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

Is that why the author and champion of asexuality is partially showing her breasts and has a come-hither look in her eyes?

It's like spoiled kids acting up, isn't it? She wants a reaction. She can use the reaction to "educate" people about asexuality/whine about being victimised, but the real goal is just to get attention by being an irritant.

Thanks for your post KeyboardCrumbsly and for explaining what is happening in your work, as in the new Action Plan.

Something very similar is happening in a non partisan voluntary organisation I have been involved with. I absolutely agree with you that it is incredibly intrusive (and utterly inappropriate to the organisation) and also like you, wondering how it fits within GDPR.

Now I realise one of the other volunteers has imported these questions and Action Plan from their work culture in academic admin in the assumption that everyone will be delighted to share what is not relevant or applicable.
Your words have encouraged me to write to the HQ.

Also, great point Datun!
Who would be the offcom for Stonewall?
Who is their governing and regulatory body?
I agree with pp that they are challenging the categorization of asexuality as a mental health disorder and that is a good thing, but otherwise they themselves could do with a thorough investigation.

Oh come on. You’re being very silly now.

Just because some people are keen to hang an identity around low sex drive, doesn’t mean we need to act like it’s some essential human characteristic.

Not wanting to have sex is not a sexual orientation.

I saw this report on LinkedIn as I follow Stonewall for the shits and giggles.

The comments under the post were hilarious. All “Thank you so much for shining a light on this horrifying discrimination”.

I had to step away from my phone to avoid breaking my professional cover and commenting “What a load of old shite!”

I think this is part of the underlying problem.

From a technical/medical/scientific perspective, sexual orientation is very very vague. We can make some generalizations about it, but it still doesn't seem to look the same in everyone, it can shift, there seem to be some cultural elements, we don't really have much idea what causes it, there is no marker you can measure, we know sometimes people have sex with those supposedly outside their orientation for all kinds of reasons, and there are wide differernces in how individuals describe and explain their own sexuality.

Given all that, had do we separate what we think of as sexuality from other things like asexuality, or sexual attraction that targets other charachteristics?

Back in the 80s, there were people who made the argument that if we started defining sexuality in the law around what people are, rather than what they do, it was going to cause problems. I think this is certainly part of why we now see that groups like Stonewall are primarily identity movements and behave as identity movements, right down to mandating political views.

A married male/female couple who don’t like sex or want to have sex are heterosexual with very low sex drives. That’s not bigotry, even if they want to give themselves a fancy label and shout about being a marginalised sexual orientation.

It’s offensive that these kinds of couples are trying to claim they’re more oppressed than anyone else and arguing that provision for same sex couples is discriminatory unless it includes them.

This just epitomises Stonewall’s current campaigns that position straight people as the most oppressed and, indeed, oppressed by those privileged lesbians.

I don’t care if a bunch of activists report me about being a meanie who isn’t validating identities and lived experiences.

I only got through the first page of the thread before seeing rampant misconceptions about asexual people.

1. Yes asexual people are discriminated against. If you have no sexual partner you are often view suspiciously especially if a male of being a paedophile or other pervert because silence on sexual relationships is often misconstrued for hiding sexual perversion and/or crimes.
2. Not wanting sex doesn’t mean asexual people do not want to be parents. They deserve access to fertility treatments even if they are not having sex. No one should be forced to have sex to become a parent in this day and age.
3. Asexual women still get raped and so they still need to think about contraception to avoid termination in the event of pregnancy by rape.
4. same as above but for STIs for both asexual men and women
5. Until recently, only same sex asexual couples could have a civil partnership. This was discrimination against opposite sex couples who were asexual but wanted a partnership without the sex- as marriage always implies sex.

I’ll read the rest of the thread later, in the hope that it will have improved.

A married male/female couple who don’t like sex or want to have sex are heterosexual with very low sex drives.

No, please. Asexual is not heterosexual with very low sex drive. Erasing this fact of sexuality reminds me of the days when people denied the existence of bisexuality.

Oh good, the evil Stonewall have got a new ‘identity’ they can label. They should be closed down, who funds them?

