Since this blog is getting lots of views from people who want to read about asexuality, I thought I’d make another post on that subject.
I’ve been on the record for a long time as believing that no one knows what asexuality really is. The AVEN definition of asexuality being “the absence of sexual attraction” is based on political considerations rather than science, and even the political considerations are those of LGBT activists rather than asexuals. With LGBT activists rapidly abandoning asexuals and even becoming hostile to us because of what they wrongly perceive as a turf war (but, then, political activists of all types are obsessed with protecting and expanding their turf), it’s time to ditch the AVEN definition and turn to science for a genuine, fact-based understanding of how we are and what makes us work.
A brief discussion of science and sexuality is in order here. For the longest time, hard science inquiries into human sexuality were suppressed by powerful LGBT activists because they were afraid science would try to “cure” them of their sexual orientations if a firm physiological basis for their orientations were discovered. The unavoidable implication was that a person is born with a certain sexual orientation and that orientation is immutable. Lately, however, the theory has spread that sexual orientation is fluid, and there is broader acceptance of the notion that, like everything else, sexual orientation arises from a combination of natural and nurtural factors. This opens the door to exploration of those factors in a rigorously scientific way that can perhaps lead to a true understanding of what asexuality is, rather than a politically motivated pseudo-understanding pulled out of some activist’s butt purely for activism purposes.
That understanding depends on recognizing the existence of the Introspection Illusion. The Introspection Illusion is a well-documented and widely accepted set of about 60 or 70 ways in which people are wrong about ourselves when we think about ourselves. We cannot arrive at an accurate self-understanding purely through introspection. Yet introspection is the foundation of the political doctrine of self-identification, which is the cornerstone of LGBT activism. The dogmatic unchallengeability of self-identification has greatly harmed scientific research into asexuality, as pretty much all research is based on who “self-identifies” as asexual and who “self-identifies” as something else. Pretty much all research into asexuality to date is therefore unreliable; the simple fact is that, when we self-identify, we deceive ourselves in about 60 or 70 well-established ways. I have no problem with LGBT activists keeping their catechistic dogma of self-identification, but, in terms of asexuality, it desperately needs to be got rid of. What needs to replace it is an objective understanding of what it means to be asexual as established through objective evidence.
Creating a brand new approach to scientific research on asexuality that does not begin with self-identification will take a lot of brutally hard conceptual work, as self-identification is an entrenched hot-button dogma that scares scientists. It is, however, work that definitely needs to be done as soon as possible if one of the communities I belong to, that of asexuals, is to gain any genuine self-understanding.