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

I think this might just be pedantry over wording though tbh?

I wouldn't randomly announce 'my identity is a white person,' or 'I feel like a white person' 'I identify as British/I feel British' etc. I agree I would just say 'I am British, I am white.' But if someone asked me 'Do you identify as British' etc. I would say yes.

I bet all your gay friends still fill in any questionnaires with 'how do you identify rather than crossing the question out and writing 'I don't identify, I just AM!'

It's just wording - I just don't believe your sexual identity has to (or should) be linked to any sort of demonstrative proof that you are 'actually gay' (or whatever).

I think this might just be pedantry over wording though tbh?

It's not pedantry, it's the heart of the issue. I don't think anybody is criticising others for not having sex or saying people that don't feel sexual desire aren't real, as you seem to be suggesting upthread.

What's criticised is giving yourself a label, then telling everyone about it and claiming to be oppressed because of the label you made up.

I bet all your gay friends still fill in any questionnaires with 'how do you identify rather than crossing the question out and writing 'I don't identify, I just AM!'

Everyone I know used the term 'identify as' to mean 'pretending to be'. Except the straight lass I mentioned who lecures actual gay people who spent their lives campaigning for gay rights about how oppressed she is because she identifies as gay.

I just don't believe your sexual identity has to (or should) be linked to any sort of demonstrative proof that you are 'actually gay' (or whatever).

Stonewall want to change public policy based on this report. Of course we shouldn't do that without some evidence their claims are based in reality.

You can have whatever 'identity' you want, in private, but at the point where you want to tell others about it they will form an opinion. At the point where you want others to do certain things as a result of your 'identitiy' you need a valid reason to impose on them.

I'm oppressed on Monday and Thursday since I'm asexual on those days. Friday Saturday and Sunday I identify as a raving nympho, the other days a bit pan a bit poli a bit bi a bit unicorn or whatever floats the boat.

Now do any of you care? Of course not. What difference does it make.

However, get Stonewall to pop a disadvantaged, dehumanised, threatened, minority flag on it and I feel extra special or I would do if I was an entitled prat.

Where's the money, where's the pity you, poor thing, me me me . Special gender labels reserved for wet lettuces

There must be millions of postmenopausal women who would be considered asexual.

I wonder if stonewall is going to start campaigning on their behalf? I'm going to guess not.

Even at an individual level, there is a difference between saying, I am attracted to people of the same sex, and I am a gay man/lesbian/homosexual.

Kind of like there is a differernce between someone who enjoys roll-playing games, and someone who sees themselves through the lens of some identity attached to that. "I am a Geek" say.

It's so common now, but there was a time when the concept of "a gay person" didn't really exist, there was just a person who wanted to and perhaps did have sex with other men.

Firstly, among the over-50s, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, straight and gay by orientation, who live with their life partners but never have sex with them or with anyone else. And widows/widowers in their 50s-90s who never have sex with anyone. They simply have no desire any more, or have been there done that, or cannot be bothered to seek out a new partner after bereavement. This would be the biggest demographic of people who are asexual, but I doubt if this is the demographic Stonewall have in mind! Then there are religious celibates... nuns and suchlike.

Secondly, a question: has Stonewall ever defined terms? How long do you have to go without sex to qualify as asexual? And does masturbation count?

Yes, far too many people believe what they’re feeling is unique or somehow only shared by an oppressed minority.

“I’m asexual/greysexual/demisexual.”

You’re like millions of people around the world.

“But I’m different!”

How?

”Er…”

”I’m gender non-conforming.”

You’re like millions of people around the world.

“But I’m different!”

How?

”Err…”

It's not pedantry, it's the heart of the issue. I don't think anybody is criticising others for not having sex or saying people that don't feel sexual desire aren't real, as you seem to be suggesting upthread.

What's criticised is giving yourself a label, then telling everyone about it and claiming to be oppressed because of the label you made up.

Absolutely this. It’s this ridiculous label and the claims of oppression and discrimination that go with it. As well as the torturous logic of those claims.

At heart, is the issue that lots of people, for all sorts of reasons, at various points in their lives, do not experience much or any sexual desire. These fluctuating and context-dependent aspects of sexual
attraction/desire/interest are ordinary and standard features of the human condition.

Insisting that this is some kind of essential
core of your identity is ridiculous. As is telling everyone about your lack of sexual
desire.

