Asexual people face two related legal risks: protective laws may fail to include them clearly, while hostile laws may name them explicitly or use language broad enough to encompass them.
Asexual people face two related legal risks: protective laws may fail to include them clearly, while hostile laws may name them explicitly or use language broad enough to encompass them. Outright International’s October 2026 discussion paper, Asexual People’s Human Rights, documents both problems while emphasizing that asexual people remain entitled to universal human rights protections. The legal developments discussed below reflect the paper’s account at the time of publication.
The distinctions matter. A law’s potential application is not the same as documented enforcement, a bill passed by parliament is not necessarily an enacted law, and the absence of an explicit reference to asexuality does not automatically eliminate all legal protection.
Niger: Explicit Criminalization
According to the paper, Niger’s new penal code, promulgated by its ruling junta in 2026, criminalizes “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual (LGBTQIA+) practices,” with prison sentences of five to ten years. The provision explicitly names asexuality, illustrating how language associated with inclusion can be repurposed in criminal legislation.
At the time of writing, Outright had not received reports of asexual people being arrested under the provision. The paper therefore establishes an explicit criminalization risk, not documented arrests of ace people under that law. It does not establish that Niger is the first country ever to criminalize asexuality explicitly.
Ghana: A Legislative Threat Despite Changed Wording
A Ghanaian bill proposed in 2021 expressly included asexual people within its definition of the identities it targeted. Although the proposal was inconsistent in its treatment of asexuality, Outright says it appeared to prohibit “holding out” as asexual, with a possible sentence of up to five years in prison.
The version adopted by parliament in May 2026 omitted the explicit reference to asexual people. Nevertheless, the paper warns that language covering “any other sexual orientation” contrary to a prescribed male–female sociocultural relationship could still be used against them. Parliamentary adoption should not, by itself, be described as proof that the bill had entered into force.
“Propaganda” Restrictions and Asexual Visibility
The report identifies several restrictions whose broad or vague wording could encompass information about asexuality:
Russia’s 2022 amendments expanded restrictions on promoting or demonstrating “nontraditional sexual relationships and/or preferences” to all age groups.
Kazakhstan’s December 2025 restrictions prohibit disseminating information about “nontraditional sexual orientation” through media, the internet, and public spaces.
Bulgaria’s 2024 education-law amendment restricts information about “nontraditional sexual orientation” in preschool and school education, defining the term by reference to attraction outside an opposite-sex model.
A Belarusian law that came into force in June 2026 prohibits “propaganda” concerning homosexual relations, sex change, and childlessness, among other subjects. The report describes fines and the possibility of administrative arrest for prohibited material directed at children.
Outright’s warning concerns how these provisions could be interpreted. The paper does not establish that every country listed has already used its restrictions specifically against asexual people.
Gaps in Nondiscrimination Protection
According to the October 2026 paper, no UN member state explicitly names asexuality in its national nondiscrimination laws. It also identifies at least nine countries whose statutory definitions of sexual orientation could be interpreted as excluding asexual people. Examples include the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, Ireland, and New Zealand.
These definitions vary; they should not all be presented as using identical language about attraction to the same sex, opposite sex, or both. The shared concern is whether the wording clearly protects people who experience little or no sexual attraction.
The paper nevertheless argues that existing sexual-orientation protections should be interpreted inclusively. It draws an analogy with freedom of religion: just as that protection extends to atheists, sexual-orientation protections should not exclude someone because they lack sexual attraction.
The UK: Statutory Ambiguity and Institutional Exclusion
The UK’s Equality Act 2010 defines sexual orientation in relation to people of the same sex, opposite sex, or either sex. In October 2024, then-Minister for Women and Equalities Anneliese Dodds stated that the government had no plans to include asexuality as a protected characteristic. The paper also describes activists advocating for explicit inclusion in the law’s statutory guidance.
Institutional interpretations can create additional barriers. A participant in a 2021 online survey reported that university student-housing management refused assistance after she experienced acephobic harassment from flatmates, telling her she was “not actually ‘LGBT’” and therefore not covered by its antidiscrimination policies. This is an account of an institution’s response, not a court ruling establishing that ace people lack protection under UK law.
Asylum and Family Rights
In March 2018, the Dutch Council of State rejected the asylum application of an asexual Algerian man who had been expelled from his family home after refusing to marry his cousin. According to the paper, the court excluded asexuality from the relevant interpretation of sexual-orientation asylum grounds and reasoned that asexual people were not criminalized or generally targeted in Algeria for the purposes of the “safe country of origin” exception. This was a particular decision, not proof that all asexual asylum claims are excluded everywhere.
Family-rights restrictions may also affect ace people. Georgia’s Law on Family Values and Protection of Minors bars adoption and foster care by people whose sexual orientation does not fall within heterosexuality. Outright identifies this wording as a potential restriction on asexual people’s family rights, rather than presenting evidence of a specific enforcement case against an asexual applicant.
Explicit Nondiscrimination Protections
Some jurisdictions have adopted clearer language, although the protections address different legal issues.
New York State’s Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act explicitly defines sexual orientation to include asexuality. In Queensland, a 2024 amendment added a definition covering a person’s “capacity, or lack of capacity” for emotional, affectional, and sexual attraction or intimate and sexual relationships.
The report also identifies at least two Spanish autonomous communities whose nondiscrimination laws expressly recognize asexual people, alongside U.S. cities that protect asexual and aromantic relationships through provisions concerning family or relationship structure. These are subnational measures, distinct from national legislation.
Conversion-Practices Bans
In 2024, New South Wales and South Australia adopted conversion-practices laws defining sexual orientation to include “a lack of sexual attraction to any individual of any sex.” This makes asexual people’s inclusion explicit in those particular protections.
Court Rulings and Proposed National Reforms
A 2023 Mexican federal court ruling held that pathologizing asexuality violated rights to free development of personality and nondiscrimination. It ordered changes to healthcare practices and training; it should not be confused with a comprehensive national nondiscrimination statute explicitly naming asexuality.
The paper also highlights proposed national legislation in the Philippines and the United States. The Philippine SOGIESC Equality Act proposal expressly addresses the absence of sexual orientation, while the proposed U.S. Equality Act includes discrimination based on attraction “or lack thereof.” These are examples of proposed inclusive drafting, not enacted protections established by the report.
Beyond Visibility: Legal Clarity
The paper’s central legal argument is not that asexual people have no rights until legislation names them. It is that universal rights and existing protections must apply inclusively—and that explicit language can reduce uncertainty, prevent exclusionary interpretations, and make enforcement more accessible. At the same time, documenting hostile laws requires equal precision about what has been proposed, enacted, or actually enforced.
