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

What happens if these rather picky couples become parents and find they 'don't want' to be awoken at 3am or change dirty nappies or wipe mashed carrots off the floor?

@RunningAndSinging whats wrong with ‘I’m single’? If someone needs a label. They can add ‘and not interested’ as applicable.

If you interpret ‘single’ as desperately lonely and seeking a partner/sex, maybe ask yourself why that is. Because one only needs to define ‘asexuality’ if we believe the default is always seeking sex.

Maybe just not having your identity based around your sex drive might be reasonable.

It might be considered ‘old fashioned’ but a significant proportion of the population still belong to faith communities/have belief systems that state sex should only take place within marriage. It doesn’t matter if you agree, it is their belief. So surely from a medical perspective then only question that needs to be asked is ‘are you having sex’? Asking the reasons behind this (apart from if it is considered an issue due to low libido, or physical symptoms preventing sex) are irrelevant.

Didn't these people just used to call themselves "celibate"?

‘from a medical perspective then only question that needs to be asked is ‘are you having sex’? Asking the reasons behind this (apart from if it is considered an issue due to low libido, or physical symptoms preventing sex) are irrelevant.’

That seems reasonable as long as if the answer is ‘no and I am happy about it’ there isn’t a referral to sort this out before other treatment as was quoted happened in the report.

Didn't these people just used to call themselves "celibate"?

Maybe ,but there are lots of reasons for that including being gay and religious or unmarried and religious. Also all the arguments about how it is none of anyone else’s business apply to that word too. Perhaps asexual is more of a precise word to use for someone who doesn’t fancy anyone.

Same applies to ’single’ I guess. If you have to qualify that with ‘and uninterested’ you may as well say asexual perhaps?

I think it is about avoiding all the follow up questions and matchmaking that might come from friends and family who imagine everyone does want to be in a relationship. Yes it is none of their business but lots of people do get very invested in other people’s potential relationships and this would be annoying if you weren’t interested.

It can also be a bad thing for women and girls assessing their risk in a situation to take such a claim at face value. “Come and have a sleepover - it is ok, I am asexual”. Well that would be lying and you could substitute asexual for gay in that sentence and the same would apply. But I hope we are beyond thinking that gay people have an ulterior motive for saying who they do and don’t fancy.

In what way is it medically relevant whether they are happy about not having sex if it is not due to low libido or physical issues? Lots of single people might be unhappy not to having sex but that is irrelevant medically. What would you need to be referred for?

As for lying and a gay person could too. Absolutely. But you were talking about taking someone’s declaration of being asexual at face value.

Ok - maybe don’t take any strange man’s suggestion for a platonic sleepover at face value but when you friend says they are asexual don’t tell them that they just haven’t met the right person yet. (Maybe we can take our friends’ words at face value?)

It is relevant because if they are not having sex and are unhappy about it (let’s say they are in a long term relationship as an example and have either never had sex or have stopped having sex but would like to be or even just want to be having one night stands but can’t go through with it) then perhaps psychosexual counselling would be a helpful option to consider. Or as you have said yourself if is because of low libido or physical issues then perhaps something could be addressed. If they are happy about it then those things don’t need to be considered and especially not before addressing the issue they are concerned about.

Perhaps asexual is more of a precise word to use for someone who doesn’t fancy anyone.

It's not remotely a precise word to this "community". It can be used to describe a wide spectrum ranging from not ever having sex because you are physically repulsed by it, to only having sex when particular conditions exist.

Well yes, I see that and can imagine that would also be quite annoying if you were an asexual person who didn’t ever want to haves sex.

I am not saying asexual people are greatly discriminated against but it seems they are not believed and/or they are considered to be dysfunctional, which would be annoying when that keeps happening all through your life.

I don’t really understand all the vitriol here. It seems to be conflated with the trans issues which are totally different.

I couldn't care less who does or does not fancy or fuck who, as long as consensual.

What does bother me is that I observe that it seems easier for young women to take on an "identity" such as pan, queer, asexual, demisexual and countless others than to assert their own sexual needs and boundaries. Boundaries such as being a lesbian or wanting mutually enjoyable as opposed to pornified male pleasure centric sex.

I'm in my 40s and know far more out gay men than lesbian women. What's happening now is not progressive.

It’s annoying Running because Stonewall is taking something that is perfectly usual for many people - for some people for their whole life, some for parts of their life and insisting that people experiencing this very normal thing are victims who are being discrimated against - and on the basis of total bollocks research processes to boot

@RunningAndSinging
I don’t really understand all the vitriol here. It seems to be conflated with the trans issues which are totally different.