It simply isn’t relevant in the vast majority of situations - unless you’re looking start a relationship with someone no one cares what your levels of sexual attraction or desire are. They might care when you insist on turning the conversation to it, but more because it’s just as weird and inappropriate to be announcing to your colleagues ‘I’m not interested in sex’ and it would be to announce ‘I love being spanked with a first generation Wii remote’.

That’s not ‘closeting’ anyone. It’s that, for all practicable purposes, to your colleagues and other acquaintances you are simply single or in a relationship. They don’t want to know whether you are having sex in either situation.

Other than this weird desire to capture anything and everything in a letter and a stripe on an ever expanding flag, the concept of ‘asexuality’ is just not that important.

@Tarquina and @IncomingTraffic above are both spot on.

Sorry not RTFT but has it been mentioned that the majority of the report is based on a focus group of just 29 respondents?

Yes they are making national recommendations based on the introspection of only 29 individuals.

29???? How has this report not been laughed out of town?? Why do people listen to this car crash if an organisation? It’s a clown show!

i wouldn’t have the nerve to publish any research based on 29 people unless I know it was a condition so rare that literally 50 people in the world had it

The quantitative data seems to be drawn from data sets which the report itself admits are not comparable. So I’m going to assume the author has cherry picked the (purely descriptive) stats that best suit the argument.

For those who have had the patience to read it, does it say where the 29 people come from?

Have they just sent a questionnaire round the office?

Sorry to correct you but that's 29 self selecting individuals, who haven't been assessed for any other possible comorbidity that might influence how they feel.

We are left with one glaring problem with Stonewall which everyone should be concerned about for a whole pile of reasons:

Stonewall either don't understand how to do research or statistics and their staff are deeply out of their depth and overpromoted beyond their ability and skillset. Or they are so ideologically driven they deliberately and willfully seek to try to mislead the public with fictitious stats in order to press an agenda without thought or regard as to how it might actually do harm.

The fact they use the word 'dehumanised' says a hell of a lot about them. That's just totally out of touch with reality and hugely disrespectful to people and situations where the word is appropriate.

It is the very height of privilege and abuse of position and power to be doing this.

If they do this with asexuality, what else are they doing it with? (Rhetorical question to anyone who has been following the misrepresentations of Stonewall over the last few years).

In terms of accountability, serious questions need to be raised by people in positions of authority and governance over the quality of the work Stonewall are doing and whether the charity is taking on issues like this for its own self serving agenda or in the public interest.

Stonewall are a neo-religious cult in my honest opinion at this point. And that's why it hates the LGB Alliance so much, because it is the best placed to expose and highlight that Stonewall no longer represents the interests it claims to and instead is looking for grifts to maintain its staff and self importance.

Of course it doesn’t say anything meaningful about their sampling methods or the biases they’ve introduced via them.

It was an ‘open call to people who identify as asexual or ace’. And there were 6 focus groups.

There isn’t even a basic discussion of the limitations of focus groups, especially for a topic where social perception among your identity tribe is a glaring issue!

It’s like a poor undergraduate dissertation.

Even a university absolutely beset by grade inflation and low standards should be awarding it a 2:2 at most on the basis that the author has demonstrated limited understanding of key issues in research design and is entirely unable to reflect upon how the problematic design has influenced the findings.

When this ‘research’ was being developed & undertaken Nancy Kelly was CEO. Nancy who had been Deputy Chief Executive and Director of the Policy Research Centre. She knew exactly how to do research properly but as far as I can tell, something happens when people cross the stonewall doors to work & all sense of professionalism & common sense fly out of the window!

‘I love being spanked with a first generation Wii remote’.

This is oddly specific🤔🤣

That may have been intentional.

It also seemed oddly ridiculous as sexual fetishes go.

Admittedly, I don’t even know if there is such a thing as a first generation Wii remote. And I couldn’t be arsed to Google.

And now I’m very much overthinking the Wii remote issue. 🤣🤣🤣

That is one of the many reasons that no one brings this shit up at work.

Well the 2nd generation doesn’t get as much thwack! obviously 😉

Has Stonewall appointed a new CEO yet?

When I googled, Nancy Kelley is still named as the CEO even though she’s no longer in charge. I’d got mixed up by Stonewall’s “chair” Iain Anderson being interviewed (tied up in knots) not long ago by Sky News’ Beth Rigby, rather enjoyable if you haven’t already seen it.

Why don't people just stop all the fannying around and just identify as oppressed?

I think their new chair, Cat Dixon, is in charge at the moment.