purseowner
Member
When you make it could you post a link here? I'm already subbed to this thread so it would make it easier to find, thanks
Sorry it's late going up - life happened a lot today.
I'll put it up ASAP and link it here.
Why isn't asexuality included in pride?
- Thread starter Hermii
- Start date
Sorry it's late going up - life happened a lot today.
I'll put it up ASAP and link it here.
I had a good think about how to answer this question, but I think it's better to ask someone who is actually asexual to answer how they feel about it. From what I've read, those who have homoromantic feelings tend to feel more part of the queer movement, whereas those who are heteroromantic are felt less involved. Again I don't know this subject very well, so best have an actual person who is asexual answer.
I would define polyamory as more of a sexual minority rather than being queer. The two have different goals (identity vs number of partners), and there are already cultures and countries that have tolerated polyamory practices for many centuries (Islamic practices and concubine culture in East Asia). Compare this with queer people who have struggled throughout most of history for recognition and basic rights. The two are quite different.
purseowner
Member
Love the graphic.
Also, odd side note I know, but why is it that asexuals commonly seem to be Sam & Max fans?!
My username on practically every other site/PSN is a Sam & Max reference and the only other Sam & Max fan I know irl is asexual.
But if someone is asexual and only dates the opposite sex, are they included? I guess I'm still struggling to understand why asexual is viewed as its own sexual identity and not just an extension, much like Poly. Surley you can have straight and queer asexual folk too?
Yeah, what the hell happened to this thread.
This is kinda what I'm talking about. The last thing people want to talk about, when asexuality is the topic, is asexuality.
When people haven't yet raised awareness for it so many still want to say "nah, it's just one of these other letters come on man."
This is kinda what I'm talking about. The last thing people want to talk about, when asexuality is the topic, is asexuality.
When people haven't yet raised awareness for it so many still want to say "nah, it's just one of these other letters come on man."
This is the part I struggle with too. I think it really depends on the person and their experiences. Have they been called out by society and their peers for being abnormal? Or has it not affected their life too much? Again someone who is actually asexual will be better at answering this than me.
Asexuals can be homoromantic, or choose to only date in specific orientations. They exist.
Aarglefarg
Member
If someone bisexual only dates a person of a different sex, or nobody, they are still included.
If a homosexual only dates people of a different sex (or nobody), they are included too.
Same with trans and intersex people.
A heteroromantic asexual isn't exactly straight.
Asexuality isn't separate from being hetero, homo or bi. But I think it's more to do with perspective. Asexual people will have sex for reasons other than having the desire to do so, but their willingness to do so with certain sexes is cut from the same cloth as what makes any of us hetero, homo or bi (I need to find a more condensed way to say that).
purseowner
Member
This is me and I assure you I don't feel I fit into the general category of 'straight'.
Friends queer or otherwise don't consider me such and I have been subject to discrimination both intentionally and unintentionally from strangers and acquaintances based on that fact.
If I'm to "get a grip" then you really ought to consider your arguments and what they mean before you make them.
"It's pointless, and spending a moment caring about this from your perspective does nothing but harm."
" I also find the idea of taking so much issue in the first place with that for the reasons I stated, that ranking how oppressed a subgroup is versus others is unhelpful outside of a context where a determination has to be made about that."
These are your words that I responded to. And while you may not consider this to be a watering down of the history of LGBT people, to take the history of another group that has not gone through nearly the same legal and social struggle and equate them, or say that the differences are not worth discussing, is exactly how the watering down of a marginalized group starts. As a black person I can say It's a trick as old as time. Pointing out the differences between different groups, and their struggles, and their histories, is not "watering down" or "ranking" the different groups. It's accepting that all of these individual groups face different realities despite coming together under the same flag. And your post was among one of several in this thread that went beyond saying that asexualism had a place at pride, and argued that the struggles asexuals face are no different than other groups, or are different in ways that don't matter. After all, even though I stated as much (that I personally believe that asexualism deserves a place at pride), you STILL felt the need to respond to my posts and chastise me for even discussing the differences.
Nah, bruh.
It just seems kind of arbitrary what's included and what isn't. What makes asexual more of a queer/LGBT identity than Poly? All these arguments as to why Poly shouldn't be included seem like they could be applied to asexuality as well. In my own interpretation, the LGBTQ community seeks to redefine the way people think about sexual orientation and gender identity, helping to change the cultural narrative so people who don't fit within that narrative can find acceptance and feel free to be themselves in public. To that end, asexuality and Poly absolutely deserve to be part of that movement.
