Talk:Discrimination against asexual people/Archive 1

Sources needed
Hello all - do we have cites for this statement?

"Anti-asexual hate crimes also exist, and asexual people may face greater amounts of prejudice and discrimination than those of other sexual minorities."

I'm particularly concerned about the "may face greater amounts of prejudice" because this seems like editorial synthesis if there is no study making such a claim. Thanks! Pastaitaliana (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)PastaItaliana
 * Pastaitaliana, the content is sourced lower in the article. See WP:CITELEAD. Sources are not always in the lead, and not everything in the lead always has an inline citation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Flyer 22 Reborn] - thanks for responding! My concern is there is no evidence below the lead in favor of this statement. The closest it gets is this: "Having emerged more recently as an identity, asexual people often have less legal protections than gay, lesbian, and bisexual people". Less protections is not the same thing as greater amounts of prejudice or discrimination. That statement still needs evidence, as far as I can tell. Best [[User:Pastaitaliana|Pastaitaliana (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)PastaItaliana


 * The "may face greater amounts of prejudice and discrimination" part is supposed to be supported by the "One study found that asexual people are more dehumanised than heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals, often being compared to animals or robots due to their sexuality." piece. This is why it's contrasted by the "A different study, however, found little evidence of serious discrimination against asexuals because of their asexuality." piece. I haven't yet read either study. No need to WP:Ping me since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Great, good to know. So two thoughts. 1) that "may" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, given the contradictory evidence of those two studies; 2) dehumanisation is a form of prejudice, and not a form of discrimination. If asexuals are treated differently *on that basis* more often than other groups, then it would count as discrimination. Would recommend at least deleting "discrimination" Pastaitaliana (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)PastaItaliana
 * The source is titled "Intergroup bias toward 'Group X': Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals." I suggest at least reading it first. I'm not sure that I would state that dehumanisation is "not a form of discrimination." But I don't mind the text being changed from "asexual people may face greater amounts of prejudice and discrimination" to "asexual people may face greater amounts of prejudice." That stated, again, the aforementioned title of the source indicates that the source is also talking about discrimination in addition to prejudice and dehumanization. And the "A different study, however" source is presumably judging whether or not asexuals face a lot of discrimination. So it seems the "little evidence of serious discrimination" text should remain for that part. The "however" word for it, though, makes it seem like both parts (meaning the dehumanisation part as well) are talking about discrimination. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For info: the "A different study, however" source found that a large proportion of asexuals experienced verbal harassment and other forms of discrimination. However, it also estimated the impact that these events had on asexuals, and found it to be minor in comparison to lesbians. As I said below though, the study only had 39 participants (who were self-selected), so I'm not really sure how useful its findings are. ♫CheChe♫ talk 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this change you made. I added commas to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A different study found nothing...
I had a read of the citation for the part that says "A different study, however, found little evidence of serious discrimination against asexuals because of their asexuality." The study only had 39 participants, so I wonder how appropriate it is here – the way the article is written this is presented as evidence against the previous sentence, which while true, strikes me as misleading. ♫CheChe♫ talk 18:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Without expressing an opinion at this time on whether the study should be cited at all, I will observe that if the study indeed only had 39 participants, we could spell out "A different study of 39 people, however,...". -sche (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?
1 It's chock full of information and has plenty of uses of the term acephobia. Adam9007 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see that standupmag.org passes the WP:Reliable sources guideline. You could ask about it WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also, although sourcing for this topic is scarce, we should try to stick to academic sources rather than media sources to cover this topic. Opinion pieces and similar are not ideal. Student sources should be avoided. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is a good guideline to follow. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * And by "student sources," I don't mean academic book sources aimed at students. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

