Thank you for finding and posting this.

That cleared up some things, thanks~

Awesome, thanks for the post. I'm not completely asexual, but there are also not many people who I am sexually attracted to.

Always nice reading on the subject. It's pretty sad the percentage of people I tried having meaningful relationships with that automatically assumed I have a hormonal problem and therefore need "fixing". Kinda makes me think twice about mateships in general. People are always willing to be with an asexual.. until they're actually with an asexual *Sighs*

Holy crap! I recognize your name... I'm a rl friend of  Itsukine. Had no idea you were one of us ^^

/random comment

*Giggles*

I don't think a lot of people know, actually. I tried being open minded about the whole sexual thingies, but I really don't think it's my thing o.o

I still get confused and wonder if I am indeed asexual, though, but let's just say it's more correct to assume I'm asexual than to assume I'm bisexual XD

Fantastic find! Thank you so much for sharing that. ^_^ It even gets bonus points for mentioning The Doctor.

Wow, cool! That's very helpful. ; w ;

Fantastic article! Figured I'd share it about, just for those who want to know more ^_^ Totally made my day!

Also, fun fact, anyone else notice in Portal they replace sexual references with cake?

I still don't get "asexuality"... Before I get the the main point, Asexual irritates me as a WORD because its fucking linguistically wrong. Yall cannot make offspring on your own =P. Why not try Desexual, Contrasexual, or maybe Antisexual? Hyposexual has my vote. It seems to fit the actual problem the most, and it starts with an H___o prefix, like Hetero and Homo =D BUT... onto the real issue:

I am a VERY tolerant person (a nihilistic asshole sure, but a tolerant one), but this doesnt strike me as a 'to be tolerated because its a real and uncontrollable' thing, but rather a 'somethings wrong here that we're calling real because we dont understand enough about it to fix it' thing... I hear 'Asexual' and I think 'Broken'. Broken in the sense that things that dont work for their intended purpose are broken... combined with the fact that the only purpose any living thing has (THAT WE KNOW OF IN BIOLOGY - lets not get existential folks, lol) is to make other living things. So to say that theres nothing abnormal or wrong (in the psycho-physiological sense) there is like saying anorexia is normal. Just because the person its happening to isnt complaining doesnt mean nothings wrong.

I want to be the first to admit that Im a pervert and I am very interested in sex, almost obsessively, possibly pathologically, but that has nothing to do with the issue (just sayin' before someone goes running to my page like OF COURSE you think this! You draw porn! Youre obsessed with sex! lol), other than perhaps my interest in it when its none of my business. Also, I dont think that people have to have sex constantly -or ever- to have a normal life. I just think that not WANTING to have sex isnt normal. Not being attracted to -SOMETHING- isnt right. Could there be a psychological aspect to it? Like being molested or some early-developmental imagery mix up or something that is making the idea of sex just NO? Or is it a sexual defect from birth? Physiological or psychological? I just think that if we all took a real look at this thing with less of a mind of "GAWD! You people are hornballs I however am a pure being of light and love and dont need lowly sex! You undeveloped paramicium" and more "Well, every single thing on the planet has reproductive impulses except people like me. ...Hmm... Maybe I'm not exhalted above earthly rot"

Thoughts?

(I'm honestly not trying to be offensive. Maybe a little rude-ish. And snarky... I just have real difficulty stating confusion/disagreement coherently without it being tainted by cynicism... Its a personality flaw and im working on it... And I'm inexcusably irreverent, which I rather enjoy sometimes and am not working on...)

I know this is old as hell, but do you mind a response?

Not at all. =3 I would really really like one.

I think the term asexual could apply legitimately to someone without a sexual attraction, sexual drive, whatever so long as the distinction is clear. There are terms that mean more than one thing depending on the field (ie, hydrophobia or anorexia [could be nervosa or could be medically caused]) and no one believes asexuals can reproduce by polyps or anything like that.

