A thing is a thing, not what is said of the thing 

익명 질문: this was my message that I sent: I believe that HSDD isn't proof of any oppression against asexual people because it's written in the diagnostic criteria that people who id as asexual are precluded from the HSDD diagnosis. I do believe that acearo people are marginalised, but I'm not sure if HSDD is an aspect of that?

vergess:

fandomshatepeopleofcolor:

I’m not sure if HSDD is an aspect of that, either. However, here’s two things I am sure about:

1) acearo activists have been campaigning against HSDD (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/asexuals-push-greater-recognition/story?id=6656358)

2) /sexuality is fluid./ a person may identify as something later in life that they did not always identify as earlier, and /that is okay./ However, asexual people are only precluded from HSDD if they self-identify a “lifelong lack of sexual desire,” which sounds suspiciously like a denial of sexual fluidity to me.

I’m not an expert, though. If anyone wants to add stuff, feel free. 

mod a

It’s always worth remembering, when it comes to hsdd that not only is asexual not a word that most people know, but the ones who do know what it is tend to refer to it as inhuman.

Even putting aside the critical fact that many doctors use desk references that are older and do not have that little disclaimer about asexuality (remember, it’s only a few years old), and that most doctors are not ace or a spec, and will consider it abnormal and symptomatic in much the same way bisexuality is pathologized, the fact is, most people don’t KNOW what asexuality is, or how it could relate to them. The information isn’t there.

That one line that isn’t even uniformly applied does not make asexuality “depathologized,” because people are not given the tools necessary to “identify as asexual,” and even when they do, doctors don’t usually care.