"Greater than other sexual minorities"?
Making a quantitative claim about different sexual minorities having "greater discrimination" than others is fishy in any context, but despite what revisions to this page have suggested, the claim in the intro about this is not at all supported by the rest of the text and thus, really needs to be toned down or given its own citation. The text mostly gives examples of other LGBT people (such as Dan Savage, a gay man -- although he has since come around on asexuality) being prejudiced against asexual people, but that does not prove that asexuals receive "greater" discrimination, just that lateral prejudice from other sexual minorities exists. (One wouldn't use, say, black people being racist against Latino people or vice versa to suggest one or the other was more or less a victim of racism.) Far from being "greater" or even different, a lot of the prejudices mentioned on this page -- hate crimes, denial of their identity, stereotyping, internal shame and internalized prejudice, or lack of or inaccurate media representation -- are also things that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and non-binary people face as well. In addition, there seems to be no citations on asexuals facing housing or job discrimination (just the possibility that they could) as LGBTQ people frequently do, which would suggest there are in fact forms of discrimination that LGBTQ people face that asexuals don't. But this is beside the point: making "Oppression Olympics" comparisons like this is both inherently subjective and also not helpful, which is why most LGBTQIA studies academics and activists tend to avoid it and style guides argue against it. To be honest, the overall article has few edits that come from a small number of people who revert or try to limit edits by others, and thus like it really could use a look-through by the LGBT Studies Wiki-Project (which, notably, labeled this as only C-class in terms of quality in its last evaluation). Beggarsbanquet (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement is cited in the body: the article clearly states and cites a study saying asexuals are more dehumanised than people of other minority sexual orientations, and a survey saying that asexual shave the joint-lowest average life satisfaction and are the least comfortable LGBT group in the UK, and asexuals also have less legal protection. Sounds to me like greater discrimination in those areas. It says 'in some contexts' for a reason. Don't forget that research about this is still somewhat limited. Also, just because gay and bi people also face discrimination and prejudice, doesn't make it irrelevant to his article, as implied (however indirectly). Adam9007 (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And right after it, there's a sentence stating that other studies have shown the opposite. The text suggests there's controversy over the topic, but the header suggests a consensus where there isn't. Also, are you not aware that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people face similar dehumanization, even if the specific words are different? I just don't see why a quantitative claim needs to be made at all, and think it is likely contributing to vandalism and the need to review edits. "Similar to/on par with" would make more sense than "greater amounts," especially given the relative lack of evidence of state/legal discrimination against asexual people that is such a big part of the fight for LGBTQ rights. This is why I think more people who regularly edit LGBT articles on here need to take a look at this page; the writing suggests to me that the writers of this article are not very familiar with LGBTQ issues more broadly. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's not what the sources say. Averaging it out to 'on par with' because asexuals sometimes have it worse, but sometimes not seems to be like original research. The point is that some sources claim that asexuals do sometimes have it worse. The fact that asexuals also sometimes do not does not invalidate that. Adam9007 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you reading my comments? I have explained how that is not what the sources say. They say on one criterion they might, other sources cited disagree, and I've pointed out several additional types of discrimination that asexuals do not experience. Would you make such a definitive statement in the introduction given the varying, contradictory evidence if it were some other topic? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it turns out that that 'one study' is actually two studies, and yes they both suggest that asexuals are more dehumanised than others. They also say that asexuals face the most/strongest bias, at least ion some areas. Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do Asexuals get kicked out of their house for being asexual? Do they get beaten, tied to a fence and left for days to die? "greater amounts"? In volume or in severity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.116.112 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's talking about discrimination and bias in general, not specific types. Adam9007 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm rewording this. Wikipedia is not the place for oppression Olypmpics. "Greater than other sexual minorities" is entirely subjective. It is better to say that the discrimination faced by asexual people is often compared to other forms of discrimination. Acting like ace people are more oppressed than gay people is a major stretch and it is too controversial of a statement to have on a Wikipedia article. It's also upsetting to read for anyone else of the LGBTQIA spectrum, because it just downplays and sidelines their experiences. Not okay. Wikipedia isn't the place to have that argument. Apriljennifer (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's what the sources say. The first source is full of statements to that effect:
 * Even if there are reliable sources to back it up? And who actually implied aces are more oppressed anyway?
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there are reliable sources to back it up? And who actually implied aces are more oppressed anyway?
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there are reliable sources to back it up? And who actually implied aces are more oppressed anyway?
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there are reliable sources to back it up? And who actually implied aces are more oppressed anyway?
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there are reliable sources to back it up? And who actually implied aces are more oppressed anyway?
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there are reliable sources to back it up? And who actually implied aces are more oppressed anyway?
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there are reliable sources to back it up? And who actually implied aces are more oppressed anyway?
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there are reliable sources to back it up? And who actually implied aces are more oppressed anyway?
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there are reliable sources to back it up? And who actually implied aces are more oppressed anyway?
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not the place to misrepresent what sources say in order to protect someone's feelings. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Apriljennifer, regarding what you stated above and this edit you made, we need to go by what the sources state per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Whatever they state, we need to relay it accurately. As for stating contested matters in Wikipedia's voice, WP:WIKIVOICE has guidance on that, and there is the option of WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