As for hyposexual ... hypo- by definition (" Less than normal; deficient") implies there is something wrong, though, and many asexuals would argue there isn't anything missing in their lives.
I, myself, have had a perfectly normal relationship, sexuality-wise, with someone of the opposite sex (and gender) and now am coming to the conclusion I just ... don't enjoy it that much. I don't need or want it like many seem to, and that's fine with me and everyone who knows and loves me. I am romantically attracted to people, I still love some people, I just don't see anyone (that I've yet met) in a light that makes me want to have sex with them. Especially not more than I want to get to know them, as I'm mostly attracted to personality and intelligence in others.
This isn't even to say I don't get sexually aroused, because that's not the case either, and I don't hate sex. I just see it as just another activity, and not even among the ones I really like. I don't attach love to that act and only that act. It is a way of showing affection, but not The Way. Does that make sense?

Now as for the rest of your post!

I am a VERY tolerant person (a nihilistic asshole sure, but a tolerant one), but this doesnt strike me as a 'to be tolerated because its a real and uncontrollable' thing, but rather a 'somethings wrong here that we're calling real because we dont understand enough about it to fix it' thing... I hear 'Asexual' and I think 'Broken'. Broken in the sense that things that dont work for their intended purpose are broken... combined with the fact that the only purpose any living thing has (THAT WE KNOW OF IN BIOLOGY - lets not get existential folks, lol) is to make other living things. So to say that theres nothing abnormal or wrong (in the psycho-physiological sense) there is like saying anorexia is normal. Just because the person its happening to isnt complaining doesnt mean nothings wrong.

According to this view, though, anyone who doesn't want children, who lacks a maternal or paternal urge, is broken. Anyone who makes the decision not to have children because of their current living situation, the state of our world, or any number of other reasons ... also broken. By this definition, people should be running out to get knocked up just as soon as they're able, but that's probably not what you'd champion if really asked. Many young women can have babies at the age of 14, but I'm sure you wouldn't advocate that, even if their parents could afford it and there was no other reason but that maybe that's not the best time to have children!
And to be fair, define "normal." If you're going on biological incentives, we do plenty of abnormal things. We use condoms and birth control. We pick and choose our mates based on how we feel about them, not on who is biggest or strongest or fastest or smartest or the most virile. And we choose mates of the same sex as ourselves, making passing on both sets of genes impossible.

To call someone broken is presumptuous at best, and to say you're tolerant but can't deal with this is ridiculous. I'm not trying to be insulting, but if someone doesn't want to have sex, what is the problem? Why does that bother you, and who does it hurt? The difference between an eating disorder and asexuality is that one can kill you. That's a red herring.
Saying asexuals need to be "fixed" is the exact kind of logic some use to justify the systematic rape of lesbians in some countries to "turn" them straight. It's intolerant. If their sexuality was "rapesexual" then sure, that's something not to tolerate, because it harms someone. No one is hurt by someone who has no urge for (asexual) or who chooses to abstain from (celibate) sex.

Additionally, I believe asexuality likely is normal. Now, I won't say I can prove this entirely, scientifically, without a doubt, because that's impossible. Asexuality, as a lack of something, is a negative ... and we all know you can't prove a negative. But if you look at it in certain contexts of other sexualities, you can get an idea.
In almost all human cultures recorded throughout history, there have been basically asexual members of the community who were often highly revered and sought out as sources of advice and guidance. I can think of at least a couple examples, one being in ancient china (I'll look for a source for this ... the only one I have currently is a book on chinese history). Shamans, priests, and the like often took an oath of celibacy. Perhaps they were not asexual, but perhaps some were ... maybe they went into the "profession" because that was an aspect they liked.
As far as evolution goes, though, I'd like to remind you that homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time, and they sure as hell aren't popping out babies. Some scientists theorize that in prehistoric times, homosexual men were useful to the tribe because more men vs. women meant more strong hunters and defenders. It would also keep there from being more children than the tribe could reasonably handle at once. Since babies don't always come out in the ratio you want (ie, more girls than boys if you're in that particular scenario), lesbianism and asexuality in both sexes makes sense, too. When you're not distracted by sex, you're more apt to pay attention to other things with more of your time. Asexuals could be quite useful in prehistoric human life.

