A is for Asexuality
With an increased focus on the inclusion of people with diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities, and Expressions (SOGIE) or LGBTQA+ people in international development and aid, we should know what those initialisms are, right?[1] So often, I see people using the LGBTQA+ initialisms without really knowing or understanding them and not considering how our practice needs to change to be more inclusive of people who identify or have behaviours that align with the A.
Recently, I started to notice when and how people use the A, — often as a mandatory initial, without any distinction between this type of sexual orientation — or lack thereof, and therefore necessarily making assumptions that asexuality is included and considered in the rights, needs, inclusion, and participation of diverse SOGIE people in international development. That is not to say that the A is necessarily new; people have used the A in the acronym for at least several years. However, as with many others, I have not spent the necessary time and energy considering what the A is and what it means for my international development practice. I know that many practitioners in the aid space haven’t heard of asexuality or ever met anyone who identifies as asexual and has not considered the impact this has on asexual people and our work as social inclusion specialists.
What is the A, and how is it relevant to social inclusion practice in international development and aid?
Globally, sexuality is seen as an expected and indeed compulsory part of anyone’s life and identity. People grow up, get married, have children… etc. Since the 1980s, feminist theory has theorised compulsory heterosexuality, and disability studies have since widened that notion to see how it interacts with compulsory able-bodiedness. The initial A in LGBTQA+ represents the term Asexuality, which is an emerging identity category that challenges the common assumption that sexual attraction defines everyone.
I don’t know with surety its relevance to the international development and aid sector, as I can find no research on the intersection of development/aid and asexuality; however, after doing a small amount of reading (which was global north-focused) on asexuality blog posts, and the excellent book, Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex by Angela Chen, I have learnt that asexuality is much more complex than I had assumed. After a small amount of reading and consideration, I have decided to start the conversation. In this blog post, I make many assumptions about how asexual people may face discrimination and exclusion in the aid space and have created some recommendations on how we can be more inclusive of people who are asexual.
What is Asexuality?
Alongside homosexuality, bisexuality/pansexuality and heterosexuality, asexuality is a sexual orientation. If someone is asexual (commonly referred to as ‘aces’), I believe that they did not experience sexual attraction/desire toward individuals of any gender. However, I now understand that different aces have different levels of tolerance towards seeing, hearing, thinking and participating in sexual activities. The asexual community exists along a spectrum, and while some asexual people do not experience any sexual attraction and desire, there are sub-groups under the asexual umbrella, such as demisexuals who only experience sexual desire due to an emotional connection with others and grey-sexuals who only experience minimal levels of sexual attraction. I also learnt that that an asexual person may choose to engage in sexual behaviours for various reasons, even while not experiencing sexual attraction/desire.
Sometimes, we allos/allosexuals (people who are not asexual) may confuse asexuality with celibacy, but asexuality is very different from celibacy. Celibacy is about denying or deciding not to engage in sexual activity, regardless of your sexual orientation.
The fact that asexual people are making themselves more visible in our highly sexualised global society provides a basis for deep consideration. If a group is coalescing around identity or shared experiences that are considered atypical to the social norm, we should stop and listen to them because if it is atypical and against social norms, some discrimination and stigma are usually present.
Compulsory Sexuality
Just as those with diverse sexualities (for example, people who identify as homosexual or bisexual/pansexual) are typically familiar with the term compulsory heterosexuality, people who are asexual are using the term compulsory sexuality. The term compulsory sexuality refers to the way social institutions assume and privilege sexualities while marginalising asexuality. Compulsory sexuality is so prominent in our cultures that, despite it being glaringly obvious, it is a message often unconsciously consumed. In songs, movies, television shows, books, and virtually every other form of media, the assumption is that every human wants sex and that sex is the ultimate form of physical gratification. This is understood as the “sex myth.” The sex myth is twofold: the notion that sex is everywhere, and we are saturated in it, and the belief that sex is the most thrilling and pleasurable experience a human can engage in. Thus, anyone who doesn’t partake in sex is thought to be fundamentally lacking. Due to this notion of compulsory sexuality, asexual people sometimes face discrimination both inside and outside the LGBT community.
I am now led to believe that while anti-discrimination policies within aid organisations cite ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘sexuality’ as protected characteristics (and I have written a few of these policies myself), in reality, the protections were not created with consideration of asexual persons.
Conversation Therapy
Just like many people in the diverse SOGIE community, conversation therapy is a concern for asexual people. The assumption that everyone is sexual and that sexual activity is increasingly being described as healthy and important for well-being (which it is for many people, and a step forward from sexuality in development being about disease, infections and trauma) can have devastating effects on asexual people. Conversation therapy to ‘fix’ asexual people can include hormone testing, invasive physical examinations, use of invasive physical devices, coercive mental health interventions, and medications, alongside non-clinical, religious, and culturally specific interventions in misguided attempts to fix their orientations. Rather like lesbians, asexual people have been subjected to corrective rape[2]. This is a clear example of systemic oppression, coercion, prejudice, invalidation and shaming, and can cause devastating harm to asexual people’s mental and physical health.
Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Services (MHPSS)
People with diverse SOGIE historically have a complicated relationship with mental health services. On the one hand, diverse SOGIE experiences of pathologisation and criminalisation have been linked to psychological diagnosis. On the other hand, the discrimination and stigma experienced by institutions, family and society in general lead to poor mental health and the need for mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS).
Nearly 50 years ago, gay, lesbian and bisexual activists achieved what was called the “greatest gay victory” of the time: successfully pushing members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove the diagnosis of homosexuality from the official classification of mental illnesses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Declassification, as the years-long effort was known, culminated in 1973, when in May, people with diverse SOGIE voices were heard at the annual APA conference, and later, the APA Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM. The change signalled that there was not an inherent link between mental illness and homosexuality[3].
However, the DSM has consistently assumed that the absence of sexual desire is not normative. According to Leslie Margolin, the current DSM offers diagnoses such as male hypoactive sexual desire disorder and female sexual interest/arousal disorder, which have, as their primary symptom, absent/low sexual interest/desire/arousal. One of the unfortunate consequences of treating absent/low sexual desire as a mental disorder is that it perpetuates the false belief that those who experience their sexuality differently than the heterosexual norm are less healthy and more dysfunctional. It is also troubling because of the implied gender bias: women are more likely to experience absent/low sexual interest/desire/arousal than men and more likely to be diagnosed with a sexual interest/desire/arousal disorder. There has been a slight change; self-identified asexual people and those who experience a ‘lifelong lack of sexual desire’ are now excluded from the category of disordered– they should not be diagnosed with a mental disorder — relative to individuals who experience absent/low sexual desire but who do not identify as lifelong asexuals[4]. However, in the world of compulsory sexuality and the lack of CSOs that focus on the experience and rights of asexual people, many asexual people may not know that there is a name to the feelings they have and that those feelings are normal.
The two-tiered classification system, which treats self-identified asexual people as normal and others with absent/low sexual desire as mentally disordered, may seem like progress to some, but it has a serious downside. The main problem is that while it appears to support the normality of self-identified asexual people, it also rejects the normality of those who do not identify as asexual, even though the latter may score similarly low on sexual interest/desire.[5] By implication, under this classification system, other marginalised sexual identities on the ace spectrum who may have low sexual desire but do not identify as asexual (e.g. demisexuals) could be seen as mentally disordered.
This is all worth noting as it speaks to the overriding bias of compulsory sexuality and the complicated relationship between MHPSS and asexual people are likely to have.
Research is increasingly showing that asexual people experience significant barriers to good mental health, as well as accessing barriers to appropriate person-centred mental health care.[6] While in some countries, asexual activists have been some process in protecting the rights of asexual people, with anti-discrimination laws, I imagine that few countries in the world protect the rights of asexual people. Alongside the shadow of continued pathologisation, the lack of awareness, the discriminatory attitudes in alignment with compulsory sexuality, and the relatively social invisibility of potential health, social and safety risks people who identify as asexual may face, MHPSS would be both essential and potentially harmful, unhelpful and alienating for asexual people in aid contexts.
Discrimination in the Asylum Seeker Process
In March 2018, the Dutch Council of State refused an asylum application by an Algerian national who feared being persecuted due to his asexuality, stating that asexuality doesn’t fall under the LGBT umbrella, exception to the safe country of origin concept because it is not punishable in Algeria and that asexual people are not discriminated against there. The ruling was overturned by the District Court of the Hague, which said that asexuality does fall under the exception because they considered social discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation to include “deviation from traditional relationships as well as sexual acts”[7]. This is a single case that was publicised; however, what the general experiences of asexual people have in seeking asylum are unknown.
The role of the family.
It is my belief that regardless of diverse SOGIESC inclusion being the new cool kid on the aid system block, the aid system perpetuates heteronormativity in its programming and projects through the understanding of the heterosexual nuclear family as a basic component of society.
This is seen in how our societies and institutions prioritise relationships of husband/wife and parent-child. In fact, in some places, marriages can be voided if not legitimised by sex. This can be viewed as discriminatory to asexuals. Social structures are often predicated on family, and resource-sharing is often based on relationship/family structures. Aid is also often distributed through nuclear family structures, and what impact that has on single people, who may or may not be asexual, is less known. That is not to say that asexuals (like others in the diverse SOGIE communities) may not have chosen families that provide material and psychosocial support. Still, without a legal basis, these relationships are often trivialised and not considered when accessing aid and collecting data.
The role of the family is an important aspect of resource accumulation. Let’s assume that many asexual peopleare single. They may not accumulate resources at the same rate as people in family structures, indicating higher poverty levels. As ascertained earlier, this is speculation on my part, but it is something to consider in our approach to aid distribution and social inclusion.
Another assumption that can be made is that in a world where approximately 300 million people do not have enough humanitarian assistance and protection[8], those in nuclear family structures are often prioritised in relation to accessing emergency shelter, food and water distribution, livelihoods programs and a whole host of other forms of aid. Thus, asexual people will be one group of people who are increasingly disadvantaged in humanitarian responses.