Trans issues may be different, but this is the latest offering from Stonewall, and part of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella which we have all been discussing on this board for yonks.
Where there do seem to be similarities between both issues is around the activism (deciding some people are victims on flimsy evidence), and the positioning of certain things as "normal" without question.

PPs have pointed out some of the issues... Not least that "asexual" doesn't actually mean asexual, but includes pretty much anyone who isn't up for sex with anyone all the time. Positioning that as "normal" is extremely worrying, and erodes the concept of boundaries.

Perhaps if Stonewall were raising awareness on behalf of people who are actually asexual, so they aren't automatically assumed to have something wrong with them, posters would be more on board. Instead we have ridiculous claims of how they are terribly discriminated against, yet these things are not unique to them and they are not even a coherent group as defined by Stonewall.

Perhaps if Stonewall were raising awareness on behalf of people who are actually asexual, so they aren't automatically assumed to have something wrong with them, posters would be more on board.

Maybe I am not cynical enough and like to think that people act in good faith - this is what I am defending and there are definitely parts of the report that are about that. But I do see your other points too.

Yes, I agree that young women are having to take perfectly normal attitudes to sex, and sexual relationships, and give them a label, in order to create boundaries.

The one where they say I'm not having sex unless I'm emotionally involved (is that demi sexual?) for instance. Completely commonplace, and entirely understandable.

The pornography the boys are consuming absolutely tell them that girls like violent, humiliating sex. And probably on the first date.

Since 'having an identity' is totally understood, and appears to be respected amongst many kids, it's unsurprising that girls will acquire one in order to avoid being the target of porn fed boys.

My issue is that Stonewall is advocating that this is exactly what the girls should do. As opposed to addressing why the fuck they're having to do it.

I'm waiting for the additions to LGBTQIA+++++ of H for Heterosexual, S for Straight, V for Vanilla, and W for people who masturbate. After all, people who masturbate are often insulted. Respect for Wankers!

Heterosexual won't get in there, they're the "oppressors". Even though there'll only be about three left by the time everyone else has been included under the LGBTQIA+ label. (This thread has taught me I'm demisexual and greysexual so I've realised I'm terribly oppressed and haven't at all benefitted from a heteronormative society.)

I bet "wankers" gets in there soon, in all seriousness. It'll be called something like "solosexual" and involve demanding the "right" to masturbate in public and watch any kind of horrific porn. Which should be provided on the NHS.

Heterosexual is very much in there - just rebranded to sound like an oppressed minority.

W is another A, this time autosexual. However, this is a gender identity having a spectrum and so includes people who have sexual partners.

I think there's a parallel with the trans movement here.

What Stonewall et al. call for is far more far-reaching than simply live and let live. They demand so much that a reasonable position becomes the thin end of the wedge. This includes casting definitions ever wider to allow all sorts of people to claim a special victim status and to allow seriously questionable behaviours and people to go unchecked because of this status.

Of course, ultimately you end up with a backlash against the very people who formed the (tiny) core group that the activism was supposedly meant to help in the first place.

I’m going to have to unwatch this thread, as I feel annoyed/irritated every time it comes up in my notifications. So before I go I’ll just repeat that I don’t care what other people do or don’t get up to in their private consensual sex lives, so I don’t care if someone’s asexual, don’t expect or want anyone to tell me about it, and cannot understand how anyone asexual can be discriminated against.

Stonewall has gone mad in its bid to stay relevant/keep the donations coming.

I am not saying asexual people are greatly discriminated against but it seems they are not believed and/or they are considered to be dysfunctional, which would be annoying when that keeps happening all through your life.

Lots of things are "annoying". We all have our crosses to bear. Discrimination is something else though.

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

and this is what I truly do not understand - why do colleagues need to know? I am paid to do my job, not slap my private life in colleague’s faces. As long as whatever is happening is legal & consensual does it matter?

So you accept that your initial proposition of taking it at face value was wrong.

You still haven’t explained why (libido and physical issues aside) whether someone is happy or not to not be having sex is medically relevant.

Any suggestion that anyone should talk about their sex life at work seems to walking awfully closed to sexual harassment.

They don’t need to know and having read a few of these threads on Mumsnet I don’t blame the people for not saying anything for fear of being branded an attention seeking, over sharing, navel gazer. But colleagues at work chat about life outside of work and are friendly with each other (ideally) and so it could just come up as part of that if it wasn’t stigmatised. There is plenty of chat about new relationships, engagements, break ups etc in a normal work team - no one needs to know any of that either.