And finally ... the Kinsey scale has been measuring sexuality since just before 1950, and they have regularly defined a small percent (1-3) of people as "X" - asexuality. There are real people throughout history who were thought to be asexual, many very productive members of society. There is a lot of evidence for asexuality, although scientists have not tested for pheromone reactions or anything of the like, yet ... so it's all anecdotal. And that's the problem. I can't prove to you asexuality exists as something other than a dysfunction because no one has thought to check. I wish they would, because then we could finally put this to rest.

As for your other proposals ... I myself have never been sexually abused or taken advantage of. I have never really had much of a sex drive. Puberty didn't do much in that department, and all the relationships I've ever been in have been normal, sex-wise, until the latest one ... where I was honest about not really liking that aspect of romance. It's the happiest and most fulfilling relationship I've ever had, and I think that honesty helped immensely.

I hope this wasn't too long, ever TMI, or anything else of the sort. And I hope it gave you some answers for your questions. If you want further discussion, go ahead. But they might not be as long after this. I really should be working instead of typing up walls o' text. :>

If the disorder is that they don't have the urges, then of course it doesn't effect them negatively- except in finding a relationship like everybody else. They have to find another asexual, or risk being miserable with a partner who has urges and cannot satisfy them with the asexual.

Your argument would be true if animals anticipated offspring and then procreated for that purpose. But they don't. In nature, making babies is a side effect of the inborn urge to have sex. Animals don't have sex to have babies, they have sex because their instincts compel them to have sex, and then, if the female gets pregnant, their instincts compel them (in cases where upbringing happens) to raise those babies. No animal, except humans, has sex with the intent of making children. They have sex because they have urges to do so. Why should a certain percentage of humans be an exception to this rule and it not be a disorder?

Actually, I'm in a perfectly healthy, happy relationship, as are many asexuals I know (which I said in my prior post) and my partner isn't asexual at all. I don't see how that necessitates an unhappy, unfulfilling relationship unless you put an undue amount of importance on sex. Maybe you should reexamine that particular premise instead of assuming everyone without a sex drive is broken and completely unable to find happiness.

As for the second part, I don't understand how that changes things. There are still people who don't want to have sex, are hurting no one, are perfectly happy and complete without sex (many of us having tried it in the past and just finding it "wasn't for us"), and you insist they need to be "fixed." That just sounds like pure intolerance to me, not a sexual dysfunction on the part of the people abstaining. And you didn't address my point about asexuals (and homosexuals) being evolutionarily quite useful. So I don't think I really have much to respond to. All you did was repeat your previously stated premises, biases, and conclusions drawn from such.

I DID state that my terminology might raise issue- It may be upsetting to hear, especially if you have convinced yourself that what you are experiencing is perfectly normal, but I am not using terms to be comforting. I am using terms to be factual and unbiased. When something does not function the way that it is intended by nature or design to function, that is called broken. It is not a biased term, but a factual one. Trust me, I know how it feels to be broken. I know it hurts to even contemplate being broken, but turning away from the evidence and then claiming there is no problem in the first place is not a psychologically good way to go.

I AM tolerant, but that is not the same thing as blind acceptance. I am not making anyone have sex who does not want to, am I? I am not saying that asexuals should be having sex. I am not telling them to have sex. Im not even saying there is anything wrong with never having sex. I am simply stating my opinion that the REASON they do not have the URGE to have sex just might be the result of some disorder or malfunction, and that by blindly accepting it as not one, 'just cuz', with no professional opinion on the matter, they may be doing themselves a disservice.

I am offering up the idea that, they just might be mistaken about the nature of their urges. And that if they are mistaken, then accepting this fact and getting psychological help in the right direction may allow them to have an uncomplicated, normal (normal here = not making things difficult on themselves by narrowing their field of choices to the same percentage of humanity that they fall into) sex/relationship life. To free them from the unfortunate situation of having to find a needle in a haystack, relationship wise. I am not trying to be a dick, I am trying to be HELPFUL. To offer a viewpoint they may not have considered, so that they may benefit and be happier, instead of blindly accepting something just because it is happening to them and suffering for it*.