A last note on the family: with the globally diverse SOGIE communities having an increased focus on marriage equality and reproductive rights, asexual people may not always feel included in the broader LGBTQ+ movement-building activities, and their issues and concerns may not be prioritised.
Sexual Health and Reproductive Rights Programming
Limited research shows that people who are known to be, or suspected to be, asexual are at risk of increased risk of hate crimes, including rape and sexual assault[9]. This is particularly true for asexual women[10]. How are we delivering rape support to people that are asexual? What SRHR services, programmes and supports do asexual people need?
This leads me to ask a myriad of other questions. If we make the assumption of asexual people getting married and having children (due to family or social pressure or because they choose to), we need to consider the way we deliver SRHR services. Are sexual activities engaged in with consent? Are asexual peopleengaging with SRHR services or finding it challenging to access services that centre sexual activity as natural and normal? What about asexual people who are not interested in getting married and having children? What types of messaging are we delivering to asexual people in SRHR programming when engaging in programming that supports the assumption of compulsory sexuality? How are we considering the messaging we deliver when we move to a stance of sexuality and wellness or well-being? What about the programmes about sex education, often called comprehensive sexuality education CSE? Are we perpetuating a position of compulsory sexuality? How do we navigate sexual rights and sexuality in places that limit women and people with diverse sexualities?
As a social inclusion advisor to Plan International’s My Body My Future 2 SRHR programme and a global, diverse SOGIE specialist, I do not know the answers to these questions. Still, I do know that they are important questions the aid system needs to answer.
Localisation and Partnerships
The term localisation has gained increasing awareness over recent years. The idea is simple yet profound: empowering local actors, communities, and organisations to play a central role in humanitarian and development efforts. What does this mean when we need to consider further research and consideration of asexual people in international development efforts? Firstly, we can’t assume that local organisations that focus on the rights of people with diverse sexual orientations include asexuality and asexual people. What we do know is that many informal and online ace groups across the world[11] would be important partners when considering the rights and needs of asexual people in international development and humanitarian contexts. When we have a sustainable development agenda, to leave no one behind, we need to ask ourselves who we are currently leaving behind and who we can connect with to work alongside the community.
Conclusion
There is a case to say that asexual people experience discrimination based on the concept of compulsory sexuality. There is emerging research that indicates people who are asexual experience higher rates of mental ill health and physical and psychological trauma, including through conversation therapy. There has been no research undertaken on the experiences that asexual people have when engaging with the humanitarian and/or international development systems; however, these systems do already operate in ways that are heteronormative, and asexuality has not been addressed in aid organisations or the system itself. I have developed a series of logical recommendations to help aid organisations and practitioners start to address this gap and take a step closer to leaving no one behind.
Recommendations
For aid actors to show powerful cultural and social leadership by making a strong public statement in support of asexual rights and the de-pathologisation of asexuality and then taking real unapologetic action to bring social change in their area.
Establish, fund and support research into the rights, needs, experiences and strengths of asexual people in humanitarian and international development contexts.
Ensure that aid agencies are not inadvertently supporting conversation therapy in their mental health or SRHR programmes.
Include asexual survivors of attempted conversation therapy in any programmes associated with supporting the ban of heteronormative and cisnormative conversation therapy.
Establish and support a small targeted asexuality-specific program of support and advocacy to establish momentum for the inclusion of asexual people in humanitarian and development contexts.
Establish, fund and support training and education for staff regarding the inclusion of asexual people and the challenges they face.
Establish and maintain an online directory of asexuality civil society organisations and informal networks to work within your inclusive programming.
[1] I have left out Sex Characteristics/intersex in this blog post, as some particular intersections and differences should be addressed separately.
[2] Dominique Mosbergen (20 June 2013). “Battling Asexual Discrimination, Sexual Violence And ‘Corrective’ Rape”. Huffington Post.
[3]Jack Drescher (2015) Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/
[4] Leslie Margolin (2023) Why is absent/low sexual desire a mental disorder (except when patients identify as asexual)? Psychology and sexuality https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2023.2193575
[5] Angela Chen (2020) Ace: What asexuality reveals about desire, society and the meaning of sex.
[6] For example, Lijun Zheng, Yanchen Su (2022) Sexual Minority Identity and Mental Health Among Individuals on the Asexuality Spectrum in China: A Longitudinal Study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35994176/
[7] (2018) Netherlands: Council of State rules that asexual applicants do not fall under the exception for LGBTI people in the application of the “safe country of origin” concept”. European Database of Asylum Law.
[9] Chelsea Hood (2022) Sexual Violence Against the Asexual Community https://mcasa.org/newsletters/article/sexual-violence-against-the-asexual-community
[10] Amanda L Mollet, and Wayne Black (2023) Coercive Rape Tactics Perpetrated Against Asexual College Students (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/884291#:~:text=Mollet%20and%20Black%20(2021)%20found,sexual%20experiences%20during%20their%20lifetimes
[11] The Asexual Visability and Education Network https://www.asexuality.org/en/
