below yours to see someone making the link between asexuals and pedophiles which I don't think anyone has ever made between people who don't like GBBO!

If the response to "I'm asexual" was always "fair enough" there wouldn't be a need for a report!

People are not linking "asexuality" and paedophilia. The point is that this new "oppressed group" based on the flimsiest of evidence will - if taken seriously - open the door to "other sexualities". That will eventually include "MAPs". I hope this "report" is not ever taken seriously in order that I can never be proven right and I can never say "I told you so".

@another1bitestheduck how do those sorts of responses to the statement "I am asexual" constitute discrimination and require a report or some kind of legal protection? Rather than be considered thoughtless, clumsy or ignorant responses. Are those responses you've encountered in a workplace, and in what context did the conversation happen?

I have visible scarring and have encountered many people, some in the workplace, making thoughtless, rude or unkind comments about it. It's not ideal but it isn't something that I think needs to be legislated against. I think that the kind of comments you describe fall into the same category.

I really hope that enthusiastic consent still IS a thing! You clearly didn't understand it, but it means that coerced consent isn't valid. That IS a good thing.

I can see your point, but if you were a therapist and gently tried to probe for these underlying issues, you might risk being prosecuted for "conversion therapy" if the likes of Stonewall and asexual activists like Benoit get their way.

Could you just confirm that asexuality does not mean that the person in question isn't actually having any sex

To me it means a lack of sexual attraction. In the same way as you don't have to be having or had gay sex to consider yourself to be gay - the identity comes from what you think/feel rather than the physical acts you perform.

For my point of view its both - I don't feel sexual attraction and therefore don't have sex. I do know people who consider themselves ace but have sex e.g for their partners benefit or to get pregnant despite not feeling any sexual attraction themselves. I would still consider them asexual (if that's how they identified themselves) in the same way I would think that a woman who identified herself as a lesbian is still a lesbian even if she was raped by a man or chose to have sex with a man to get pregnant.

Its a fair enough question though because tbh I get confused myself when people start bringing grey sexuality and demi sexuality into it. All I can say is that's my understanding.

I personally agree that legislation to eliminate being offended is unnecessary but I thought that was clear when I said I'd only expect rights that are the same as those afforded to gay and lesbian or straight people. i.e. if someone drew a direct link between gay men and pedophiles I would expect most people to agree that's unacceptable, but at least one person has said that in relation to asexuals on this thread. I don't think that's much to ask?

I certainly don't think anyone needs to be arrested or anything for making potentially offensive remarks about asexuality, sorry if i didn't make that clear!

In the same way as you don't have to be having or had gay sex to consider yourself to be gay - the identity comes from what you think/feel rather than the physical acts you perform.

Lots of gay people don't see it as an 'identity' you get by 'feeling gay'. 'Feeling gay' wasn't illiegal. 'Feeling gay' didn't get the shit kicked out of you when I was at school.

If being gay was just about how you feel then Stonewall would never have been founded.

For my point of view its both - I don't feel sexual attraction and therefore don't have sex. I do know people who consider themselves ace but have sex e.g for their partners benefit or to get pregnant despite not feeling any sexual attraction themselves. I would still consider them asexual (if that's how they identified themselves) in the same way I would think that a woman who identified herself as a lesbian is still a lesbian even if she was raped by a man or chose to have sex with a man to get pregnant.

.....or had sex with her husband 'for his benefit' by your logic.

And I thoroughly oppose these interferences in therapy across the board, I'm 100% on your side here - but I'm pushed to fork out £70 a week for my private therapist because the NHS is a-ok with providing therapists who will insist my lack of desire relates to needing to meet the right bloke, or my trauma around my (non-existent) abuse by my father. The NHS (in my experience) is really failing some women here. And I've been struggling with these issues since childhood - which is why I think all girls & women (neurodiverse or not) need a better service from CAMHs and adult mental health services. Diversity is real, but we need to get real about it - not outsource to Stonewall. How the fuck did they get to think they speak for me?