Im a furry, a brony, a tranny (before you jump on this one- ALL hormone/Sexual Reassignment Surgery-seeking trannies, in America, HAVE to get psychological treatment before SRS is even an option, and live for at LEAST a year in their gender beforehand to rule out EXACTLY what Im talking about above*. Some people find out they were wrong, what they thought they felt was something else and once it was identified, they went on to lead normal lives with the true cause treated instead of barreling forward based on nothing but their gut feeling, and a notion they got based on it.), gay and a lot of other things that most people would consider not normal. I do not misconstrue normal to mean "like the what the popular majority wants us to be", I know better. I use it only to mean what is healthy and correct to scientific evidence, not stupid layman ideals of conformity.

The offerings for a possibly cause of Asexuality I listed are JUST ideas. Guesses, possibilities, hypotheses that are based off of my own knowledge of sexual psychology. I am not a professional sex scientist or psychologist (just an avid amateur), nor do I propose to be one. From the beginning, i have stated that these are my [i]opinions[i/] based on factual information, not concrete fact based on factual info.

To be honest, I don't know how to convince you that your premises are incorrect, and I don't think you're going to change your mind, so this will likely be pretty short. Considering you've admitted you like sex to a degree that some would consider abnormal and even obsessive, you have to admit a bias in this discussion, just as I have to admit one as someone with little to no sexual urge.

What makes you think absolutely none of the asexuals in this community or worldwide have sought psychological or psychiatric evaluation and/or treatment? I, myself, have been to numerous therapists of both sorts, and when you say you know what it's like to feel "broken," don't assume you're the only one. I have plenty of hangups, but sex is not and never really has been one of them. Why complicate matters that are hard enough with "fixing" something I don't believe to be broken? I don't feel a loss, and never have. In fact, when I had sex more often, it just seemed like a waste of time.
I'm not disgusted by it. I don't even dislike it. I enjoy sex, occasionally. But it's something I really just don't have a natural urge to do. Why do you find this so hard to accept as "normal?" And why does it MATTER if it's normal?

Could that possibly be because they are not incorrect? Not at all. I am -interested- in sex (not necessarily in HAVING it, but interested in the subject itself, in an academic sense) to a degree others might find abnormal or obsessive. I attribute this to my life circumstances, I run into the topic often, and enjoy educating myself about it. Even if I were a nymphomaniac, I would still be unbiased, because I am the type of person who is capable of understanding concepts outside of my experience. For instance, I understand lesbianism and heterosexuality, even though I am neither. I understand football even though I don't watch or play it, etc. I may have some "bias" in that I am an outside observer and so do not feel the same things you are feeling- but this is called objectivity.

I suppose because I assumed that if they had, correction would have began. Or at least an attempt at correction. Or, if nothing else, asecuals would realize that the position they find themselves in is not a natural one.
I find it hard to accept, because I define sexuality as "a natural set of urges that constitutes the direction of sexual impulses". Because not having the urge for sex makes no sense when compared to anything besides creatures that pollinate, bud or reproduce without a partner. Because species in nature that has sex, wants to have sex, and when they don't, it is a good sign that something is wrong. There are entire species of animals that are willing to DIE to achieve sex (orb weaver spiders, certain bird species, preying mantids)- that lets me know that im not just imagining things, because the urge to LIVE is a pretty strong one too. The percentage of people who do not have this urge is not large enough to constitute normal mode of sexual functioning, but rather a divergence.
If you enjoy sex then does that not disqualify you as an asexual? Am I misunderstanding the term, or is it so broad that it can encompass anything? If that is the case, then it is not a proper descriptive term that defines a thing, but an umbrella one, that seeks to corral together a set of similar circumstances.

I suppose it is because I feel bad for all of you. =c I know what its like to have differences from the norm in the sex department and how HORRIBLE that can be for finding a relationship... I would feel remiss if I were not to offer a second opinion, so that at least some of you might seek help and have a chance to live lives without the negatives that are brought on by such an obstacle. Im not saying you have to want sex, but that by not, you might be making things hard on yourselves for real reason.

for no* real reason

Just to answer this part: If you enjoy sex then does that not disqualify you as an asexual?
Not at all! I don't seek sex out, but if it happens, I can get into it. It's just that I don't particularly have the urge to either initiate or even want it myself. I still have the same physical features and traits of any human being, and I still have the same reaction to stimuli. The payoff just isn't enough for me to want to seek this activity out over others, I guess.

