even better is when we can’t produce many examples, because asexuality has not been studied or even considered a viable sexuality the same way other lgbt sexualities have, and they say “well guess it doesn’t happen that often then!”

bonus points for when we do produce examples, but they say it doesn’t count because “that’s just misogyny!!1!” 

(:

there’s this study called Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals by Cara C. MacInnis and Gordon Hodson 

and it’s usually locked behind a paywall, but bc of the school I go to, I get it for free. so to all my friends that need like, an actual study or something, I’m putting the google drive link below :)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4zIOJ-fuH-KSXZGTGctS3N0MEk/view?usp=sharing

At the end, on page 733 we have what basically amounts to a tl;dr of Study 1:

Empirically, very little is known about asexuality relative to other sexual orientations, and no research has addressed whether asexuals are targets of bias at the group level. Addressing this latter question for the first time, our analysis suggests that antiasexual prejudice is indeed a sexual minority prejudice, correlating positively with attitudes toward homosexuals and bisexuals. Relative to the heterosexual ingroup, we find compelling evidence of antisexual minority prejudice, with this newly identified bias being particularly extreme. Strikingly, on many key measures (particularly intergroup evaluations, dehumanization, and for the most part, contact intentions), we find significantly more bias against asexuals than other sexual minorities, and discrimination intentions matching that against homosexuals. Overall, we find clear evidence of a previously unidentified and strong sexual minority prejudice: antiasexual bias.

For a tl;dr of Study 2, we go to page 738:

Asexuals were evaluated negatively relative to both heterosexuals and other sexual minorities, with order effects not explaining this pattern given the randomized order of evaluations… 

Again, we provide evidence that antiasexual bias is a form of sexual minority prejudice, that those prone to prejudiceare more prone to antiasexual bias, and that asexuals are targets of dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination intentions. Further, we demonstrate that bias toward asexuals is either equivalent to, or even more extreme, than bias toward homosexuals and bisexuals. 

Although these results largely corroborate Study 1 some interesting differences emerged.First, mean evaluations of each group were noticeably more positive in Study 2. Interestingly, university students were more negative toward homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals than the population in general. This might come as a surprise given university students’ reported tendency toward liberalism and lower prejudices toward most other social targets (Henry, 2008). This finding suggests that university-aged students strongly value heteronormative sex, viewing sexual minorities, especially those preferring no sex at all, as deficient. Second, although asexuals were dehumanized on both dimensions (uniquely human and human nature) by the overall sample, sex differences emerged, whereby men represented asexuals as animalistic more consistently than did women (see Endnote 5). There was a strong overall tendency however, as in Study 1, for asexuals to be viewed by both men and women as more machine-like than heterosexuals, homosexuals, or bisexuals. Overall, asexuals are clear targets of bias by heterosexuals.

I didn’t mean to steal this post, but I felt that it would be nice to put this study somewhere where people could see it, read it, and use it’s results!!

*As a note, there is some cissexist language: such as the use of phrases like “men and women” or just implications of binary gender & sex identities