Aarglefarg
Member
A Link to the Past
Banned
Given that you've replied, again, to a post saying "I didn't say that" by telling me otherwise is more evidence than is necessary that you really do need to get a grip. Christ almighty. Stop looking for fights. But I suppose I'll respond to your cherrypicking.
The first quote was in reply to the fact that no one in this thread has claimed that asexuality in the movement has no differences, and therefore you're just creating an antagonistic situation because of a perceived, nonexistent slight.
The second quote explicitly points out that there exist differences. You actually quote a post where I explicitly say this and then go on to claim that I'm making the opposite argument.
Your replies, at least to me, have been nothing more than silly strawman arguments. You misunderstood my posts and, at this point, find it more effective to double down than say "whoops." If you want to continue to allow yourself to be willfully misinformed of the contents of others' posts, I guess I can't stop you, but it sure as heck isn't beneficial to you. I honestly could have just as well have replied to your entire post with "I didn't say what you think I said, you're constructing an argument against no one." But since you decided to claim that I was engaging in "#AllLivesMatter" type behavior, I think it's fair to really emphasize that you're going on a rant in reply to me for no other reason than you either choosing to read my post how you want or legitimately being unable to understand what I said. I have never once claimed that discussing the differences between oppression of asexual people and gay people is invalid, nor have I ever said that there exists no differences in their oppression. I replied to you saying what I considered problematic things because, from where I am standing, you were bothered by me defending asexuality's place in pride, not what you imagined I said - because I can't know that you simply didn't know what I was saying.
I say we probably have a better sense of humor, how can anyone not love Sam & Max?
Maybe the idea of a character whose main motivation is not love/sexual attraction might be part of that. Sure Max is a psycho who loves violence, but in a way it's a different enough motive. Also, as I said before, maybe it has to do with the jokes themselves, I find that overlysexual jokes get boring really fast for me so lots of stand up comedians bore me, but silly jokes like the ones said by Max resonate a lot more with me.
I see no need to respond to this further. You're the one who labeled my post as promoting infighting and "ranking" oppressed groups (again, these are your words. you can take them back if you want), and I wasn't even the only poster who received your response in that light, soo....If this is all a misunderstanding and you're insisting that your original post didn't mean what I took it to mean, then I apologize. But I'm also scratching my head (doubling down, to you) wondering why you have continuously engaged me all, if we're basically saying the same thing.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Because you've repeatedly, up to this very post, claimed that I wasn't making the argument I was making, and even going as far as making absurd leaps of comparing what I said to #AllLivesMatter.
This is from the first post of yours that prompted a response from me:
"This is a pretty reductive viewpoint. Asexuality is not "eh, I don't really feel like having sex." And it's also reductive to ignore what they face. I mean, in this very thread we had someone express a level of disdain for ace people because of an article about them "being disgusted" by two gay people kissing and therefore not belonging in the group to begin with. The umbrella's coverage shouldn't be defined by oppression Olympics."
And I understand the context by which you used that phrase in your response to blame space, but at the same time, I also don't think you were giving any room to the very valid point blame space made (you waved it off as reductive), when it's actually a point that is at the core of why certain LGBT groups are very protective of what does and does not get included in Pride.
Pride for a lot of people is not just Happy Happy Alternative Sexuality Day. It got its start as a radical action, triggered by the Stonewall Riots, and was meant to be a moment of solidarity and protest for queer groups of people who had been maligned and persecuted. That last one is important, because as far as I know asexuals have never been persecuted in this country.
And so what we have here is an argument between the old guard and the new. Between people who know the history of Pride and want to protect its meaning, and other newer groups that want to expand the tent.
I sit somewhere in the middle (which is why the very first sentence of my first response to you was "I don't personally mind asexuals having a place in Pride"). But I see both arguments, and neither side is being "reductive" here. And if I'm wrong, clarify, but your initial tone towards blame space read to me as, "Oh, fuck that."
We actually had a similar thread pop up in February, with people arguing that Black History Month should be expanded to include all brown people. A very similar schism played out in that thread.
