Asexual-spectrum identities – ‘invisible’ yet contested
The Asexual and Aromantic Spectrum: An Introduction to Identities on the Asexual and Aromantic Spectrums’, as discussed by LGBT Youth Scotland
In the last of our ECR Spotlight Series posts for this year, PhD student Alex Nevins shares what they worked on during the Academic Writing for the Public workshops— a blog sketching the often contested terrain around asexuality.
Asexual-spectrum definitions
For many, ‘asexuality’ may seem simple to define, as alluded to within a Sky Data Poll indicating that 53% of participants felt they could accurately define the term. However, 75% of these participants were regarded to be incorrect in their understandings, with many not realising that asexual-spectrum (ace-spec) people may experience a sex drive.
The definition outlined by Michael Doré – ‘asexuality signifies those who experience little or no sexual attraction’ – may be preferable for some, owing to the discretion deferred to individuals in self-identifying with asexuality. However, the use of the phrase ‘little or no’ has also been a point of debate within AVEN forums.
Definitions of asexual-spectrum (ace-spec) identities are by no means universally accepted, with definitions commonly appearing as sites of contestation and “…vary[ing] across the academic literature”. ‘Asexuality’ has thus been regarded as “…existing along a fluid continuum…,” subject to consistent renegotiation, with there being “…no singular definition of “normal” asexuality…”.
Considering these ongoing debates and uncertainties, my research adopts Dore's open-ended definition of ‘asexuality,’ emphasising self-identification as a core guiding principle. This approach informs the structure of my project, which will involve interviewing ace-spec individuals to explore their perspectives on potential pathways of recognition. My research aims to assess whether there is a desire among ace-spec individuals for formal legal recognition—such as inclusion under the definition of ‘sexual orientation’ in the Equality Act 2010—or whether alternative approaches may better address the needs and aspirations of ace-spec communities.
Asexuality and the Equality Act
Ace-spec identities appear to not be explicitly recognised in the Equality Act 2010’s definition of ‘sexual orientation’, which is stated as: “…a person's sexual orientation towards- (a) persons of the same sex, (b) persons of the opposite sex, or (c) persons of either sex”. As a result, it remains unclear whether individuals who face harassment, victimisation, or discrimination based on their ace-spec identities would be considered to possess a 'protected characteristic' under the Act for the purpose of pursuing non-discrimination claims.
In February 2021, when asked by Darren Jones (MP for Bristol North West) if there were any plans “…to update the Equality Act 2010 to include asexuality as a protected characteristic…”, Kemi Badenoch, then Minister for Women and Equalities, responded that her department had:
However, it is unclear as to how closely this statement aligns with the experiences of ace-spec people themselves, particularly with Stonewall’s 2023 Ace in UK report referring to the 2018 Government Equalities Office: National LGBT Survey’s indication that:
In my project, I will explore potential legal avenues for recognising ace-spec identities, assessing whether broadening the Equality Act’s definition of "sexual orientation" could be a viable solution, or if alternative frameworks might better address the needs and desires of ace-spec communities.
The Equality Act’s current definition of ‘sexual orientation’—"towards persons of the same sex, opposite sex, or either sex"—does not explicitly include ace-spec or non-sexual identities. However, there remains uncertainty regarding whether ace-spec identities could be implicitly protected, perhaps akin to how the absence of a religion is recognised as a protected characteristic. This ambiguity invites the possibility of strategic litigation to clarify whether ace-spec identities could be recognised as an "absence" of sexual orientation under the Act.
While such an interpretation might clarify legal protections, framing ace-spec identities as an "absence" of sexual orientation may risk pathologising ace-spec identities by defining them as a deficit or lack of sexual orientation. This framing might limit recognition to those explicitly self-identifying as ‘asexual’ within the confines of these specific, narrow, and absolute terms, potentially overlooking the broader diversity and fluidity of ace-spec experiences and identities.