it is absolutely not an objective source. Not all sources are made equal. “Evidence shows that” barely means anything in social sciences. However, the source does compare the two forms if discrimination. That can be said without misrepresentating it Apriljennifer (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Low libido
Adam9007, regarding this, I reverted because, like I stated, "Low libido is one definition of asexuality. And that's not about discrimination against asexual people (not usually)." The academic literature is clear on this, as covered in this section of the Asexuality article. Furthermore, some people with very low libido identity as asexual. We should not use some media source to imply or state that this definition is wrong. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Adam9007, regarding this, are you really going to WP:Edit war over what academic sources state? Do I really need to sit here and debate this? Read the literature, not just media sources. Academic sources, like this 2016 "Introducing the New Sexuality Studies" source, from Routledge, page 183, are clear. Researchers define asexuality in different ways, and "low libido" or "low sex attraction" is a part of that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because some people with low libido identify as asexual does not mean that all people with low libido are asexual, as you implied. Sex drive and sexual orientation are different and separate things. Hyposexuality involves low libido, but they aren't asexual, because, unlike asexuals, it distresses them, whereas asexuals are okay with it. Also, what literature is this? All my research on asexuality strongly indicates that asexuality and low libido are entirely separate things, and the two are commonly confused (to the point that asexuality is often dismissed as low libido, which is why I added it to the article). Adam9007 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, per what I stated above, we go by what the academic sources state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * And I did not state "all people with low libido are asexual." I am speaking of how researchers variously define it. And "all [your] research on asexuality"? From what I've seen of your knowledge on the topic, it appears you usually look at media sources. As the person who brought the Asexuality article to WP:GA status and one who has thoroughly studied the literature, I know what I am talking about. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * And the source you added does not state that it's about discrimination against asexual people anyway. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You said that low libido is one definition of asexuality (which it isn't. Not asexuality as a sexual orientation anyway). That implies that having a low libido = asexual (which, again, it doesn't). Adam9007 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is one definition of asexuality by the simple fact that some researchers have defined asexuality that way, and still categorize people in that way when those people identify as asexual. Read the academic literature. Why are you arguing over something that is easily verified in the academic literature? I'm not going to sit here and list source after source to support my argument, especially since the source you added doesn't attribute categorizing people with low libido as asexual to discrimination. Just like asexual people who feel that those with low sexual attraction aren't asexual, editors' personal opinions on the topic do not matter in terms of what we cover and how we cover it on Wikipedia. On the topic of "low sexual attraction," the source you added at least acknowledges that "asexuality exists on a spectrum. In other words, asexual people can experience varied levels of sexual attraction and romantic feelings" by speaking of gray asexuality. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Adam9007, I don't mean to come across as grumpy. I apologize. Yes, these days, characterizing asexuality as someone with a low libido, even if very low, is disputed. But I am stating that asexuality has been defined/characterized that way. And even with the word "libido" excluded, asexuality is still sometimes defined/characterized as a person with little or low sexual attraction to/little sexual interest in others (which is where gray asexuality comes in). And I'm also stating that we shouldn't present the "low libido" aspect as discrimination against asexual people unless a reliable source does. Even then, it should have WP:In-text attribution since older sources conflict on that, and it should be covered lower in the article first. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that those with low libido cannot also be asexual, just that it doesn't automatically make one asexual. Also, you say that Asexuality says that some consider low libido and asexuality to be the same, but I'm having trouble seeing where. First it says:, but those are both different to lack of sex drive/libido. Then it says: . Again, those are separate things to lack of sex drive/libido. Further down it says: . That outright contradicts to the idea that asexuality always equals low libido. I also could not see where in the cited sources it mentions much (if any) relation between the two (maybe I haven't read them carefully enough? I did searches in them but couldn't find much). Although low libido can cause a lack of sexual attraction or desire, a lack of sexual attraction or desire is how it is for asexuals regardless of how high or low their libido is. Adam9007 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Adam9007, since this page is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to it. I did not state that having a low libido automatically makes one asexual. And this is not about what I think. It is about how researchers have defined asexuality. I stated that people who have a low libido have been characterized as asexual. I stated that "low libido" is "one definition of asexuality by the simple fact that some researchers have defined asexuality that way, and still categorize people in that way when those people identify as asexual." This is why some sources state that asexuality is not characterized by having a low libido; they state this because they consider that previous definition to be in error. As for the section I pointed you to in the Asexuality article, the Prause source states the term has been used "to refer to individuals with low or absent sexual desire or attractions, low or absent sexual behaviors, exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships, or a combination of both absent sexual desires and behaviors." The "low sexual desire" wording has been used to mean the same thing as "low libido" (and not just with regard to sources on asexuality).