Lol the constant arguments in here are why asexuals of GAF are making a separate community thread from the LGBT one in the first place
If no one wants to have us because we aren't prosecuted enough their vague as hell standards (what does that even mean), so be it
Again the idea of separating who's part of the pride club based on how much they're persecuted is stupid as shit, as trans people face the worst prosecution yet they aren't trying to exclude themselves or anyone else from the pride umbrella
If no one wants to have us because we aren't prosecuted enough their vague as hell standards (what does that even mean), so be it
Again the idea of separating who's part of the pride club based on how much they're persecuted is stupid as shit, as trans people face the worst prosecution yet they aren't trying to exclude themselves or anyone else from the pride umbrella
Ummm, I KNOW transpeople who subscribe to this argument. Hell, I know transpeople who don't think the B should have any place (then again, even they would consider themselves pretty militant. lol) So your argument is very circumstantial. No one group is responsible for this debate. No one group is trying to keep the asexuals out. Everyone is taking part in this discussion to various degrees.
I'm having flashbacks to when a user suggested that Lesbians/queer women get their own thread outside of the regular queer thread because he 'couldn't relate' to their posts lmfaooo
Poor GRIMES
Banned
They have a point though -- there's only so much "ya'll can't have this because of this and that" before you make your own community thread without fearing in-group ostracization.
As far as I'm aware, there's also a Trans thread as well outside of the "main" LGBTQIA+ umbrella thread. I think that the Ls, the Gs, and the Bs can have their own threads too, considering that what each acronym goes through is different from one another enough to warrant it.
As far as I'm aware, there's also a Trans thread as well outside of the "main" LGBTQIA+ umbrella thread. I think that the Ls, the Gs, and the Bs can have their own threads too, considering that what each acronym goes through is different from one another enough to warrant it.
Transgaf has their own community thread also. Given the demographics on GAF its not super surprising that the LGBT GAF thread mostly ended up being gay guys. Given the thing most have in common is their sexuality, most conversation I've seen is something I just don't have any interest in anyway
Personally, I think asexuals having their own thread is more than fair.
Speaking for myself as a gay male, there are ways in which I can easily relate to lesbians or bisexual people, because we share that common thread of what it means to be attracted emotionally and sexually to the same sex. While I stand with asexual people, we don't share that same thread. I couldn't begin to personally understand what it's like to be an asexual person. Much in the same way that there are a LOT of groups out there, over many things (race, gender, sexuality, culture, etc...), that I empathize with but must acknowledge that I don't personally understand and I can't personally relate.
TransGAF has their own thread for similar reasons, to my knowledge.
Speaking for myself as a gay male, there are ways in which I can easily relate to lesbians or bisexual people, because we share that common thread of what it means to be attracted emotionally and sexually to the same sex. While I stand with asexual people, we don't share that same thread. I couldn't begin to personally understand what it's like to be an asexual person. Much in the same way that there are a LOT of groups out there, over many things (race, gender, sexuality, culture, etc...), that I empathize with but must acknowledge that I don't personally understand and I can't personally relate.
TransGAF has their own thread for similar reasons, to my knowledge.
CrocMother
Banned
To be fair, there are asexuals who are emotionally attracted to the same sex. That connection, that asexual=lacking emotion or desire for intimacy, is a misconception.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
The common thread I share with my fellow L's and B's are superficial at best when discussing overarching macro discriminations that each group faces. Further, the Ls have their own, for lack of a better word, "tribes" that they identify each other with, similarly enough to the Gs twinks, bears, etc. The culture around what being a Lesbian is very different from what being Gay is I think, judging from the anecdotes of my L friends. I can't even begin to describe the cultures that Bs have, as I'm not educated on that. But bi erasure is absolutely a thing within queer spaces and I would not be upset had the B community on GAF made their own thread.
Personally as a (more or less) homoromantic trans woman, I dont think that's enough to relate. The way the conversation works is just so different, especially since gay guys (from my experience) tend to play up their attractions in a kind of self parody.
Aarglefarg
Member
I hope that I haven't been misinterpreted as being against a specific ace thread (in conjunction with asexuals being explicitly welcome in the LGBTQIA thread).
CrocMother
Banned
There are asexuals who are in same sex relationships.
...yes which id also love to be given I'm homoromantic
I think you misunderstood. My point is I don't think having same sex emotional relationships and having same sex relationships with both emotion and sex are quite similar enough that one group can entirely relate with the other (of course this is mostly just how I feel and I'm sure other people feel differently)
Aarglefarg
Member
Bi 'tribes' are the same as gay and lesbian ones. Bi twinks, Butch bis, bi bears etc are within the general twink, butch, bear, femme etc subgroups... Or in no groups, of course, just like gays and lesbians.
