Uk petition to protect asexual people

[Fourthdwarf]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115857

In the equality act 2010, homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual persons are protected from discrimination. Asexual people, those who experience no sexual attraction at all, are not protected.

[Guest]

My position: asexuals don't need to be added because 1) they don't face discrimination, 2) any discrimination they do face will be because of being in same-sex relationships, which fall under the homosexual umbrella, and 3) thinking that asexuals can be discriminated against when no others can be is a gross misunderstanding of how laws work.

[Hobbes!]

My position: asexuals don't need to be added because 1) they don't face discrimination, 2) any discrimination they do face will be because of being in same-sex relationships, which fall under the homosexual umbrella, and 3) thinking that asexuals can be discriminated against when no others can be is a gross misunderstanding of how laws work.

I'll agree that asexuals don't face any widespread discrimination (yet) to warrant a change in the law. Nevertheless, I think you're wrong in saying that it never will be. By the letter of the law it may well be that asexuals could be discriminated against in, say, employment where homosexuals cannot be. That would be something to do the research on

[Jea]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115857

In the equality act 2010, homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual persons are protected from discrimination. Asexual people, those who experience no sexual attraction at all, are not protected.

I can't sign because I'm not in the UK but I support this.

My position: asexuals don't need to be added because 1) they don't face discrimination, 2) any discrimination they do face will be because of being in same-sex relationships, which fall under the homosexual umbrella, and 3) thinking that asexuals can be discriminated against when no others can be is a gross misunderstanding of how laws work.

1 is really not true. They do face discrimination. Not openly all the time because most people don't know about it. But coming out to "but sex is what makes us human" or "I will make you like sex" is definitely discrimination.

[Lady Norgard]

We may face discrimination on a social basis, but there's no legal discrimination I've ever seen. Stuff like UCAS applications to get into uni have an 'other' option for sexuality, so they do know other sexuality's exist.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115857

In the equality act 2010, homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual persons are protected from discrimination. Asexual people, those who experience no sexual attraction at all, are not protected.

I can't sign because I'm not in the UK but I support this.

My position: asexuals don't need to be added because 1) they don't face discrimination, 2) any discrimination they do face will be because of being in same-sex relationships, which fall under the homosexual umbrella, and 3) thinking that asexuals can be discriminated against when no others can be is a gross misunderstanding of how laws work.

1 is really not true. They do face discrimination. Not openly all the time because most people don't know about it. But coming out to "but sex is what makes us human" or "I will make you like sex" is definitely discrimination.

If anyone said that sex makes us human to me then I would let them know that humanity is rather pathetic then. (Nothing against sex! But I think humanity is based on more then that.) I think being human is very complex.

[Sally]

They do face discrimination. Not openly all the time because most people don't know about it. But coming out to "but sex is what makes us human" or "I will make you like sex" is definitely discrimination.

You're mistaking simple rude remarks for discrimination. Discrimination means actions that affect your life, not hurt your feelings.

[m02a16ds]

Is "I would never be friends with an asexual, because they are not to be trusted" and cutting off ties with a friend in need who came out a "rude remark" or is it an action that affects your life?

Is "I do not want to allow asexuals to use anti-suicide hotline" a rude remark or is it an action that affects your life?

Is corrective rape a "rude remark" or is it an action that affects your life?

... I hope everyone's getting the point... or shall I go on?

[Guest]

Is "I would never be friends with an asexual, because they are not to be trusted" and cutting off ties with a friend in need who came out a "rude remark" or is it an action that affects your life?

Is "I do not want to allow asexuals to use anti-suicide hotline" a rude remark or is it an action that affects your life?

... I hope everyone's getting the point... or shall I go on?

Yes, that's rudeness, not discrimination. You do understand what that law is for, right? It's so that you can't be fired or thrown out of your apartment for being asexual. Which is something that has never happened. Corrective rape has never happened, so let's not throw that nonsense in there. In any case, corrective rape isn't discrimination. Please look up what anti-discrimination bills cover. It's important to this conversation, given that's what it's, you know, about.

Nonetheless, when people who don't understand how to legal start chiming in on legal things, for instance, this conversation, it's almost always completely absurd. I know ya'll don't think it is because apparently you think all one needs to understand the practice of law is to be able to read, but it's actually not. I'm aware you can construct a totally sound argument for why discrimination against asexuals is not covered, but you'd be ignoring the way law works in order to do so.

[m02a16ds]

Is "I would never be friends with an asexual, because they are not to be trusted" and cutting off ties with a friend in need who came out a "rude remark" or is it an action that affects your life?

Is "I do not want to allow asexuals to use anti-suicide hotline" a rude remark or is it an action that affects your life?