 * But as for sources that explicitly state low libido (also known as sex drive) with regard to asexuality, we can see that this 2013 "International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 277, talks about the different definitions of asexuality that have been used in the literature and relays, "For example, Bogaert (2006a) suggested that, although a large percentage of people lacking sexual attraction likely have a very low sex drive/interest, there may be a group of asexual people who still have a sex drive/interest but who just do not direct their sexual interest/drive toward anyone or anything." Notice that Bogaert stated "may." Bogaert stated what he stated about very low sex drive/interest because the literature at that time was defining people with a very low sex drive as asexual (in addition to other definitions that have been used). As a number of academic sources report, there has been debate as to whether or not asexuality equates to hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). Although research on asexuality has been somewhat improved in latter years, and characterizing asexuality as someone with a low libido is more so disputed today, researchers have not been consistent in how they define asexuality...except for defining it as a lack of sexual attraction to others. In this 2015 (reprint) "Understanding Asexuality" source, from Rowman & Littlefield, Bogaert also speaks of low sex drive. As for the "need or desire for masturbation is commonly referred to as sex drive by asexuals and they disassociate it from sexual attraction and being sexual" piece in the Asexuality article, I don't see how that is contradictory to researchers having defined people with a low sex drive as asexual or to people with a low sex drive identifying as asexual. And regardless, it still stands that the source you added is not about the "low libido" aspect being a form of discrimination against asexual people. It doesn't state that it's a form of discrimination against asexual people. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article seems hardly neutral, and almost all of the sources are from periodicals and self-published books. The only exceptions to this are sources 8-10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusyeeter (talk • contribs) 00:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Periodicals are exactly the sort of source that most articles should be based on. And how exactly is this article not neutral? Please elaborate. Adam9007 (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For a controversial topic, there is only 1 brief sentence representing the 'other side', so to speak: "A different study, however, found little evidence of serious discrimination against asexuals because of their asexuality.[25]"
 * One particular sentence which is perhaps either worded poorly or biased is "Asexuality has been seen as a joke.[22]"
 * Another example is "Asexuals are less-well represented by mainstream media and services, facilitating hostility and prejudice towards asexuals, and can lead to their rejection from both the straight and LGBT communities."Lotusyeeter (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , All that seems perfectly NPOV to me (I'm not sure how can be reworded without changing its meaning anyway). As for "representing the other side", Wikipedia merely summarises what reliable sources say on the subject. If you have any that give a different view to the ones already given in the article, by all means put them in the article. Adam9007 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:Student editing
Yaneth.R and TaylorC24, will you state here on the talk page what you have planned for this article? Do read WP:Student editing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit keeps being removed
NZFC keeps denying the following edit on Discrimination against asexual people:

The quote in the article:

is inherently wrong, unless proper citation is given that proves otherwise, and should be removed. The cited Buzzfeed article makes no mention of "spaces designed for asexual people" as being ageist or racist, or centering on a specific race. Even if it were, which is not, it'd still be hardly any evidence to make such strong assumptions on the matter.

Quoting the possible source of contention:

