Proof that Asexuals are legally protected against workplace discrimination and recognition as a sexual orientation not a medical condition

[DoubleATripleA]

My post with sources is here

 

Tldr: 

The US & UK Equality Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights protect Asexuals against workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation. 

 

Asexuals are directly addressed as being protected against workplace discrimination in Fun fact: Asexuals are directly addressed as being protected against workplace discrimination in The Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act ("SONDA") of New York, which was signed into law in late 2002 and came into effect on January 16th, 2003.

 

Asexuality is recognised as not being a medical condition by the APA, seen in the DSM-5

[Galactic Turtle]

Cool! Can't say I had any concerns about these things though. Granted the way the DSM-5 phrases it always rubs me the wrong way. The whole "could be whatever disorder unless the person identifies as asexual" like that's your one get out of jail free card... and anyone else who isn't into sex has a problem.

[Duke Memphis]

Nice! Due legal protection!

[Homer]

Moved to Philosophy, Politics and Science

Homer

Moderator World Watch

[Blaiddmelyn]

I'm curious. How do you reach that conclusion in the UK given the definition in s.12? I'm not saying it's wrong - I've had a look into it before and I struggled to conclude you could definitely read in a lack of attraction given s.10 is an example of where Parliament specifically considered where a lack of x fell within the definition, and it's trite law that a lack of disability or pregnancy, for example, does not get you in itself within protection from discrimination on the basis of lack of disability/pregnancy. I suspect a court would likely read it in in reality but I'm still interested to know how you got there, purely for my own interest.

[KathyHoh]

On 12/31/2019 at 9:53 PM, DoubleATripleA said:

My post with sources is here

 

Tldr: 

The US & UK Equality Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights protect Asexuals against workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation. 

 

Asexuals are directly addressed as being protected against workplace discrimination in Fun fact: Asexuals are directly addressed as being protected against workplace discrimination in The Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act ("SONDA") of New York, which was signed into law in late 2002 and came into effect on January 16th, 2003.

 

Asexuality is recognised as not being a medical condition by the APA, seen in the DSM-5

This is a good start. How about other areas of discrimination? I had an interesting conversation with a lawyer friend of mine. Here is the case in discussion:

A woman who did not know about her orientation got married to a heterosexual man. He claims she seems cold and distant during sex, gets jealous, thinks she is in love with someone else. This leads to separation and months later, she figures out she is asexual. Excited to find something that explains her, she comes out to a few friends and family. The lawyer thinks the ex could sue her for hiding her sexual orientation before marriage. The lawyer thinks there is no proof she did not know her sexual orientation before the marriage. My lawyer friend thinks if someone who is LGBTQA+ hides orientation and gets married to a heterosexual just to cover up their orientation (cultural or family reasons), they face legal consequences. 

 

I think this scenario could be a potential discrimination based on sexual orientation. I am not a lawyer, but here are my thoughts on this..

1. It is well known many asexuals find the label for themselves after years of trying to be "Normal". There is no marker for it. How far does the law to protect asexuals from such kind of discrimination? Does anyone know? Any lawyer here?

2. Marriage is not a contract to provide a lifetime service of "great sex" to the spouse. It should be a mutual interest with compromises. If one does not want to compromise, that is what divorce is for. The separation should not have any consequences. 

3. The lawyers opinion seems a bit inclined to the popular belief that it is the one lacking the sexual desire who is at fault and should be fixed, and owes the allosexual the expected sexual satisfaction.

 

I think it is a great start in the medical profession to acknowledge asexuality is not a disease. But other professions such as lawyers, judges and social workers must get the necessary education about asexuality. This type of attitude in the legal world could ruin the lives of innocent asexuals.

 

The discussion with the lawyer was deeply disturbing to me.

 

 

[uhtred]

Hmm, is asexuality visible in the workplace?  There are lots of people at my work whose sex lives I know nothing about -I would have no idea if they were asexual.   When someone is gay, its different because they may want to go to social functions with their same-sex partner. 

 

I'm fine with asexuals being protected, I just don't see where the issue would arise.  