CrocMother
Banned
Fair enough. I lean the other way, I think the emotional side of things weighs more heavily.
Jesus
I think there are being some points misconstrued throughout this thread that I feel could be corrected. Before I discuss these points I'd like to state straight up that I do not consider myself to be asexual. While I share a lot in common with those who identify as asexual, I don't think I would qualify myself as one. If I had to use a label it would probably be a "grey ace", though I just prefer to think of myself as someone with low libido. So, if someone who does consider themselves asexual (or just anyone in general) would like to correct my points, feel free.
The first thing is that the phrase "cishet" has been used in this thread a lot, starting on the first page, even. For anyone who doesn't know, the phrase stands for cisgender heterosexual*. The idea is that asexual people are cisgender heterosexual which makes some people uneasy about allowing them into the LGBT+ community. The problem with that argument is that asexual people are not heterosexual. The very baseline definition of an asexual is someone who does not feel sexual urges towards males, females, or any other sex/gender. If heterosexual means sexual urges towards those of the opposite sex and homosexual mans urges towards the same sex (with bisexual being attracted to those of both), then asexual would be neither homosexual or heterosexual. It's kind of similar to calling someone an atheist christian. It's just a nonsense phrase.
Secondly, I'd like to lay out the case that those who identify as asexual face more discrimination based on solely being asexual than some would think. I listed out some sources in a previous post and I'd like to delve a little deeper into them.
One paper¹ found that, for instance asexual individuals were seen as less positive, distinctly less human, and less likely to be valued in a social group (ie as a roommate or friend), even relative to other sexual minorities. Another paper² noted that while psychologists were expressly told not to attempt to "fix" homosexuality or a transgender identity, there was no such restriction in trying to "fix" asexuality. Though there was no information on how much this actually affected psychologists decision making process. Then of course there are the disparaging comments, mocking, and self doubt that every person in the LGBT+ community face on a daily basis that is applied to openly asexual people as well.
In a more real, day to day sense, certain people who are asexual have experienced "corrective" rape, and to an even greater deal mocked and disparaged, even going as far as receiving death threats or threats of sexual violence against them³. Though no study has been done on any exact numbers, I would expect that the severity and frequency of these issues to be less than that faced by other members of the LGBT+ community. However, they cannot and should not be ignored.
Indeed, asexuals are a very invisible group, both in being small, and in their actions not leading them to be identified as asexual very much. There tends not to be any verbal or physical signs that someone is asexual. For instance, those who are gay tend to be seen around those of a similar sex in a romantic manner. Those who are transgender usually go through a transition process which allows them to be easily targeted. Asexuals, unless they explicitly state their sexuality, tend not to have these problems. Though that comes at the same time with not being well known, either inside or out of the LGBT community.
*It is possible that the term "cishet" also refers to cisgender heteroromantic, although that is a far less common usage of the term. In that case, it would fit some of the asexual community.
¹MacInnis, Cara C.; Hodson, Gordon (2012). "Intergroup bias toward "Group X": Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals". Group Processes Intergroup Relations. 15 (6): 725–743. doi:10.1177/1368430212442419.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...68430212442419
²Chasin CJ D. (2015), Making Sense in and of the Asexual Community: Navigating Relationships and Identities in a Context of Resistance, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25, 167–180, DOI: 10.1002/casp.2203
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....2203/abstract
³http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/asexual-discrimination_n_3380551.html
http://www.asexualawarenessweek.com/census/SiggyAnalysis-AAWCensus.pdf
The first thing is that the phrase "cishet" has been used in this thread a lot, starting on the first page, even. For anyone who doesn't know, the phrase stands for cisgender heterosexual*. The idea is that asexual people are cisgender heterosexual which makes some people uneasy about allowing them into the LGBT+ community. The problem with that argument is that asexual people are not heterosexual. The very baseline definition of an asexual is someone who does not feel sexual urges towards males, females, or any other sex/gender. If heterosexual means sexual urges towards those of the opposite sex and homosexual mans urges towards the same sex (with bisexual being attracted to those of both), then asexual would be neither homosexual or heterosexual. It's kind of similar to calling someone an atheist christian. It's just a nonsense phrase.
