МОЙ БЛОГ

They even mention the obvious meaning behind what asexuality is:

• Not about being """pure"""

• Not a choice

• NOT MEANT TO VILLIFY PEOPLE WHO ARE SEXUAL

• Relating sexually to no one, but also includes libido being natural, and masturbation being normal

This has been written by and for the asexual community for decades. Claiming that asexuality is a trend, or is fake, or is just a new random term is clearly being ignorant at best, and bigoted at worst.

"B-but what about them being LGBT(Q+)?"

The "Off Our Backs" activists back in the 70s had included asexual people in their promotion of choosing a label for yourself rather than society doing it for you (image above).

Myra Johnson's essays and papers in "The Sexually Oppressed" talks and includes asexual women and their harassment. She also has written about the lack of representation and acknowledgement of asexuality as a whole, published in 1977. This essay was included with many sexualities in this documentation of sexuality as a whole.

Toby, an alias for Jim Sinclair, was interviewed at the time for being androgynous and "nonsexual", and was repeatedly harassed for it once his coworkers found out, forcing him into hiding. The interview took place in 1989.

New York's "Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act" is still the only piece of legislation in the world that includes and mention asexuality, which was passed only in 2002.

Articles, polls, essays, research into asexuality has been piling up over the decades of asexual history, only now to be denied by people who aren't even old enough to be there?

Hundreds of accounts of abuse, trauma and sexual assault based on the victim being asexual are passed off as misogyny by apologists, and easily speak over victims. Is this ok behavior just because someone is asexual? Even if misogyny is a reason for abuse, is intersectionality nonexistent with asexual people?

Doctors and practitioners are downright denying patients medicine because of their orientation, and restrict medicine because of their "fear of developing asexual tendencies" as if it's a disease. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Asexual people have been cast aside and thrown into the back burner for far too long. It isn't a game to debate people out of existence. It isn't funny to invalidate and harass a marginalized orientation. You don't actually care about LGBT+ ace people if you're actively making fun of them.

We need to stand strong together. When we focus on tearing each other down for not "being oppressed enough", we lose sight on actively fighting off groups that will kill us, regardless if we're lesbian, gay, bi, trans, ace, queer, etc. When that starts happening, they won't care what labels we're using.

It’s not ‘polyester’ it’s plastic

It’s not ‘vegan leather’ it’s plastic

Its not ‘faux fur’ it’s plastic

Plastic is a pollutant and causes far more damage to the environment both now and in the future than leather or wool.

In March 2007, Spain introduced a national policy granting most new fathers two weeks of fully paid paternity leave. The policy proved exceptionally popular, with 55% of men eligible in the first year opting to take the paid time. The amount of leave covered by the program was doubled in 2017 and expanded to five weeks in 2018, with additional increases expected between now and 2021.

Economists studying the effects of the original 2007 policy examined what happened to families that had children just before and just after the program began, and found differences in the outcomes. While the early cohort of men who were eligible for paternity leave were just as likely to stay in the workforce as the men who weren’t eligible, they remained more engaged with childcare after their return to work, and their partners were more likely to stay in the workforce as well. In that sense, the program seems to have done what policy makers would have hoped.

Unexpectedly, though, the researchers also found that families who were eligible for the paternity leave were less likely to have kids in the future. In a study published in the Journal of Public Economics(paywall), economists Lídia Farré of the University of Barcelona and Libertad González of University of Pompeu Fabra estimate that two years on, parents who had been eligible for the newly introduced program were 7% to 15% less likely to have another kid than parents who just missed the eligibility cutoff. While the difference dissipated further into the future, even after six years, parents who had been eligible for the leave were still less likely to have a child again.

The researchers suggest an intriguing reason why.

After paternity leave was instituted, surveys of Spanish men ages 21 to 40 showed they desired fewer children than before. Farré and González think that spending more time with their children—or the prospect of having to do so—may have made men more acutely aware of the effort and costs associated with childrearing, and, as the researchers put it, “shifted their preferences from child quantity to quality.”