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

"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!"

That was an asexual person making a hyperbolic statement about how they thought asexual people were perceived and discriminated against - not an actual thing anybody said or thought.

I’d still like to know how on a practical level people who don’t want to have sex are discriminated against. Not one single example cited doesn’t equally apply to other groups in society

and also why are grown adults going around announcing they don’t like sex to people & expecting g them to care or have an opinion?

Some of all this surely is based on the way certain segments of the society now privilege being a victim?

Or rather, to be able to participate in some circles, online and perhaps in the material world, people who don't signal some victim status are expected to stay quiet and to perform allyship and possibly struggle sessions etc. So this might also serve as a shield against the way some tribal cultures rank their members.

I think declaring health conditions etc. in social media accounts which have nothing to do with those conditions serves a similar purpose (look, I am not an oppressor).

The person in the report had to go via the psychosexual therapist to get to the gynaecologist to talk about pelvic pain. I do think that if you are happily celibate for whatever reason it doesn’t necessarily need investigating before you can get treatment for a physical condition. I guess the pain could have been psychological and related to aversion to sex but considering that she wasn’t actually having sex it seems unlikely. Perhaps her case was unusual but you can see on this thread that asexuality is dismissed as not real by all sorts of people and if it isn’t real then perhaps that is why some HCPs see it as a problem to be fixed.

At work, half of ace people (49%) weren’t out to any colleagues, more than twice the rate of all LGBTQ+ respondents (18%).

I find this astonishing. It implies that 51% of ace people are out to one or more colleagues - why on earth would they be? I know a couple of ace people, and I'm pretty sure they have only told very close friends and family. They certainly don't go round broadcasting it - negative attitudes, as shown in several posts on this thread , are doubtless one reason why.

Oh i do think asexuality is real, I just don’t think assexual people are discriminated against.

and as standard with stonewall, it seems exploring why someone may be asexual is not allowed. I have a friend with 3 children all conceived in the usual way who identifies as ACE. I know she had a terrible childhood with an abusive father & narcissistic mother and she married the first man she dated ti get away from home. She’s adamant that her childhood had no impact on her identifying as assexual which to me seems unlikely.

Theeyeballsinthesky - I’d still like to know how on a practical level people who don’t want to have sex are discriminated against.

(Apologies for not knowing how to quote properly)

The NHS mental health treatment is pretty bloody appalling in this area. In my case, I extend this to being a neurodiversity issue, though other people may disagree. I'm willing to detail issues I've experienced over 30-odd years, if needed. I don't think these issues should, in any way, overshadow the problems other women have experienced trying to access NHS help, but they are real.

And again not giving a toss about whther people like sex or not is not “being negative” it’s literally not caring any more than I care whther my work colleagues or neighbours like to be spanked or west a bobble hat when they shag.

Sometimes a lack of interest in sex and a lack of sexual arousal is caused by medical issues and can be addressed.

And, yes, I too am quite sure that asexual people exist. And I also don't see that there is any evidence that they are discriminated against.

Community mental health services are shit across the board. There is not a fast track to CMH support that everyone else who is not ace gets. It’s the same fight to get a referral and support as it is for everyone struggling with mental health issues.

and of course many assexual people absolutely don’t see themselves as having any need for MH support

Being offended doesn't make you "right".

Go back and read the original comment that mentioned paedophilia which was written by an asexual pp for no other reason I can see other than to add some hyperbolic drama to their argument, such as it was.

And you're right - of all the many many things I could care about, others' asexuality isn't one of them.

However I certainly do care when I'm being "made" to care by activists such as Stonewall pushing a genderist agenda through our culture and institutions and expecting everyone else in society to act as some kind of narcissistic mirror for those proclaiming special identities with censure for those who don't comply.

Ok you are right, it was a misunderstanding as I’ve seen from your other post you mean IVF specifically. When you said fertility treatment I thought you meant IUI as well, so I apologise, I thought you meant no one fertile should have access to any help to get them pregnant.

That was an asexual person making a hyperbolic statement about how they thought asexual people were perceived and discriminated against

LOL. So one person on the thread says something along the lines of "asexuals are so persecuted, some people even compare us to pedophiles" and another(?) person on the thread says "look, someone on this thread is drawing a link between asexuals and pedophiles" and so the long day wears on, manufacturing oppression out of thin air.

Np @BodegaSushi

LOL. So one person on the thread says something along the lines of "asexuals are so persecuted, some people even compare us to pedophiles" and another(?) person on the thread says "look, someone on this thread is drawing a link between asexuals and pedophiles" and so the long day wears on, manufacturing oppression out of thin air.

Pretty much.