... I hope everyone's getting the point... or shall I go on?

Yes, that's rudeness, not discrimination.

This is the only part of the comment I read. If cutting all ties with a person IN NEED, who can starve for death without help, is "rudeness, not discrimination", if not allowing a desperate person to use anti-suicide hotline, thus ensuring them commiting suicide, is "rudeness, not discrimination", then the dialogue is useless.

[Lady Norgard]

Is "I would never be friends with an asexual, because they are not to be trusted" and cutting off ties with a friend in need who came out a "rude remark" or is it an action that affects your life?

Is "I do not want to allow asexuals to use anti-suicide hotline" a rude remark or is it an action that affects your life?

Is corrective rape a "rude remark" or is it an action that affects your life?

... I hope everyone's getting the point... or shall I go on?

In the UK, if you rape someone with any motivations you will go to prison. This petition won't change that, it won't make the UK better then it is. But that's not to say I'm against it, I just don't think it's needed yet.

[Guest]

Is "I would never be friends with an asexual, because they are not to be trusted" and cutting off ties with a friend in need who came out a "rude remark" or is it an action that affects your life?

Is "I do not want to allow asexuals to use anti-suicide hotline" a rude remark or is it an action that affects your life?

... I hope everyone's getting the point... or shall I go on?

Yes, that's rudeness, not discrimination.

This is the only part of the comment I read. If cutting all ties with a person IN NEED, who can starve for death without help, is "rudeness, not discrimination", if not allowing a desperate person to use anti-suicide hotline, thus ensuring them commiting suicide, is "rudeness, not discrimination", then the dialogue is useless.

Are you kidding me??? In what world do you live in where you think that the government intervenes when your friend cuts ties with you? In what possible way would this bill make a difference? Why do you not look up the law first before spouting irrelevancies?

I don't even understand your weird suicide hotline thing. I've worked for suicide hotlines and there's no "click '5' if you're asexual" option, so how would they even know? And if they did hang up on you, what on earth do you think this bill is going to do to change that? Please, lay out your weird "suicide hotline" legal argument for me, because I very much don't understand.

Is "I would never be friends with an asexual, because they are not to be trusted" and cutting off ties with a friend in need who came out a "rude remark" or is it an action that affects your life?

Is "I do not want to allow asexuals to use anti-suicide hotline" a rude remark or is it an action that affects your life?

Is corrective rape a "rude remark" or is it an action that affects your life?

... I hope everyone's getting the point... or shall I go on?

In the UK, if you rape someone with any motivations you will go to prison. This petition won't change that, it won't make the UK better then it is. But that's not to say I'm against it, I just don't think it's needed yet.

Wouldn't petitioning so it said "all gender and sexual orientations" instead of randomly adding some here and there make more sense? And honestly, do people genuinely believe that if someone was fired for being asexual, that the current anti-discrimination laws wouldn't cover them? And, why do people think that???

[CosineTheCat]

Please remember that this is a thread about the petition and opinion on the petition. Future response not relating to the petition will be split and moved to a more appropriate area.

CosineTheCat

World Watch Moderator

[Hobbes!]

And honestly, do people genuinely believe that if someone was fired for being asexual, that the current anti-discrimination laws wouldn't cover them? And, why do people think that???

Unless I'm mistaken, you're assuming that they will.They might not. I don't know, this isn't my area of expertise, which is rather the point you've been making, Skulls. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that anti-discrimination laws specifically don't cover asexuality

[Guest]

Why? You would find it completely within all reason and thought that entire countries got together and said "meh, let's specifically not cover asexuality"? What do ya'll think happens when you go to court? Someone points to a word in a statute and that's that?

[Lady Norgard]

And honestly, do people genuinely believe that if someone was fired for being asexual, that the current anti-discrimination laws wouldn't cover them? And, why do people think that???

Unless I'm mistaken, you're assuming that they will.They might not. I don't know, this isn't my area of expertise, which is rather the point you've been making, Skulls. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that anti-discrimination laws specifically don't cover asexuality

They don't, they cover everything.

[Guest]

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

[Hobbes!]

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Precisely why I said "something to do research on" and "I don't know, this isn't my area of expertise"

I still maintain it's reasonable not to assume that asexuality would be covered in a Common Law country. If it wasn't covered by the letter of the law, any case involving asexual discrimination would be that much harder to win. Precedent isn't set lightly in any case - I would speculate this would be doubly true of an orientation that isn't widely known or recognised

[Guest]

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

If it wasn't covered by the letter of the law, any case involving asexual discrimination would be that much harder to win. Precedent isn't set lightly in any case - I would speculate this would be doubly true of an orientation that isn't widely known or recognised

I strongly disagree. Vehemently. With more force than I can express via typing. There's so much precedent for why people's sexual behavior is private that it blows my mind that any of you would think otherwise. it's just... yeah.

