Have namechanged, obviously, not joined MN just to post on this thread.
The only other time/place than here that I’ve told anyone I’m asexual probably doesn’t even meet the bar of telling: when I was diagnosed with autism in my mid/late twenties (I’m in my thirties now) the team asked lots about relationships of various sorts; one of them suggested that I am asexual; & after looking it up I agreed. At that point there was a much clearer definition: no sexual attraction to anyone, ever; & thus no having sex of one’s own volition. Essentially a sexual orientation - like the flip side of bisexuality, whereby instead of attraction to both sexes, there’s an absence of attraction to either sex.
That said, & fun as vexillology is, there’s no need for a flag. (Silly me, there’s already a flag isn’t there. Bound to be. Of course there is.) There’s no need for whatever the Asexual Visibility Network that article mentions, let alone Stonewall’s self-indulgent carnival of the absurd. Sometimes you encounter awkward situations: it must be quite nice to have lived such a charmed life that you think having to endure awkward encounters with other humans is oppression.
Groups like Stonewall making the term “asexual” effectively useless is frustrating. It is obviously nothing like the damage done/attacks on the definitions of “gay”, “lesbian”, & indeed “bisexual” (I understand attraction to both sexes does not mean to the 3 most common genders), please don’t think I intend to suggest that - “frustrating” was exactly what I meant. I had a word for my [absence of] sexuality/sexual orientation; & I effectively, due to its mangling, no longer do. Identitarians desperate to be oppressed have warped its meaning so it fits them (& indeed almost anyone who wants to wear it) & they can waft about, claiming they are “Queer” because, like most humans, they prefer having an emotional connection with their sexual partner to having sex with randoms/strings of one night stands/FWB arrangements etc. I am aware some of my frustration will come from my being neurodivergent (needing order, not good with change etc) but I do have much bigger concerns: as a PP said, using this nonsense to try to create an illusion that hypersexuality is the norm; which can only lead to attempts to normalise things that are currently taboo. And it won’t be a sudden abandonment of censuring women for [perceived] promiscuity [while lauding men for the same behaviour].
I’m not sure the report should be dignified with the name “research”. Truly execrable. But we all know it will be waved about (think Chamberlain & his 1938 private accord - NB regard in triumphant style only, not calling Stonewall et al Hitler nor indeed making comment on any facial hair situations) as if it were chock-full of meta-analyses, had a sample size of 2.9 million, controls, & at least a decade of work. All because some people are so desperate to elbow their way into being a “special minority”.
I’ve noticed, as an aside, a distinct propensity for IDing into as many oppressed minorities as they [think they] can get away with. Mostly this means nebulous claims of being a “queer disabled [insert noun here]” - fortuitously their disabilities never mean missing big events, or holidays, or stopping drinking alcohol/doing things absolutely contraindicated with the condition(s) they claim. If I never hear “neurospicy” again it will be too soon - & I’ve developed a serious aversion to people who “advocate” & “educate” aka “tantrum, bully & sulk” and “spread [damaging] misinformation“. You also see lots of claims of “being Jewish/Roma/First Nations” based on a distant ancestor - sometimes leading into “I’m two-spirit because…” which must make people’s teeth itch whatever their view of the term.
What’s actually causing harm (& to be honest, that’s stretching definition of “harm” to its outer limits) to asexual people is completely destroying the meaning of the word to accommodate yet more people who want to be interesting & oppressed. Having a personality is of course utterly passé; one must instead festoon oneself with labels as if one were Phileas Fogg’s suitcase - & being white cis-het (especially if you’re middle class) is practically criminal. It’s not acceptable to claim to be a different race (please do all join in with a rousing chorus of The Question: like the Hogwarts School Song, pick your favourite tune) so genderqueer/NB/agender-asexual/demisexual/graysexual & voilà, you are officially Queer! It doesn’t matter that there were people already using that label, because they weren’t using it properly. They weren’t demanding privileges rights, or having awareness days - they didn’t even have a flag. (There probably were/are some identitarian-types amongst Actual Asexuals, but only because every group contains intolerable idiots.) Lots of Actual Asexuals - according to team who did my autism assessment - have autism: the theory (ethical issues around researching; possibly funding?) is that we’re just not wired, neurologically speaking, to experience sexual attraction.
Something useful Stonewall could have done if they were hell-bent on focusing on asexuality (& not, say, the fact homosexuality is still illegal in 65 countries) is stuff on combatting loneliness & isolation. Because actual asexuals, not the pretendy ones, do often struggle with that (as in, the pretendy ones are busy having their relationships). But that’s not a human rights issue, or a thing to campaign about, or something unique to asexuals. It’s just that if you’ve identified a group & decided to go to bat for them, something useful would be good, rather than whatever the hell they produced.
Sorry this is so long: sometimes my autism means I struggle to decide which information other people will find relevant/important/interesting & I really need to feed my pets & myself & then get some sleep rather than try to edit it, which suspect would just make it into gibberish.