[Blaiddmelyn]

20 hours ago, KathyHoh said:

This is a good start. How about other areas of discrimination? I had an interesting conversation with a lawyer friend of mine. Here is the case in discussion:

A woman who did not know about her orientation got married to a heterosexual man. He claims she seems cold and distant during sex, gets jealous, thinks she is in love with someone else. This leads to separation and months later, she figures out she is asexual. Excited to find something that explains her, she comes out to a few friends and family. The lawyer thinks the ex could sue her for hiding her sexual orientation before marriage. The lawyer thinks there is no proof she did not know her sexual orientation before the marriage. My lawyer friend thinks if someone who is LGBTQA+ hides orientation and gets married to a heterosexual just to cover up their orientation (cultural or family reasons), they face legal consequences. 

 

I think this scenario could be a potential discrimination based on sexual orientation. I am not a lawyer, but here are my thoughts on this..

1. It is well known many asexuals find the label for themselves after years of trying to be "Normal". There is no marker for it. How far does the law to protect asexuals from such kind of discrimination? Does anyone know? Any lawyer here?

2. Marriage is not a contract to provide a lifetime service of "great sex" to the spouse. It should be a mutual interest with compromises. If one does not want to compromise, that is what divorce is for. The separation should not have any consequences. 

3. The lawyers opinion seems a bit inclined to the popular belief that it is the one lacking the sexual desire who is at fault and should be fixed, and owes the allosexual the expected sexual satisfaction.

 

I think it is a great start in the medical profession to acknowledge asexuality is not a disease. But other professions such as lawyers, judges and social workers must get the necessary education about asexuality. This type of attitude in the legal world could ruin the lives of innocent asexuals.

 

The discussion with the lawyer was deeply disturbing to me.

 

 

Which jurisdiction are you talking about? Laws aren't uniform across the world. 

[LeChat]

8 hours ago, uhtred said:

Hmm, is asexuality visible in the workplace?  There are lots of people at my work whose sex lives I know nothing about -I would have no idea if they were asexual.   When someone is gay, its different because they may want to go to social functions with their same-sex partner. 

 

I'm fine with asexuals being protected, I just don't see where the issue would arise.  

I think it can be, if co-workers/bosses like to chat with each other about their spouses, children, etc., where they also ask an ace co-worker if they have a partner/spouse/children, etc. (some aces have mentioned having co-workers like that, who'd ask them questions like that).

 

It's difficult in the workplace, when you're the only person who's never had a partner, been married, nor had children, and all of your co-workers like to bond over these things (and ask all of their co-workers about their marital status, whether they have children, etc. because they assume that everyone has the same life as them, wants those things, etc.); it might cause them to assume you're "not a team player" at your job, just because you're not social/able to relate to the personal lives of your co-workers.

 

One boss I had definitely misunderstood me and couldn't relate to me or how I worked, due to our different personal lives (i.e. I guess, sexual orientations, where she might've been heterosexual, because she was married and had a husband and children--and liked to talk about them/complain about them a lot to her friend, another employee), ages, personalities, etc.

[KathyHoh]

3 hours ago, Blaiddmelyn said:

Which jurisdiction are you talking about? Laws aren't uniform across the world. 

I am not sure. I do not know much about laws. I am particularly interested in the USA and Canada laws. Any ideas?

[Sally]

9 hours ago, uhtred said:

Hmm, is asexuality visible in the workplace?  There are lots of people at my work whose sex lives I know nothing about -I would have no idea if they were asexual.   When someone is gay, its different because they may want to go to social functions with their same-sex partner. 

 

I'm fine with asexuals being protected, I just don't see where the issue would arise.  

Yes.  But as far as laws are concerned, if an asexual did attempt to prove that they were  discriminated against at the workplace, there might be pushback due to asexuality not yet being accepted as an orientation.  

[uhtred]

1 hour ago, LeChat said:

I think it can be, if co-workers/bosses like to chat with each other about their spouses, children, etc., where they also ask an ace co-worker if they have a partner/spouse/children, etc. (some aces have mentioned having co-workers like that, who'd ask them questions like that).

