I was not suggesting it was, I was talking about expression of sexuality, both in the construct of the self and in society, that was a different part of my questioning. To be precise, it’s non-applicability in the case of asexual people, but I simplified to make my point to say it is extremely diverse and complicated and these studies are really not helping (I believe) by using a very large hammer to nail a multi-dimensional non-euclidian nail. Appreciate the correction on the grammar though and I knew that resource already but it’s always helpful to reread :-)

I might be misunderstanding a valid criticism, but your complaint is about the parent comment's using "are" rather than "is"?

That's simply the plural version: if one person is asexual, multiple people are asexual.

I was trying to point that a person can't become asexual (on the same way that no body can change is sexual orientation). Asexuals are born asexuals. Like a homosexual is born homosexual, etc.

I don't think this is true. People's sexual orientation can shift over time, and that might be to being asexual.