Secondly, I'd like to lay out the case that those who identify as asexual face more discrimination based on solely being asexual than some would think. I listed out some sources in a previous post and I'd like to delve a little deeper into them.
One paper¹ found that, for instance asexual individuals were seen as less positive, distinctly less human, and less likely to be valued in a social group (ie as a roommate or friend), even relative to other sexual minorities. Another paper² noted that while psychologists were expressly told not to attempt to "fix" homosexuality or a transgender identity, there was no such restriction in trying to "fix" asexuality. Though there was no information on how much this actually affected psychologists decision making process. Then of course there are the disparaging comments, mocking, and self doubt that every person in the LGBT+ community face on a daily basis that is applied to openly asexual people as well.
In a more real, day to day sense, certain people who are asexual have experienced "corrective" rape, and to an even greater deal mocked and disparaged, even going as far as receiving death threats or threats of sexual violence against them³. Though no study has been done on any exact numbers, I would expect that the severity and frequency of these issues to be less than that faced by other members of the LGBT+ community. However, they cannot and should not be ignored.
Indeed, asexuals are a very invisible group, both in being small, and in their actions not leading them to be identified as asexual very much. There tends not to be any verbal or physical signs that someone is asexual. For instance, those who are gay tend to be seen around those of a similar sex in a romantic manner. Those who are transgender usually go through a transition process which allows them to be easily targeted. Asexuals, unless they explicitly state their sexuality, tend not to have these problems. Though that comes at the same time with not being well known, either inside or out of the LGBT community.
*It is possible that the term "cishet" also refers to cisgender heteroromantic, although that is a far less common usage of the term. In that case, it would fit some of the asexual community.
¹MacInnis, Cara C.; Hodson, Gordon (2012). "Intergroup bias toward "Group X": Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals". Group Processes Intergroup Relations. 15 (6): 725–743. doi:10.1177/1368430212442419.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...68430212442419
²Chasin CJ D. (2015), Making Sense in and of the Asexual Community: Navigating Relationships and Identities in a Context of Resistance, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25, 167–180, DOI: 10.1002/casp.2203
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....2203/abstract
³http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/asexual-discrimination_n_3380551.html
In a non-scientific survey/census, something like 28% of those that identified as asexual were either homo or bi romantic (22% biromantic, 6% homoromantic), as opposed to just 22% bieng heteroromatnic.
http://www.asexualawarenessweek.com/census/SiggyAnalysis-AAWCensus.pdf
To push back a little, and not to disqualify the work you put into this post, but I think this is somewhat muddying the discussion.
I don't think anybody disputes that asexuals have been socially maligned in ways that are both similar to the larger queer community and unique to them.
But there is a rather hard, clear line between socially maligned, and being persecuted for how one identifies.
And I think how important you think the history of that persecution in the LGBT community is, in part determines where you place in this discussion.
CrocMother
Banned
It only muddies the discussion you are trying to create to compensate for your own insecurities.
Asexuals are always going to have a harder time than homosexuals from a recognition standpoint in that low or nonexistent sex drive *is* a side effect or symptom of many medications or medial disorders. No one has yet come up with a formula that says "you are genuinely asexual, but you are just suffereing from untreated depression or an endocrine disorder or just a heavy cultural hangup", and they're unlikely to any time soon.
I think that's fair, and indeed even tried to mention that in my post. It's a big reason why stuff like corrective rape, death threats, sexual violence threats, etc. bothers me a lot more than any sort of lesser personal discrimination. A big difference between asexual people and other groups is there hasn't been legislation from different governments against them, nor any concerted efforts by some groups to go out of their way to make their lives difficult.
As I've said, I think this is because the ace population tends to be more invisible than other sexual minorities. It's hard to persecute against a group you don't even know you interact with. It's why the majority of the persecution/discrimination comes against asexual people who are move visible and open, rather than those that just kind of go on with their lives (in a way that is by quite less visible than those who are gay or transgender). Not that it makes it much better, but I absolutely agree any conversations should take that into account.
I think most in the ace community acknowledge that they face different issue than others and in many ways issue that tend to be a bit less severe (similar to how every minority group has different problems and degrees of severity from every other group). This post was mostly towards those who were questioning why ace groups have a "seat at the table" at all.
Care to clarify? Because my own insecurities don't come into play here. I've stated multiple times in multiple posts that I don't see anything wrong with asexuals taking part in Pride. But just because that's my own position does not mean there aren't other valid viewpoints that I can see the merit in. Frankly, this seems like something you wanted to say just to be mean.