....then that is not a thing on its own. Its just you putting a special name to a low libido.

Although, again, re: the biological imperative thing. Asexuality could easily have developed, evolution-wise, for the reasons I listed in my original post. There are benefits to having individuals in the tribe (or whatever) that hunt, protect the area and others, and maybe even have relationships/fall in love/have sex, but that don't have children. This, as many scientists have theorized, could have lead to the development of homosexuality. It could just as easily have lent itself to asexuality in human beings.

I suppose, but with the development of homosexuality- why would asexuals be needed?

Oh! And I wanted to say, I don't look down on people who like sex in any way! Almost none of my friends are asexual, of course, and it's a complete non-issue. It's rarely even a problem with people who don't know unless they insist I tell them whether someone is attractive or not or try to hit on me, but then I just awkwardly laugh it off, usually, and that gets them to stop.
I've NEVER heard of ANY asexual person looking down on others because of their sexuality. That's stupid, and it defeats the whole purpose of preaching acceptance and tolerance.

I was being flippant and generalizing, I wasn't trying to imply that asexuals are discriminatory in any way against others.

fuck, that other comment below was for you, too. I'll shut up now before I embarrass myself.

In almost all human cultures recorded throughout history, there have been basically asexual members of the community who were often highly revered and sought out as sources of advice and guidance. I can think of at least a couple examples, one being in ancient china ...

'Scuze me, not ancient china. Thailand. My bad. I've been reading a lot of history recently and it's all blending together.

Not having sex is not the same as not having the urge. I haven't had sex in years- and I don't feel like I have to, or that I am missing out on some essential element of life by not... By most standards, I would be "Asexual"- but I know I am not because I do still get horny. I know I still have the urge to have sex, even if it doesn't present itself as often as it might with others. In essence, I am not taking a low sex drive and deciding its an un-sexuality. If I suddenly stopped being horny ever, you can bet my butt would be on a psychologist's/psychiatrist's couch with a quickness. If nothing else- just to make sure. Because I dont play guessing games with my mental health.

So what about asexuals who've seen a psych and been told they're perfectly sane?
Also, just out of curiosity, are transgender individuals "broken?" Or homosexuals? Not that they don't have a sex drive, but that they, by your definition, are biologically broken. They do not have children in most cases because many (not all) FtMs are extremely bothered by the idea of pregnancy (at least for themselves) and MtFs are obviously unable to bear children with the current medical surgeries and hormone replacement therapies.
So what's the difference? Why are asexuals broken for not wanting/needing sex? You've only given me biological imperative arguments thus far, but none of them really holds water under that sort of questioning. True, it's ABNORMAL not to want sex, but I wouldn't say that makes it a dysfunction. It's ABNORMAL to be gay, by that definition, as well, since only ~10% of human beings are. It's ABNORMAL to be a gender other than that assigned to your sex because it really makes your likelihood of passing on genes almost nil without a conscious decision to have kids.

At this point, though, I think I'm going to have to say your premises are too set in stone for me to make a dent, and banging my head against a wall all day isn't my idea of productivity ... so I probably won't reply after this. No hard feelings or anything, but I think there's a fundamental premise that asexuals are broken that you're probably not going to drop, and I can't agree with that. Being someone without much sex drive, who has seen many therapists in his life, who has a perfectly happy relationship with a pansexual person, who is panromantic and knows what love is with and without sex (and what sex is without love), and who has dealt with plenty of other sexualities through friends and relationships ... I would think I'd have some kind of experience in the area that you might not. Not saying I'm an expert and that you're totally off base or ignorant. Some asexuals probably do have a revulsion to sex because of abuse or other reasons ... but then again, so do people of any sexuality who've been through similar things. That doesn't preclude them being asexual. That just means someone else took advantage of them, not that there is anything wrong with that person.
In any case, I'm probably done. I answered the questions I set out to answer, I think. If you don't like my answers, I hope someone else can give you others that are more satisfactory.