Theeyeballsinthesky - Community mental health services are shit across the board. There is not a fast track to CMH support that everyone else who is not ace gets. It’s the same fight to get a referral and support as it is for everyone struggling with mental health issues.

Absolutely. And I am absolutely behind every woman who has been chucked out of these services for any unreasonable reason. And I'm behind the woman who doesn't need these services, but has been dumped on them because nobody else wants to deal with her problems. I am supporting all of us. But, I am offering my experience that I have been kicked out of these services due to not being able to conform to their view of sexual attraction. I think some other women will probably have gone through this too. I don't think I'm special, I don't have blue hair, I don't support Stonewall, I don't want this as an identity. But it mustn't keep happening.

ME, ME, ME, ME!

Stonewall only represent gobby people obsessed with making themselves the centre of attention.

They don't represent people who are actually discriminated against. They don't represent people who are dehumanised.

Here they are proving that they don't understand the word dehumanising and they don't understand rights.

The toddlers have taken over the kindergarten.

Now I have an earworm that only scans if you leave out the second “the”.

I find this incredibly weird.... don't tell anyone and no one will know? There could be so many reasons for not having sex. I know a lot of people who are "asexual" - like, in a sexless marriage, or single and don't want one night stands - but I know of this because we are friends and discuss this. No one in their wider circle (work, etc) would know. I have no idea how this can even come up in a work based/ interview setting.

Actually, thinking about it - I worked with people who I did not know were gay up until we went out and got pissed together - like, before that we just colleagues and never got to the point of discussing who exactly they prefer to shag?

I don't really understand what you're saying to be honest? All the gay people I know define their identity by how they feel, yes. They don't say they are only gay when they are in a relationship or when they are actively shagging and the rest of the time they are straight.
Are you trying to say that people only got beaten up in school if they were actively 'being' gay i.e. demonstrably being romantic with someone of the same sex? Because if so in my school they didn't need that sort of proof to bully someone - they absolutely bullied people just because they were perceived as gay, even if they weren't. That's why discrimination against protected characteristics can apply even if the person being discriminated against doesn't actually have that characteristic, if someone discriminates against them because they think they have.

I'm assuming what you're saying is that people only need to worry about discrimination if they are at actual risk of bodily harm. And anything else is irrelevant?

I can't even make a guess at what you're trying to say in the second paragraph other than would I consider someone to be a lesbian if they considered themselves to be a lesbian but were married to a man and had sex with him?

Yes, if that's how they classed themselves I would. I imagine it would be a fairly unusual thing to happen now, but I have several friends who are older women who were in heterosexual relationships when they were younger- they are very clear that they were always gay but either didn't want to admit it to themselves, didn't feel comfortable coming out or wanted children. Who am I to tell them they were wrong and they weren't gay until they divorced? More relevantly, what does it matter?

The post I was referring to was by ResisterRex at 10:33
which literally said the purpose of reports like this was to pave the way for sexualities like MAP to become acceptable.
How else can you possibly describe that statement other than 'drawing a link between asexuals and paedophiles'?

I shouldn't need to specify this but obviously if someone published a report saying MAP should be an accepted sexuality I would be alongside that poster protesting against it.

I don't really understand what you're saying to be honest? All the gay people I know define their identity by how they feel, yes.

Of the thousands of people I know (gay or straight) only one of them sees their sexuality as an identity. She's a straight woman who thinks she's gay man and makes a huge fuss about her identity.

Everyone else I know just is gay, bi or straight.

Because if so in my school they didn't need that sort of proof to bully someone - they absolutely bullied people just because they were perceived as gay, even if they weren't.

Mine too, that's my point. They were bullied because people thought they were actually gay, not because of some internal sense of identity.

School are so much better these days. I've not come across a case of homophobic bullying in years (that's not to say all bullying is gone but homophobia is much better). What I do see is kids who are desperate for attention and telling everyone about their 'identity' who get unpleasent comments in the same way that socially awkward kids got picked on when I was a child.

The post I was referring to was by ResisterRex at 10:33
which literally said the purpose of reports like this was to pave the way for sexualities like MAP to become acceptable. How else can you possibly describe that statement other than 'drawing a link between asexuals and paedophiles'?

It's not drawing a link between asexuals and pedophiles. It's drawing a link between the people who want to establish asexuallity as an oppressed minority and pedophiles.

I don't believe for one second that Yasmin Benoit is representitive of people who don't feel sexual attraction (I also don't think she's a pedophile apologist either). Criticising her and Stonewall is not the same as criticising a whole group.

Except my post didn't say that. Try again.

I honestly did not interpret it like that, I just assumed 'those people' meant asexual people, in general. Because tbh there wasn't any other context in that post.
But if that was what meant I can see the distinction.