[Lady Norgard]

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Precisely why I said "something to do research on" and "I don't know, this isn't my area of expertise"

I still maintain it's reasonable not to assume that asexuality would be covered in a Common Law country. If it wasn't covered by the letter of the law, any case involving asexual discrimination would be that much harder to win. Precedent isn't set lightly in any case - I would speculate this would be doubly true of an orientation that isn't widely known or recognised

The main thing is though, in the UK if you deny anyone important services without a good reason to do so then that is illegal. If I am turned down for medical help because I'm asexual then that wouldn't end well for either the NHS or any private company, because even if the law doesn't recognize asexuality specifically, I have still been denied a service that I needed. You can't just go, 'oh, we fired her for the lolz', and if you said 'we fired her because she doesn't want sex' then you will end up in more sh*t then before.

[Guest]

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Precisely why I said "something to do research on" and "I don't know, this isn't my area of expertise"

I still maintain it's reasonable not to assume that asexuality would be covered in a Common Law country. If it wasn't covered by the letter of the law, any case involving asexual discrimination would be that much harder to win. Precedent isn't set lightly in any case - I would speculate this would be doubly true of an orientation that isn't widely known or recognised

The main thing is though, in the UK if you deny anyone important services without a good reason to do so then that is illegal. If I am turned down for medical help because I'm asexual then that wouldn't end well for either the NHS or any private company, because even if the law doesn't recognize asexuality specifically, I have still been denied a service that I needed. You can't just go, 'oh, we fired her for the lolz', and if you said 'we fired her because she doesn't want sex' then you will end up in more sh*t then before.

I think (and could be wrong, definitely) that the argument is that asexuality has been specifically isolated with the express intention of allowing discrimination against asexuals only.

[Hobbes!]

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Precisely why I said "something to do research on" and "I don't know, this isn't my area of expertise"

I still maintain it's reasonable not to assume that asexuality would be covered in a Common Law country. If it wasn't covered by the letter of the law, any case involving asexual discrimination would be that much harder to win. Precedent isn't set lightly in any case - I would speculate this would be doubly true of an orientation that isn't widely known or recognised

The main thing is though, in the UK if you deny anyone important services without a good reason to do so then that is illegal. If I am turned down for medical help because I'm asexual then that wouldn't end well for either the NHS or any private company, because even if the law doesn't recognize asexuality specifically, I have still been denied a service that I needed. You can't just go, 'oh, we fired her for the lolz', and if you said 'we fired her because she doesn't want sex' then you will end up in more sh*t then before.

See, that's fine, and I'm sure if I looked up the evidence for that it would support what you say. My point is, you cannot just assume this to be true on the basis of "It stands to reason" any more than you can assume that asexuality is fair discrimination game on the basis that it's not mentioned specifically in the Equality Act

[Sally]

I think (and could be wrong, definitely) that the argument is that asexuality has been specifically isolated with the express intention of allowing discrimination against asexuals only.

I read it that way also. Sometimes it seems that there's a feeling among some AVEN asexuals that if it can't be "proven" that asexuals are discriminated against, we're just not as important as other minority orientations.

[Guest]

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Precisely why I said "something to do research on" and "I don't know, this isn't my area of expertise"

I still maintain it's reasonable not to assume that asexuality would be covered in a Common Law country. If it wasn't covered by the letter of the law, any case involving asexual discrimination would be that much harder to win. Precedent isn't set lightly in any case - I would speculate this would be doubly true of an orientation that isn't widely known or recognised

The main thing is though, in the UK if you deny anyone important services without a good reason to do so then that is illegal. If I am turned down for medical help because I'm asexual then that wouldn't end well for either the NHS or any private company, because even if the law doesn't recognize asexuality specifically, I have still been denied a service that I needed. You can't just go, 'oh, we fired her for the lolz', and if you said 'we fired her because she doesn't want sex' then you will end up in more sh*t then before.

See, that's fine, and I'm sure if I looked up the evidence for that it would support what you say. My point is, you cannot just assume this to be true on the basis of "It stands to reason" any more than you can assume that asexuality is fair discrimination game on the basis that it's not mentioned specifically in the Equality Act

Except if you have knowledge of the law, of course you can simply assume it to be true. And if you don't have knowledge of the law, you shouldn't be assuming anything. If you do assume something just because it's not specifically mentioned in the Equality Act, that's simply a poor attempt at fact checking, and any subsequent regurgitation of said wrong information is simply that... spreading wrong information. "The law" doesn't need to include every possible word under the sun just so that people who don't feel like doing independent research can sit around with eased minds. That's absolutely silly. You should look up the evidence for it before making any assumptions, and certainly before doing things like starting petitions and getting other people riled up. And no, I'm not speaking directly to you, Hobbes. But I hate the argument of "oh, well, I didn't know that and therefore it's totally fine that I just misinformed an entire website of people despite the information being totally attainable."