I'm wading into this discussion because as someone who has been very active in the queer community since college, I've seen this discussion play out before. And nobody should claim their views are being misrepresented while engaging in misrepresenting the views of others. There is a very real and static reason Pride exists as it does today. It was the response to the legal and vigilante persecution of LGBT people. You simply can't discount that history and claim to want a discussion, because for some people that history is the entire discussion.
CrocMother
Banned
CrocMother
Banned
I made a post a while back stating that exact fact. I'm just confused as to what part of Xe4's post you are "pushing back" against. Please point it out to me.
I pushed back against what Xe4 themselves clarified.
We can talk about the ways asexualism is socially maligned in society. I actually think that's a very valuable discussion to have, and why I appreciate Xe4's post.
But it is a different discussion from the legal repercussions LGBT+ people have faced, and this is what's at the heart of the argument for a lot of people if what you're talking about is "why isn't asexuality included in pride?" or why some people feel it shouldn't be.
CrocMother
Banned
No one is arguing the facts of what you're saying. But the rhetoric is toxic.
Of course asexual persons don't have the same level of discrimination as other groups. That point has been made several times. The conversation in the thread has evolved but you can't seem to let it go.
Edit: made my post a little less confrontational.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
They/them doesn't exist in French and probably many other languages.
lol, seriously. GTFO with that (well, the mods helped with that xD)
But has it really? If it has, I can move on.
I mean, I took a nap in between posts and the thread grew by 2 pages, and people still seemed to be confused by the same thing. Not just disagreeing, which would be one thing, but still not understanding the source of the opposition argument. And then just making up their own reasoning, which tended to be almost intentionally flippant ("you aren't as persecuted as me waaaahhhh!")
Kitsunebaby
Member
For some of us, it is. My reasons for being open to sexual and romantic relationships with both men and women stems from the fact that I am neither attracted to or repulsed by either of them, physically.
Ok so this comes up every now and then in this thread so I will give my 2 cents.
Yes, overall others LGBT+ do face more discrimination than asexuals for their identities and I'm not sure if I've ever read an asexual saying otherwise. Asexuality is by its own nature a more hidden identitiy, which makes it somewhat harder to be a target of direct prejudice. However I'll say that even though it's somewhat easy to pass as a non-asexual person, I wouldn't say asexuals always pass as heterosexuals or that all of them can do that.
Homoromantic asexuals are usually perceived by society as homosexuals, afterall you can't be sure if two people kissing have a relationship that involves sex or not, but you can be quite sure that they are in a relationship and that's enough for bigotry. So in these cases an asexual may be persecuted not for being an asexual per se, but for acting as and looking like a homosexual. And again, that doesn't mean the discrimation faced by both is the same, but I'm merely pointing out that asexuals may experience at least part of that discrimation.
That also doesn't apply only to homoromantics, biromantics also have similar situations and even aromantics like me. Living in a country where machismo is pretty rampant, not having a girlfriend or not having any interest in having one is in itself a sign of homosexuality and I've had lots of people who thought I was homosexual. I still haven't faced any discrimantion when this happened, though, but I'd say it has more to do with the privileges I'm well aware I have.
Yes, overall others LGBT+ do face more discrimination than asexuals for their identities and I'm not sure if I've ever read an asexual saying otherwise. Asexuality is by its own nature a more hidden identitiy, which makes it somewhat harder to be a target of direct prejudice. However I'll say that even though it's somewhat easy to pass as a non-asexual person, I wouldn't say asexuals always pass as heterosexuals or that all of them can do that.
Homoromantic asexuals are usually perceived by society as homosexuals, afterall you can't be sure if two people kissing have a relationship that involves sex or not, but you can be quite sure that they are in a relationship and that's enough for bigotry. So in these cases an asexual may be persecuted not for being an asexual per se, but for acting as and looking like a homosexual. And again, that doesn't mean the discrimation faced by both is the same, but I'm merely pointing out that asexuals may experience at least part of that discrimation.
That also doesn't apply only to homoromantics, biromantics also have similar situations and even aromantics like me. Living in a country where machismo is pretty rampant, not having a girlfriend or not having any interest in having one is in itself a sign of homosexuality and I've had lots of people who thought I was homosexual. I still haven't faced any discrimantion when this happened, though, but I'd say it has more to do with the privileges I'm well aware I have.