***I understand you do not want to continue the conversation, I am just responding to your questions, You do not have to reply. =3***
Yes, transgenders are VERY broken. We are physically deformed, in a similar league with intersexed people. The brain develops as one thing and the body decides to develop in another direction. We are just deformed in a way that cannot be seen (you can't see mental gender to compare it to the physical sex). Homosexuality happens in nature. Often. Hence, it is not an unnatural divergence. My pet theory is that it is probably brought on by overpopulation and nature trying to correct that by stopping certain members of the species from breeding. The opposite of how nature makes some creatures able to change physical sex in a monosexual environment, to promote breeding.

I am FtM and I am EXTREMELY bothered by the idea of being pregnant. Horrified at the possibility. I would consider the situation analogous to being infected with a chestburster ala 'Aliens'. (IMHO any that aren't either REALLY want children, to the point where they are able to squelch the revulsion, or they are confused and not really trans), this is because my brain does not identify me as a female. I still have the urge to be a father, however, regardless that my physical condition makes this impossible. Wanting children is a human condition brought about by our brains. HUMANS are the ONLY species that has the urge to raise children. It is not inextricably linked with the urge for sex. This is where you keep getting confused, I think. Kids have nothing to do with sex other than being a possible side effect of it. Homosexuality is a natural outlet for sexual urges. Transgender is a deformity. Asexuality is neither of these things.

I never said it precluded asexuality, though. Just that it might have been a possible factor for some of the asexuals. It was honestly just a guess, not me trying to state a definitive cause.

No hard feelings at all. Agree to disagree then. I honestly hope that the divergent urges never cause your relationship any trouble and wish you all the best happiness in life, as I honestly wish for everyone. =3

As an, umm, NOTE: this post isn't Jive - this is his partner. (I need to get around to making an account, durnit) I've been kinda lurking and listening to this conversation and, to be honest, I just can't let this go by without piping up.

Listen up, buddy. I mean this is the nicest way possible, but the fact is that not only are you being needlessly mean, you're also making an ass out of yourself the more you continue to press this point. You whole argument rests on a host of fundamental confusions about human sexuality and psychology, but you're acting like you're some kind of authority. You aren't, so cut it out. I dunno if you think you're educated about this stuff or not, but if so you either didn't pay any attention or your teachers were shit. You are being a pointlessly disrespectful loudmouth asshole, and if that wasn't bad enough, when someone politely points out to you how poor your argument is, you resort to lame passive-aggressive ad hominem attacks and hide behind a veneer of authoritative knowledge. Hell with that. You are totally wrong about asexuality, period. It's because you don't understand it. The reason you don't understand it is because you aren't willing to listen to the people trying to explain it to you - you've already written them off as deformed and 'broken,' so why bother amirite? You bloody well oughtta know better than to stigmatize sexualities that are different from yours just because they're different from yours, and you really oughtta know better than to try to climb on some god-damn psychiatric high-horse and pronounce judgement on whose sexuality is or is not normal. They used to do lobotomies on people like you to FIX you, since they judged that you were divergent and thus BROKEN. Where do you get off throwing the same kind of aspersions on others?

Like, really, tell me, who the fuck are you to go around telling people who's normal and who's deformed? Who the fuck are you to say who's "divergent"? And who the fuck are you to go around telling people they've misunderstood their sexuality and it's *really* just something that's *wrong* with them? Fuck that! If there's anything people should have learned from the last 50 years or so of 'sexual revolution' and modern psychology, it's that there is no normal at all, just a dizzying myriad of different individual people who are created and evolve over their lives in different ways. It's a complex spectrum with far more things in't than are dreamt of in your crappy pseudo-scientific philosophies. Stop trying to slice it up into easily comprehensible sets of simple categories; it doesn't work and it excludes a lot of perfectly good people.