The whole idea of calling asexual communities as discriminatory because of the single experience of a guy that doesn't even say that is ridicolous. I could also say I feel unwelcome playing cards in retirement homes because of my age as they skew older, that doesn't mean they're ageist! And there's ZERO mention on being "whiteness-centered". CapoFantasma97 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems user needs to pay attention to WP:BRD instead of keeping reverting to remove sourced material, taking to the talk page is what they should have done in the first place when it was reverted. I also said why I didn't agree with their edit in my revert initially "Its an article to represent the feelings of the community not just Adams, there is a bit saying about the unassailable ace, being white, cis, neurotypical, not to old or young etc". Now I'm happy for it to be removed if I'm wrong but I don't like people that appear to editing using their own feelings cloud what they are doing. NZFC  (talk) (cont)  21:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had started this very same discussion way earlier in your userspace, which you didn't reply to. Also, the edits are explained too. Finally, I reiterate yet another time that the article does not make mention of race, and it's not worded to say asexual communities are ageist. The "unassailable ace" is not connected in any way to the community, and the edit does not remove the reference, which is used in 4 other parts of the whole article. CapoFantasma97 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking into this, CapoFantasma97 is right, nothing in the article verifies the sentence. One person's anecdotal comment that "the community skews younger" ≠ "Spaces designed for asexual people have also been known to internally discriminate based on age". Nothing in the article says asexuals centre whiteness; the "unassailable ace" bit is not about the asexual community discriminating, but about which kinds of asexuals other people who are not asexuals accept. -sche (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hate crimes?
Actually hate being the one to say this, but I'm not sure how appropriate it is to have the hate crimes thing in the lead of the article when it is based on such shakey sourcing. This is just not a solid source for the statement that Ace people are victims of hate crimes, and their statistics on hate crimes don't publish figures beyond whether a hate crime is sexual-orientation-motivated (nothing specific to ace folks). – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC) To be honest, I really hate being that user, but we should be really careful with statements like this. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Likely be a couple days but I can see what I can find about asexual-specific violence, if anything.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The closest I came was and this. I know incidents of "corrective" rape are relatively understood in the literature, and the second source provides some details on that for the ace community. The ProQuest one mentions the following: From 2010 to 2017, 31 hate crimes targeting transgender or asexual people were reported by police participating in the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (version 2.2). Of these crimes, nearly half (15 incidents) occurred in 2017 alone. Even though the overall number is small relative to other hate crimes, those targeting transgender or asexual people were more often violent, with 74% of incidents involving a violent violation.
 * Fair points upon further reflection. I'll self revert for more until we can find better sources. welcome to wikipedia! I don't have time atm but I'll try to explain and give a proper welcome in a few days. cheers!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm fascinated by their decision to group "transgender or asexual people" in their data. Anyway, after a very cursory search I spot this regarding "unwanted sexual experiences and corrective rape", and this saying "asexuals reported more everyday discrimination than did non-asexual men", but nothing on other crimes (besides corrective rape, which could just be named specifically if it's the only one there's sourcing for). -sche (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Queshav: The statement "asexual people are the target of hate crimes" still does not seem like an accurate statement. You are mentioning statistics where asexual and transgender people are in the same statistical category, and there is little to no evidence to suggest that asexual people are targeted for hate crimes. Furthermore, the study of 140 Canadian college students hardly merits the statement that "discrimination against them has been compared to that faced by other sexual minorities". A more accurate statement would be "discrimination against them has been compared to that faced by other sexual minorities by a mostly-female group of 140 Canadian college students who were paid $5 to take a survey".