It's not that long since people made the exact same claim about gay people. Essentially that there was no such thing as a sexual orientation, just sexual behaviour.

Asexuality isn't just 'not wanting to have sex'. Essentially it amounts to not having a sexual attraction to anyone. And this thread is a perfect demonstration of why asexual people face barriers.

1. you're talking about single people.
2. it’s not a basic right to conceive children. Fair enough if you don’t want to have sex, but it will generally prevent conception. Biology matters.
3. rape is abhorrent, whoever it happens to.
4. see above
5. this is a truly pathetic argument. Asexual people in this situation are no different to any heterosexual people - they just are really keen to insist everyone knows they don’t want to have sex. Lots of married couples have little to no sex.

I’ll read the rest of the thread later, in the hope that it will have improved

😂

That's enough critical analysis for you, wims!!!

I was asking for an answer to my question for clarity, which I see you’ve now provided. My issue is that I think your belief is discriminatory against gay women, but luckily you aren’t the one who sets the guidelines.

How is it "discriminatory"? I don't think any fertile people should get infertility treatment on the NHS. I do accept that women who only use artificial insemination for whatever reason will need to demonstrate this using artificial insemination. So lesbians, single women, other women who don't have PIV sex. So you can explain how it's discrimination or I'll simply conclude you've misunderstood or are a bit confused.

Not wanting to have sex is not a sexual orientation

This.

Everyone has the right to try to have a child. No one has the right to have a child. The NHS is for medical care. Fertility treatment is medical care which all women should be entitled to to some degree or another. People who are fertile just wanting IVF for personal reasons isn't medical care and should not be provided to fertile people of any gender identity or sexual orientation using public money.

I'm entitled to X Y and Z having done NOTHING to get it....

Just another example of motherhood and pregnancy being devalued.

I’m pretty sure Jazz Jennings has either been labelled by his family as, or come out as asexual.

Jazz was chemically and then physically castrated as a minor. No shit Jazz has no sexual desire as an adult.

1. Obviously civil partnerships should always have been open to opposite sex partners. It is not just asexual people who have difficulties with the cultural associations of marriage, there were others who wanted the legal framework of a recognised partnership without the cultural norms that they associated with marriage.

No, please. Asexual is not heterosexual with very low sex drive.

Funny, because lots of "asexual" people seem to describe themselves as heterosexual people who don't want sex often. Isn't that the point of the "asexual spectrum", ie total abstinence isn't required to be asexual? Are you saying those heterosexual people can't call themselves asexual?

1. Same for any single person. (Also, I have no idea who does and doesn't have sexual partners)2. Asexualiity does not mean someone is infertile. The easiest way for most women to get pregnant is sex, and as we know they asexual label is an umbrella term that does cover those who have sex. For those who don't, they could fund their own initial round of treatment to establish if they are, in fact, infertile and therefore in need of medical treatment 3. Same as any women, and being asexual wouldn't prevent them from accessing any of this. 4. Same for any women5. Same as any opposite sex couple who don't agree with the institute of marriage.

Asexuality isn't just 'not wanting to have sex'. Essentially it amounts to not having a sexual attraction to anyone.

What does that mean? You don't fancy anyone?

Do you have any idea how many people don't fancy anyone? How many can just take or leave sex?

It's not a thing. It's completely normal. So much so that until five minutes ago, it was often considered an innate part of the female psyche.

That, of course, was on the basis of sexism. But nonetheless, not having a physical reaction to another person is unremarkable.

Sex drive, and therefore arousal, is on a spectrum.

And until this determination to label every aspect of human behaviour, everyone knew that.

This was discrimination against opposite sex couples who were asexual but wanted a partnership without the sex- as marriage always implies sex.

lots of married people don’t have sex. I don’t because I have vaginal atrophy. No one gives a flying fuck whther ppl in civil partnerships or marriages are having sex or not except the 2 people involved

as marriage always implies sex.

that's funny, because there are a dozens of 1970s and 80s comics who built their entire act around the exact opposite.

I just remain utterly baffled that stonewall could look at the utter state of well everything and go “you know who is really being victimised & got it tough? People who don’t want to have sex”

I mean how much of a privilege bubble would you have to live in?

Datun