Sex in humans, and according to the evidence I've seen also in other sentient higher mammals, is totally separate from the evolutionary purpose of passing on genes. Period, full stop. No connection. This is also true of the psychological process of sexual attraction. Unless you want to join monsieur Santorum on the hate-train, it's nonsensical to argue that only what is "natural" is "normal" in human sexuality. It's all equally natural or unnatural - humans are just natural animals like any others, and culture is part of our nature. DNA doesn't get horny, minds do, and the content and nature of minds varies infinitely. Been to the local 'novelty' sex shop recently? I don't think those upside-down-backwards slings and all of that crazy stuff have much to do with procreation, do you? Nor are they there to provide an 'outlet' for 'natural urges'. (What is an unnatural urge anyway?) They're there for pleasure, duh. But note that there have to be so many different thingamagigies even in a small little shop like that because everyone's pleasures are different - because their minds are all different.

I'm horrified by your assertion that transgender people are 'deformed.' I mean, gawd, sez fuckin' who? Freud? The DSM-IV? Lemme tell ya - the idea that some kinds of human sexuality are 'natural' and 'normal' while others are not is a remnant corollary of hetero-normative patriarchy. Shit's got to be stamped out to that we can all live in peace. Those kinds of ideas divide us and exclude people unnecessarily, for the very dubious benefit of making the people who claim the title of 'normal' feel a little superior. You can see this in the condescending asshole language you use - "I honestly hope that the divergent urges never cause your relationship any trouble," and so forth. That's crap, and that's a crappy way to treat people. Of course it doesn't cause his relationship any trouble because he's honest and open about it. Why should it cause trouble? Just because it's not to YOUR taste? Don't act superior just because you've decided you're more 'normal'. Everyone's sexuality is acceptable and okay, even if it's weird. No gender variant or sexuality or sexual urge is 'deformed' unless is actively harms other sentients, period, so get that through your head, okay? Don't let anyone convince you that there's something fundamentally wrong with you because you're different from them. This goes for you, too. Repeat with me - "I am not deformed. My gender and sexuality are OK, and no one has a right to demean me on account of them."

As penance for being mean on a perfectly nice board and then acting dumb when people call you on it, repeat the above about five times, take a deep breath, and think harder before you denigrate people next time. There's no reason we can't all accept one another! If you can't manage to be accepting of others, then I guess go grow a cigar, Freud. :p

Most of your argument is based upon you reading mine improperly, or outright ignoring it and the rest is just being hyper-defensive because it involved your mate. I don't want to bother responding to each point I disagree with because, before you decided to butt in, the conversation was OVER, and I wasn't talking to you in the first place. PLEASE do not make the mistake of taking that as me conceding that you are right- I am NOT. I just do not have the time to waste responding for no effect. You wouldn't bother to try and take in any information on the subjects that I offered you anyway, unlike your mate, (as we were having a calm, two-sided intellectual conversation) so there is no purpose talking to an emotional brick wall.

Like I said to your mate- I AGREE TO DISAGREE.

I will respond to two notes, because they involves me personally: Yes, we ARE deformed. The brain forms one gender and the body forms the other. Hence, as our body is not formed properly, we are deformed. That word only means one thing. If not deformed, then what do YOU think we are? We just decided one day to switch physical sex and sign up for a pile bullshit cuz we were bored?? No. You cannot negate the truth, simply because you have an emotional opposition to the word. I AM trans, and if I can deal with it, you should be able to.

I don't do "penance". I am not UNaccepting of anyone, as I have said REPEATEDLY. I am not denigrating anyone. I have issue with the HEADING and TERMINOLOGY of asexuality, not with people living their lives in a manner that they call "asexuality". You need to learn to read all of a conversation before jumping into it- or stay out entirely. This conversation has -been- over, so good day to you.

Still Not Jive:

Hahahah fuck your stupid-ass pretentious self-hating heternormative bullshit. If you don't understand that you're denigrating people, why not listen to them when they tell you they feel denigrated instead of just telling them they're being stupid? You're being really aggressively exclusionary against a group of people you said yourself you don't 'get'. There's nothing deformed about transgender people, or asexual people, or any other kind of people. We're all just different. Learn to accept everyone, including yourself. Excelsior, fucker!

Whatever, dude.