 

It's difficult in the workplace, when you're the only person who's never had a partner, been married, nor had children, and all of your co-workers like to bond over these things (and ask all of their co-workers about their marital status, whether they have children, etc. because they assume that everyone has the same life as them, wants those things, etc.); it might cause them to assume you're "not a team player" at your job, just because you're not social/able to relate to the personal lives of your co-workers.

 

One boss I had definitely misunderstood me and couldn't relate to me or how I worked, due to our different personal lives (i.e. I guess, sexual orientations, where she might've been heterosexual, because she was married and had a husband and children--and liked to talk about them/complain about them a lot to her friend, another employee), ages, personalities, etc.

I can see that, but there are quite a lot of sexual people who also don't have partners - and who may not want to discuss why they don't have partners.   Asking too many questions in the work place about people's relationships starts to become harassment - no matter what their orientation. 

[uhtred]

57 minutes ago, Sally said:

Yes.  But as far as laws are concerned, if an asexual did attempt to prove that they were  discriminated against at the workplace, there might be pushback due to asexuality not yet being accepted as an orientation.  

Its a good question.  I've never really liked the idea that only "protected classes" can sue for discrimination , but I think that is how it works in the US.  I guess it depends on whther "asexuality" is a "sexual orientation".   

 

 

Have there been cases where people tried to sue for harassament because they were asexual? 

[KathyHoh]

7 hours ago, LeChat said:

I think it can be, if co-workers/bosses like to chat with each other about their spouses, children, etc., where they also ask an ace co-worker if they have a partner/spouse/children, etc. (some aces have mentioned having co-workers like that, who'd ask them questions like that).

 

It's difficult in the workplace, when you're the only person who's never had a partner, been married, nor had children, and all of your co-workers like to bond over these things (and ask all of their co-workers about their marital status, whether they have children, etc. because they assume that everyone has the same life as them, wants those things, etc.); it might cause them to assume you're "not a team player" at your job, just because you're not social/able to relate to the personal lives of your co-workers.

 

One boss I had definitely misunderstood me and couldn't relate to me or how I worked, due to our different personal lives (i.e. I guess, sexual orientations, where she might've been heterosexual, because she was married and had a husband and children--and liked to talk about them/complain about them a lot to her friend, another employee), ages, personalities, etc.

This issue can have a serious negative consequence on the career of an asexual. Long before I realized my asexuality, I worked in a research group in a University. My colleagues liked to discuss details about their date/partner/spouse, complain about them and so on. I had nothing to share with them. They complained that I listen to their personal lives but did not disclose mine. I told them I was not seeing anyone and they started telling me how to get a date. I did not do anything about my lack of partner because I was not interested. When I left the research group after finishing the thesis, I got a strange recommendation letter from my supervisor. It stated that I lack communication and social skills. These skills were essential for my profession. I had excellent social skills but just was not interested in a partner. 

[Blaiddmelyn]

20 hours ago, KathyHoh said:

I am not sure. I do not know much about laws. I am particularly interested in the USA and Canada laws. Any ideas?

Afraid not - I know some English law but, despite what a lot of people think, the law of the USA and the law of England and Wales is very different in employment/equality law areas. I know a little bit of US discrimination law but nowhere near enough to opine on its attitude to asexuality. I don't know any Canadian law.

[Kasseb]

I disagree with this. We're not a sexual orientation, just like being an atheist isn't a religion. We're simply the lack of one.

[KathyHoh]

On 1/24/2020 at 5:01 PM, Autumn McJavabean said:

I disagree with this. We're not a sexual orientation, just like being an atheist isn't a religion. We're simply the lack of one.

My lawyer friend thinks exactly the same. If it is called a sexual orientation, it might lead to some form of discrimination. She mentioned the case of an asexual married to an allosexual. The asexual realized that they are asexual after the marriage but there is a crack in the law if asexuality is called an orientation. The allosexual might sue the asexual for hiding the sexual orientation before marriage and deprivation of "normal" sex or lack of sex in the marriage. In this case, the protection of the asexual from prosecution can only be realized from the definition "asexuality is lack of orientation". Thus, lack of orientation justifies the asexual would have no way of knowing they are asexual until someone points out  to them that they lack sexual desire or cannot have "normal sex".