The link between asexuality and paedophilia is offensive, as are the pages and pages of negative comments whenever asexuality comes up on here. And yet people say there is no discrimination. There is certainly prejudice, though. Why the heck do you care if it does not affect you? Just get on with your lives.

My DD is asexual. It means she does not experience sexual attraction. I think it probably matters for her and those close to her in so far as people have expectations in our culture that other people will couple up, and that is not her experience or likely to be her experience. Why should she not tell people if relationships come up in conversation? It’s shorthand for saying I don’t have an intimate relationship and I am not likely to have one, so let’s change the subject.

Just to be really clear, I'm a person who's considered to have severe mental health problems, & I'm having to pay outside the NHS for my sane, useful, gender critical therapist, who can address my issues beyond the Stonewall identitarian rubbish. I don't want this to be the situation for younger women & girls in my position.

I actually agree with you and sorry if I didn't make that clear. I would like it people were generally a bit more aware/kind and didn't make offensive comments at all, which to me would come from greater awareness of asexuality (which is why I don't think the report is completely irrelevant) but I agree that it's not something that needs to be legislated against.

In terms of me personally I have had someone say those comments to me but only one at work (possibly because as I said I very rarely feel the need to "come out" to anyone and haven't ever done so at work - even that comment was made when we were talking about asexuality/sexuality generally rather than in response to me personally. It was a lunchtime conversation after we'd had training on it for context rather than being randomly brought up.

I have 1 ace friend who has specifically been told that he shouldn't be working with kids (he's a teacher) if he has a "weird sexuality". He mentioned it to a colleague who he thought was a good mate on a night out BTW, he doesn't run around telling his pupils or other staff or generally indoctrinating the kids before people start jumping on that!

He said he has occasionally considered mentioning it to other close colleagues just because sometimes it gets a bit awkward batting off "why don't you have a girlfriend/shall I set you up with my friend" questions (which is literally the only reason Ive "come out" to the tiny amount of people I have) but he said that after this happened, not only will he never do so but now when he applies for jobs he puts down straight on those "personal identity" questionnaires that you have to fill in (that are supposed to be separated from the main application) just in case anyone in recruitment feels the same way. One poster on here has already drawn a link between asexuals and pedophiles so it's not that far off.

So I suppose that could be considered to be discrimation if you have to deny your own identity even when specifically asked about it but I fully agree that it's not the same as getting beaten up in the streets!

And I'm sorry that people made comments about your scars, that's horrible.

Reading through this thread is one of those times when I feel truly gaslighted (gaslit?)

Given all the different types of sexuality Stonewall has defined (and given that probably close to 100% of us would qualify for at least occasional demi or grey label, and probably most of us, if we reach old age, end up asexual), what is supposed to be the kind of sexuality that wouldn't be covered by Stonewall?

Walking around our tongues hanging out and salivating for every passer-by's body? Being willing to have sex with anyone against the next street sign?

The need for lesbian and gay rights movements comes from the historical legal mistreatment of gays and lesbians everywhere (prison sentences) and their current mistreatment in several countries (where in some, such as Iran, death is a possible consequence of being caught with same-sex partner).

There has never been legal punishments, as far as I know, for being asexual, and many of the examples of being treated rudely given in that report are because health care systems treat all women poorly.

And in the wider context women have been viewed as a sexual and reproductive resource, the allocation of which to various users etc. has varied, but has seldom been based on what lust particular woman might have felt and towards whom. Men who regard themselves as asexual have traditionally had many more ways of not having sex imposed on them (priesthood, military etc.) than women because they have had more control of economic resources, while in the past women's survival depended on marriage and on a handful of rather poor alternatives to it.

@another1bitestheduck you should tell your teacher friend that those questionnaires about protected characteristics are optional. He can choose not to fill it in or leave specific questions blank or choose prefer not to say. No need to put down heterosexual if that isn't the case.