• 1
In before "yeah, because straights are totally bashing asexuals in the street".

Are you arguing that any discrimination (such as lack of sexual desire still being registered as a symptom of several mental disorders in the DSM-V, which makes getting appropriate treatment for actual problems difficult) doesn't matter at all if it's not taking the form of outright physical violence, and so asexuals don't need any support? Or are you being sarcastic?

The point of the first article, as far as I understand it, is that any person showing 'abnormal' behaviour will be seen as a justified target for discrimination by the majority. Simply because "outgroup distaste" is innate to humanity, especially if the humans in question aren't taught to empathise with people not belonging to their group (which is why minority representation in the media is so important). It doesn't really matter in what way you differ from the majority, but unlike atheists or vegans, sexual, gender and racial minorities don't have a choice about the matter. (Well, we can try to pass. But that's just a pain-avoidance strategy, not a sign that groups which are passing easier would actually be treated better if they were to come out.)

And besides, threats of violence and corrective rape if you don't want to have sex with men are a thing. Doesn't matter if you're a lesbian or asexual woman.

Edited at 2013-08-31 02:23 am (UTC)

Generally speaking, the phrase "in before [phrase]" indicates a sarcastic 'preemptive strike' against people who do often say the following phrase, in order to demonstrate the poster's distaste of such an argument. I do NOT condone "Oppression Olympics" or agree with it in any way.

Wow, what an interesting article! Thank you for linking it.

Thank you for posting this! I'm really sick of being told that prejudice and discrimination against asexuals only happens because they mistake us for gay people, and it's nice to be able to point to someone who's come up with empirical evidence to the contrary.

  • 1

Log in