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

Looking at another aspect of the article, I don't think asexuality should be reclassified as a mental health diagnosis as Stonewall are pushing for.

Stonewall is pushing it to be removed as a mental health diagnosis internationally by the WHO, it's one of the recommendations of the report.

Abso fucking lutely . All this CRAP is getting on my tits , all these little darlings are part of the rat race just like the rest of us . Fucking little attention seekers affecting everything and the rest of us are fucking drowning in it . I'm not bending to this shit .

This is basically ‘if they can have it, I want it too’.

As an argument for the British taxpayer paying for IVF for male-female couples who just aren’t very interested in having sex with each other.

Lesbians are in partnerships and often are having sex. That sex cannot produce a baby. Whether the NHS should fund IVF in that situation is a completely different question.

And I think it’s pretty homophobic to try to equate the two situations.

Ok my bad, I've just looked at the article and I missed the word "end" and thought they were recommending the WHO ensure asexuality was classified as a MH diagnosis which I strongly disagree with.
So I agree with Stonewall on that one point, because (excluding pathological fetishes negatively affecting society) I don't think sexuality should be a MH condition, that view belongs in the past and should never have existed.

I also agree that it shouldn’t be a mental health disorder.

Not being interested in having sex is just a thing some people experience. It’s not a disorder.

Yes I'm not sure why it would be considered a mental health disorder in its own right. What concerns me is that these people are pushing for any exploration of whether it is a psychosexual issue in a therapeutic setting to be considered "conversion therapy" when lack of sexual desire is a symptom of many physical and mental health issues.

And the "conversion therapy" law they want to pass, as we have seen, admits of no loopholes, and can lead to prison sentences for those convicted.

Surely you could say the same thing about gay people who want fertility treatments because they're also refusing to have hetero sex, which is how babies are made?

I just don’t care about other people’s sex lives. How can anyone be discriminated against for not having sex? How would we know someone was asexual unless they told us they were? Why would you tell anyone you were asexual unless they explicitly asked? Who cares whether someone else fucks or doesn’t fuck?

Stonewall has gone mad.

Note it features demisexual (which, frankly, describes enormous numbers of people who experience sexual desire in the context of emotional connection - it’s frankly weird that stonewall are determined to present this as a deviation requiring a label

Well given, in my opinion, that trans ideology is all about the sex, maybe they are so mired in it, they are amazed when people aren't that interested.

Or, it could equally be that they want to pathologise perfectly normal feelings, because it increases their pool of people who have them.

You might as well take any aspect of human behaviour, and identify a problem if not everyone does it, or agrees with it.

I note that they don't appear to (openly) be doing the same for someone who loves sex or voices and has an inner need to be promiscuous. There must be loads of them.

Or are we going to see a 'let us wank at work' set of banners marching on Westminster?

That worries me too.

Not least because a lack of sexual desire can be a side effect of medications or a symptom of other conditions. And HCPs would be negligent if they didn’t investigate this stuff.

And it can be a trauma response too. No matter how much people obsessed with the concept of ‘identity’ want to pretend otherwise.

It can be perfectly normal - and as humans we may cycle through various periods of being more or less interested in sex throughout our life and depending on circumstances.

But the concept of ‘asexual conversion therapy’ is incredibly problematic. More so even than the concept of ‘trans conversion therapy’.

I guess menopause is the most obvious one.

But that's for the boring women, they aren't special like us 🙄 (us being the naval gazers at Stonewall)

No one should be given fertility treatment on the NHS if they are fertile without any other issue than not having PIV sex. The issue is whether some people receive treatment and how to tell if someone has genuine fertility problems.

I note that they don't appear to (openly) be doing the same for someone who loves sex or voices and has an inner need to be promiscuous. There must be loads of them.

Or are we going to see a 'let us wank at work' set of banners marching on Westminster?

🤮🤮🤮

I notice that one of the listed contributors in the report is Kirren Metcalfe of the support dog in the Allison Bailey tribunal.

Hmm I've had a look at NHS advice, and lesbian women can qualify for IVF on the NHS if they meet certain criteria (can't find a list as it differs depending where you are).

I think if that's the case then single women choosing to not have sex with a man (for whatever reason) should be as equally eligible, providing they meet the criteria.

Or are we going to see a 'let us wank at work' set of banners marching on Westminster?

Wouldn't surprise me, it's already part of the general discourse:
https://metro.co.uk/2017/01/10/should-we-be-taking-masturbation-breaks-at-work-6371816

Indeed anything to keep the money rolling in.

Tbh, I think this is my view on the matter.

But it is also true that the issue in relation to lesbians is not the same as what are basically heterosexual couples with very low sex drives and a fancy label.

That means that the arguments made and
rational for some NHS trusts offering otherwise fertile lesbians fertility treatment will necessarily be different. There’s still a debate to be had.

I do think that equating gay or lesbian people having same-sex sex with men and women just deciding not to have sex is inherently somewhat homophobic though.

‘Just have sex with your (existing) partner’ is different in kind to ‘well you need to have sex with a man’ as a sentiment.

Dear god. (And I'm not even opening the link)

This is true, especially on Mumsnet, where you can trigger a pile-on simply by observing that you don't care for fashion or dogs or Brussels sprouts.

What a total load of WANK !!!

Is an asexual person a person who doesn't have sex out of choice when they are in a relationship (and how long after beginning the abstinence does this label apply? One month? A year?) or a person who might have sex if they wanted a relationship but doesn't want one, so doesn't have sex???

Well it’s in Stonewall’s interest to keep it on the QT that there’s a cohort of adults who are asexual because they were puberty blocked and put on cross sex hormones. Can’t have that being flagged as a medical issue now can we? Must be a sexuality 🤨.

I'm wondering if all the actual grown-ups have left Stonewall. But because you rarely hear from individuals, the organisation is still riding on their coattails.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if it was being run by a bunch of absolute fucking twerps, who don't know what they're doing, but still have the cachet of the name so people still listen.

It really needs investigating. I bet
a pound to a penny any investigation would result in it being shut down.