• southerntofu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    I agree with you, however i don’t know of any structural oppression against asexuality? I mean there’s strong incentives to have children and there may be interpersonal judgement around the topic but i don’t believe anyone has “mandatory sexual relationships” on their political agenda. Am i missing something?

    • zeroaesthetic
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      No, there’s no structural oppression against asexuality, but there’s also no structural oppression against heterosexuality, and the latter is explicitly mentioned as a sexual orientation in the bill.

      • southerntofu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        Don’t you believe the addition of hetero and bi sexuality explicitly in the list was calculated to defuse progressive/reactionary opposition in advance? If heterosexuality wasn’t on there people on the right would have claimed “it’s a secret lgbt plot to criminalize heterosexuality”, or at least i believe so

        but i see your point thanks, not trying to nitpick :)

        • zeroaesthetic
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 years ago

          Uh, no, I think they were included in the list because it would be incorrect to say that sexual orientation just means homosexuality. (And why do you lump hetero- and bisexuality together? Bisexuality is still a form of queerness.)

        • pingveno
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 years ago

          Heterosexuality is listed because leaving it out would open the bill up to equal protections challenges.