My research invites further reflection on the norms surrounding sexual orientation in law, particularly where ‘allonormative’ assumptions—defined by Mollet and Lackman as: “...a worldview that assumes all people experience sexual and romantic attraction”—may perpetuate notions of ‘compulsory sexuality’. Rather than simply assimilating ace-spec identities into existing legal frameworks, reimagining legal understandings of sexuality and sexual orientation by challenging allonormative assumptions may enable the development of more inclusive and comprehensive equality protections that more readily account for non-traditional orientations and identities.
Whether ace-spec identities are best situated within the framework of "sexual orientation" or as something else entirely remains uncertain. I hope that my ongoing research and interviews will shed light on this issue, providing insight into how ace-spec identities may be most appropriately and effectively recognised.
Asexuality and Queerness
Discussing ace-spec identities as definitionally dynamic may encourage assumptions that ace-spec identities fit comfortably and openly within Queer spaces. However, ace-spec identities’ relationship with queerness itself may be a point of contention, with the 2021 Ace Community Survey Summary Report outlining that “…[l]ess than a third of ace respondents identified as queer (28.7%)” and the 2014 AVEN Community Census reporting that “…only 11.4% of participants felt unconditionally welcomed by the ‘Queer/LGBTQ+Community’”.
Further research will be fundamental to understanding ace-spec individuals’ perspectives of queerness and their desires of participation within Queer communities. Developing participant-centred, contextually guided understandings of ace-spec individuals' desires will therefore be crucial for ensuring that both advocacy and allyship of ace-spec identities can be appropriately considerate and truly representative of ace-spec individuals themselves.
Ace-spec lived-experiences
To understand the pressures faced by ace-spec people, it is important to consider why they may feel hesitant to disclose their identities and why so few feel "unconditionally welcomed by the ‘Queer/LGBTQ+Community’”. This hesitancy is especially significant when viewed alongside the 2018 Government Equalities Office: National LGBT Survey’s finding that among cisgender respondents “pansexual or asexual people had the lowest scores (both 5.9) [out of ten]” with respectto ‘life satisfaction.’
My research therefore seeks to explore whether, and to what extent, the lack of formal legal recognition, coupled with limited societal awareness and broader acknowledgment, contributes to findings of lower life satisfaction among ace-spec individuals. By exploring these intersecting factors, the study aims to shed light on the broader social and legal barriers that may impact the well-being of ace-spec communities.
Limited visibility of ace-spec identities in public discourse may harmfully restrict the perceived feasibility and legitimacy of ace-spec identities, with lacking awareness likely contributing to “…one of the common forms of discrimination levelled against asexual people: erasure”. Ace-spec erasure may extend into medical practices also, where ace-spec identities are commonly pathologised. Medical practitioners’ restricted knowledge of ace-spec identities may lead to assumptions rooted in “...preconceived notions about sexuality…,” which may further undermine the perceived legitimacy of ace-spec identities.
A key concern in this context is the unclear distinction between ace-spec identities and ‘hypoactive sexual desire disorder’ (HSDD), as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), distinguished arbitrarily based on one’s experience of ‘subjective distress’. This distinction may fail to recognise that distress can stem from societal invalidation or an absence of affirming recognition, rather than from the identity itself. This oversight fails to meaningfully engage with the lived-experiences of ace-spec individuals, and neglects to acknowledge the broader societal factors contributing to distress. It also ignores the possibility that “...distress arises before an asexual has discovered an asexual community and experienced validation from others who can relate to their experiences.”
If you wish to read further on asexual-spectrum identities or wish to access support services, you may wish to consult resources such as: asexualoutreach.org, the Asexual Visibility Education Network, the Asexuality Archive, MindOut and Switchboard.
Author bio
Alex Nevins is a PhD candidate at the University of Edinburgh’s School of Law. Their research explores the intersection of asexual-spectrum identities and law, with a particular focus on critically examining frameworks such as the Equality Act 2010 and exploring pathways for enhanced legal and social inclusion.
Alex has presented their work at various conferences, including the Feminist and Queer Spatialities: Care, Connection and Change conference at University College Dublin, the Activism, Change and Feminist Futures: Remembering the Past to Reimagine the Future conference at the University of Liverpool. In addition to their research, Alex convenes the Criminal Law Discussion Group and teaches on the Understanding Gender in the Contemporary World course at the University of Edinburgh.