I am new to editing on Wikipedia and simply wanted to educate myself on what the additional letters on LGBTQIA mean. The way this article is written is the reason why most people don't take this stuff seriously, because writers on this topic try to frame the group as victims of oppression, rather than maintain neutrality in stating the facts. Is it so radical to simply state that asexual hate crimes are extremely rare? And doesn't it strike anyone else as ridiculous to say that sex education programs are biased against asexual people - the purpose of sex education is to inform young people how to safely have sex, it is absurd to posit that biology teachers are encouraging students to have sex and therefore excluding asexual people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queshav (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There's a lot to unpack here, but why don't we go and throw away the whole suitcase labelled "the reason people don't take asexual people seriously is just because they're being presented wrong"? Because let me tell you, if someone doesn't take asexual people seriously anyway, there's no amount of rewriting of a Wikipedia article that could dissuade them from doing so. It's playing into model minority myths to imagine that there is some way we can "perfectly" present asexual people that will annihilate viewpoints that don't take it seriously; there will always be some minor flaw giving them a "reason" not to believe they exist.
 * As more experienced Wikipedia editors, I'd hope that we can recognise that simply because discrimination against one minority isn't directly 1:1 comparable to that of another minority, it doesn't automatically disparage that discrimination. It's true that homophobia isn't going to be directly comparable to aphobia; however, this really doesn't matter. Discrimination isn't a binary scale of least to worst, and we should do well to recognise its multifaceted nature.
 * For example: an asexual person may never face the same kind of "it's disgusting!" application of discrimination to their sexuality that a gay person might face. However, what they may face is being called a robot, creepily childish, emotionless, a vegetable, a freak, or have their - for the most part pretty fulfilled, as sexual attraction has just never been a part of their life, and so there is no gaping hole in the shape of a sexuality - life called "pointless" or "sad". Depending on their culture, they may face considerable pressure to get married and have children. When dating, if they experience romantic attraction or just want a platonic partner, they may be faced with threats of coercive rape - "I can turn you", "You don't know until you've tried it", "You'd like it with me" - and so on.
 * You bring up sex education as only to educate people on having safe sex, but this forms only a part of sex education. A decent sex education, which I wish I had had, teaches young people about the myriad ways in which human sexuality is expressed. By not teaching a young person with little access to resources or representation of asexual people about the existence of asexual people, they may simply go about the rest of their teenage years feeling like a freak of nature, a fluke, and the relentless pressure of a society that paints sex as the be-all and end-all of all relstionships. If I had been taught that you do not have to take sex as a given in a relationship, and that a good partner respects this, then I can count a number of partners I should've ideally walked away from - but felt pressured to engage with sexually, frightened that expressing my boundaries would lead to loneliness and outright rejection.
 * Just because discrimination against asexual people is a little-studied topic, and just because it presents differently to other forms of sexual discrimination, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't require all forms of discrimination to be directly comparable for them to be notable topics on Wikipedia. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ineffablebookkeeper for that brilliant explanation. I completely understand and agree with what you are saying, and really appreciate you taking the time to educate me on this issue. Also my sincerest apologies for the tone I took with my earlier statement, my frustration was mostly with the study and I should not have grasped at something else to throw in there without understanding it better. -- (Queshav) 22:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's not a problem not knowing something - the only problem is if someone shows they don't wanna learn. I see a worrying number of young queer kids engaging in exclusionist stuff these days - if we don't recognise asexual people, we'll be accepted, if we don't recognise nonbinary people, we'll be accepted, etc - so I apologise if it sounds like I came down a bit hard on you; it's just something I get nervous to nip in the bud.
 * I have to admit, the sex ed I got was piss poor. I might talk about what sex ed in schools should be, but that's because I had to teach myself most of this stuff - hell, the only reason I didn't freak out when I found out I was trans was because I'd educated myself on trans issues online so much that I didn't care. If I'd only been relying on the sex ed I got in high school for that, I'd be in a much worse place.
 * Fact is, studies of any kind on asexual people in society are rare, and mostly studies into the data we want just don't exist. Now, I'm hoping with the recent UK census, and its updated questions on sexuality, we might actually get some numbers for the first time, but it's still basic. Not many people know that discrimination against asexual people looks so different, but can be so damaging. I'm hoping that changes.
 * One source I did find recently was this article put out by the UK Guardian, which you might want to take a look at. I might see if I can put it into this article anywhere. It's a good starter explanation for asexuality and asexual experiences.
 * I hope this helps. In the future, if you want to tag me in something, instead of linking my user page - which is helpful, but doesn't notify me - you can use this template: - and it'll let me know I've been mentioned.
 * Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia - and don't worry about slipping up in your early days. God knows I'm still clearing up mistakes I've made, but becoming a stronger editor takes time; all that's necessary to start is a willingness to learn. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link to the article and for giving me valuable perspective on all this. I did not feel like you came down on me at all, in fact quite the opposite - it was very well-written and made complete sense.
 * The truth is that I am reading about all this for the first time, from a newcomer's perspective, as I was never educated on this either. I really do appreciate you taking the time to write back to me in such detail, and hope to pass this newfound understanding on to others.
 * Also completely agree with you that better data can be collected on this. -- (Queshav) 13:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaelyn.romero504. Peer reviewers: Mckeownshea.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

the term aphobia
aphobia is when someone has a prejudice against every aspec orientation not only asexual people. it also includes aromantic aplatonic analterous anaesthetic folks etc so i recommend adding that definition in so it wont cause any misunderstanding Mivoei (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation issues
I've noticed there seems to be multiple sources of unacceptable standards as according to Wikipedia guidelines (i.e. blog posts, and a Meetup link). There is also what appears to be, intentional or otherwise, padding of sources by repeatedly citing the same stories and links in proximity to each other. I may be wrong, but I feel as though this is not up to Wikipedia article standards. 216.164.51.40 (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * agreed, added notability template. Tdmurlock (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