[Lady Norgard]

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Precisely why I said "something to do research on" and "I don't know, this isn't my area of expertise"

I still maintain it's reasonable not to assume that asexuality would be covered in a Common Law country. If it wasn't covered by the letter of the law, any case involving asexual discrimination would be that much harder to win. Precedent isn't set lightly in any case - I would speculate this would be doubly true of an orientation that isn't widely known or recognised

The main thing is though, in the UK if you deny anyone important services without a good reason to do so then that is illegal. If I am turned down for medical help because I'm asexual then that wouldn't end well for either the NHS or any private company, because even if the law doesn't recognize asexuality specifically, I have still been denied a service that I needed. You can't just go, 'oh, we fired her for the lolz', and if you said 'we fired her because she doesn't want sex' then you will end up in more sh*t then before.

I think (and could be wrong, definitely) that the argument is that asexuality has been specifically isolated with the express intention of allowing discrimination against asexuals only.

Here's the actual text of the law (the relevant section, anyhow):

12Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

©persons of either sex.

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Now, please, someone, tell me how asexuality isn't covered.

Precisely why I said "something to do research on" and "I don't know, this isn't my area of expertise"

I still maintain it's reasonable not to assume that asexuality would be covered in a Common Law country. If it wasn't covered by the letter of the law, any case involving asexual discrimination would be that much harder to win. Precedent isn't set lightly in any case - I would speculate this would be doubly true of an orientation that isn't widely known or recognised

The main thing is though, in the UK if you deny anyone important services without a good reason to do so then that is illegal. If I am turned down for medical help because I'm asexual then that wouldn't end well for either the NHS or any private company, because even if the law doesn't recognize asexuality specifically, I have still been denied a service that I needed. You can't just go, 'oh, we fired her for the lolz', and if you said 'we fired her because she doesn't want sex' then you will end up in more sh*t then before.

See, that's fine, and I'm sure if I looked up the evidence for that it would support what you say. My point is, you cannot just assume this to be true on the basis of "It stands to reason" any more than you can assume that asexuality is fair discrimination game on the basis that it's not mentioned specifically in the Equality Act

I see what you're saying, but as asexuality isn't too well known I think that's why it's not mentioned. I doubt anyone meant for that, and while England is quite progressive when it comes to sexuality's, it was just a year or so ago that gay marriage was legalized here so we're still slow on the uptake.

[Hobbes!]

Oh, I agree, Skulls. If you're a layman, you shouldn't be making assumptions right away - in either direction. I wouldn't be signing any petition that gives only a sentence or two of information as this one has.

EDIT - And yeah, Norgard, I reckon that's the reason too. I never saw it as a deliberate attempt to shut asexuals out, so much as what (could, and turns out isn't) be a hole in the law to be filled

[Sally]

I see what you're saying, but as asexuality isn't too well known I think that's why it's not mentioned.

Aaaaaaargh. I'm sorry but this kind of assumption just drives me round the bloody bend.

[Lucinda]

I would think you would first have to petition to have asexuality considered a separate and distinct sexual orientation. And for those who consider asexuality as lacking a sexual orientation, you would have to consider if this should be a separate section of the Equality Act. Are people discriminated against for lacking a sexual orientation? How so?

I personally think the petition requires more thought or should be trashed ... because it is not just about the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law ... which seems obvious to me.

Lucinda

[Lady Norgard]

I see what you're saying, but as asexuality isn't too well known I think that's why it's not mentioned.

Aaaaaaargh. I'm sorry but this kind of assumption just drives me round the bloody bend.

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

• age
• being or becoming a transsexual person
• being married or in a civil partnership
• being pregnant or having a child
• disability
• race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
• religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

These are called ‘protected characteristics’.

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

• at work
• in education
• as a consumer
• when using public services
• when buying or renting property
• as a member or guest of a private club or association

This is from the UK gov website, we're covered.

[Lady Norgard]

By the way, I do think asexuality needs to be legally recognized, but this petition probably won't help. We need more visibility first.

[Sally]

Since asexuals are covered under "sexual orientation", then why did you assume that asexuals weren't mentioned because no one was aware of asexuality? That latter assumption is what I was reacting to.