Asexuality is not real

The argument

Proponents of this argument hold that asexuality is not a sexual orientation at all, and that the case for including asexual people in the LGBTQ+ community therefore rests on a category error. Sexual orientation, on this view, describes the direction of a person's attraction — towards men, women, both or neither sex specifically. An absence of attraction is not a direction; it is a state, in the way that not having an appetite is not a cuisine. The argument continues that an absence of sexual attraction usually has more ordinary explanations than a distinct orientation. Libido varies enormously between people and across a lifetime, and clinically low desire has recognised medical causes: hormonal conditions, depression, medication side effects, chronic illness and the aftermath of trauma. Medicine has historically treated persistently absent desire as a treatable condition rather than an identity. Others who report no attraction, proponents suggest, may simply be young, late-developing or yet to encounter the right circumstances, and many people who once identified as asexual later revise that description. Finally, this argument treats the rapid growth of asexual self-identification — largely online and among the young — as evidence of a social identity being adopted rather than an innate orientation being discovered. Where gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender identities describe enduring patterns of attraction or gender, asexuality on this account describes the absence of an experience, which anyone can claim and no one can verify. If asexuality is not a real orientation, the argument concludes, there is no basis for adding it to the LGBTQ+ community.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Some people do not get those feelings inside them when they like someone or love someone. Asexuality is real. It is not in our "nature" to be attracted to someone. It is in our head. Some people don't ever experience those thoughts in their head. Some people experience it a lot. Some people a little. Some not at all. It is all based on the specific person. Asexuality should be included in the LGBTQ+ society and you know why? Because there is a plus on the end of that. It already is a part of it. Your attraction to someone is not limited to specific categories. Asexuality already is a part of the community.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The direction-versus-state distinction is stipulated rather than argued: orientation is standardly defined as the pattern of a person's attraction, and "to no one" is a pattern — the same reasoning would exclude any orientation characterised partly by whom a person is not attracted to. [Rejecting P2] Clinically low desire is a recognised diagnosis precisely because it is defined by distress and by departure from a person's own baseline, whereas asexuality as reported is lifelong, stable and not distressing to the person — which is how research and clinical guidance already tell the two apart. [Rejecting P3] Inclusion does not turn on the classificatory question in any case: the community is defined by shared experience of falling outside a presumed norm, which is what the acronym's plus sign exists to accommodate.