as an ace person, I can see both points of view -
In terms of comparing it to being gay/lesbian I 100% agree with you the potential for danger or even overt discrimination is probably much less, particularly in parts of the world where being gay is much more dangerous.
I also agree that the 'coming out in work' thing is a bit of a red herring because I don't particularly feel the need to 'come out' as asexual to anyone other than very close friends/family, because my colleagues/random acquaintances don't ask me about my sex life, and if they did I could shut it down as being inappropriate. Plus to be honest I'm not a fan of the whole 'bring your whole self to work' mantra anyway...most of the time I don't want to BE in work so if I brought that part of me to work it probably wouldn't end well 😂
Also agree dehumanising is a strong word, but it does explain why in the summary - because some people think there must be something wrong with you and you're not fully human if you don't experience sexual attraction.
There was a thread on here recently where someone got very offended that their husband's (not even their own!) workplace had an asexual visibility day or something and it quickly degenerated to accusations that ace people were enabling the trans movement by making lack of sexual attraction seem normal, and were also likely to be pedophiles (didn't really get the rationale for that one), which tbh was pretty upsetting to read.
@IncomingTraffic - if you actually read just the summary, not even the report, it explains the healthcare element and refers particularly in relation to smears. I've been in the position where I've tried to explain why I'm not sexually active etc. and unfortunately it has led to some inappropriate and totally unnecessary questions both from a physical and mental health POV - I agree with you that it SHOULDN'T, and presumably that's what the report is trying to achieve - that someone can just say 'I'm not sexually active' or 'I'm asexual' and that will end the conversation.
I also wouldn't agree that 'no one cares' about your asexuality - a lot of people don't care, and honestly that is great - I don't want people to care - my ideal reaction to 'coming out' as ace (as above I don't feel the need to do so to 99.9% of people I interact with) would be a semi-bored 'Oh, okay. Do you want a cup of tea.' But there are a minority of people who DO react very offensively which is why I'm assuming the report makes the recommendations it does - to try and get discrimination against ace people to the same level as straight/gay people rather than demanding anything 'special.'
So basically - you're entitled to your views but I would query why people who clearly haven't experienced any of the things ACTUAL ace people have said they have feel the need to dispute their own lived experience. If you are white would you think it's okay to query the validity of a report about black people's experience in the workplace by saying 'nobody cares about your colour' 'that hasn't happened to me so I don't think it's something worth talking about or legislating for,' etc?
I would also query why it affects you -
@MrsOvertonsWindow - presumably you don't feel you would be otherwise entitled to stonewall funding? And Stonewall is a UK based LGBT+ charity so even if it didn't spend its money on this report, it would be unlikely to be spending it on 'people with serious illnesses' or whatever. Its whole mission is advocating for the rights of people on the LGBT spectrum, which Asexual people are, so I can't see how it's inappropriate of them to fund research into doing exactly that.
If were a regular donor to stonewall and thought your money should be better spent campaigning for legislation to improve LGBT safety in Qatar or whatever, then fine. But if you don't actually have any skin in the game and your only argument is 'this doesn't affect me personally so I think it's irrelevant to everyone else and thus a waste of time,' then that's not a great rationale.