no reason to have this article in the "Discrimination against LGBT people" category
Sources indicate asexuals themselves are adamant they are not inherently part of the LGBT community. Perhaps the "discrimination against lgbt people" category should be changed to "LGBTQIA+" but as the category stands, the category does not fit this article. Tdmurlock (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I would support renaming the category and infoboxes to be abundantly inclusive and clear. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * okay, until that renaming has taken place, I will remove the category in question. Tdmurlock (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Egads, that's not what I said, I said I'd support renaming but not necessarily that I'd agree to category removal in the meanwhile, and there's other discussion still ongoing at the Talk:LGBT page too. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources in this article indicate that the topic is a complicated. Both "Asexuals Shouldn't Be Excluded From Queer Spaces, Especially Pride" and "LGBT, Asexual Communities Clash Over Ace Inclusion" describe instances where asexual and aromantic individuals wish to included in the LGBT umbrella.  "Asexual Borderlands: Asexual Collegians' Reflections on Inclusion Under the LGBTQ Umbrella" describes conflicting opinions between those who do wish to be included in LGBT, and those who do not.  While there appears to be no hard statistics on what percentage wants to be included and what percentage does not, that a significant portion of the asexual and aromantic communities sees their communities as part of the LGBT community suggests that it is a relevant topic to the larger LGBT studies, and therefore should be included in this category. Panian513 22:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panian513 (talk • contribs)

WP:POV issue
"Sherronda J. Brown of Wear Your Voice stated that some people who oppose the inclusion of asexual people in the LGBT community have been known to argue that asexuals are not discriminated against at all, and that asexual people experience straight privilege. Brown criticized this view as erasing the asexual identity on the assumption that asexual people are fraudulent infiltrators of the LGBT community, and because it assumes that everyone is straight unless proven otherwise." The piece referenced here is an obvious opinion piece from a, frankly, non-notable figure. Infact, half of, if not most of the articles referenced on this article are fairly blatant opinion pieces with an axe to grind against "Allosexual" LGBT people. Tdmurlock (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say the POV issue here is yourself in regards to asexuality and Wikipedia. On your Talk page, you've been warned over edits that show you have your axe to grind when editing articles about asexuality; including removing the Categories "Asexuality" and "Pansexuality" from the article LGBT – as the editor who commented on your edits stated, in contradiction to the reliable sources used on that article. You stated it was a technicality about the table being titled LGBT and not LGBTQIA or LGBTQIA+, but I think I'm right in reading this as a bad faith response you yourself wouldn't believe.
 * I've been through the sources of this article; they don't read as opinion pieces for the most part. There's an article in Gay Star News speaking to someone who works with AVEN; there's an article speaking with the head of the Asexual Aromantic Alliance; the VICE piece an opinion piece, I'll give you that, but the piece after it isn't, as it gives sources throughout; the comicsverse source is also an opinion piece, which I think could probably go, and the HuffPo blog post I don't think we count as reliable anymore either; however the source after that is a dissertation, the one after that a book, and so on. Throughout there are sources from academic journals on discrimination against asexual folk, and reliable news pieces on the same issue as well.
 * Though there are a few opinion pieces in the sources listed, it's not enough to discredit the entire premise of this article by a shot.
 * I think your point isn't that these are opinion pieces – an opinion piece is the author alone giving their own view, whereas most of these are news articles featuring interviews and other sources – it's that they feature views you don't think are valid.
 * You've been given an introduction to contentious topics, which I strongly suggest you read, as a new editor jumping in to right great wrongs is unlikely to be taken well, particularly when they're unsupported edits that show a heavy bias against the current consensus of a well-sourced article. Please read the guidelines on editing contentious topics and take them to heart.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit to add: you've also removed the LGBT category from other articles to do with asexuality, such as Yasmin Benoit, and seem to have a preoccupation with divorcing asexuality and the LGBT umbrella. As such, I don't think the suggestion that this article is poorly-sourced is worth listening to. Please keep in mind that further tendentious editing like this may result in a temporary or permanent ban from Wikipedia.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 18:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)