my perspectives on this are not in the mainstream of science at the moment, although as more evidence debunks the genetic basis of sexual orientation there is going to be a need to look at different approaches, but the easy deduction from her life experiences is that she essentially wasn't taught to be sexual, whereas the other kids around her were.
reducing it to a choice - like what you're going to eat for breakfast - is a little overly simplistic. but, i think that if you were to look at her life experiences that much more carefully, you'd pull some things out. for example, i'd bet she watched less tv and was broadly less exposed to specific types of media than the kids around her. further, i'd suspect that her mother was less sexual than the mothers of some of these other kids. they probably never really had that old talk. if you want to reduce it to a single, specific factor, it could very well simply be that her role models were not sexual, so she grew up into a non-sexual identity. yes, there is some concept of choice here, but it's hopelessly intertwined with the inputs defining the choice, meaning you're looking more at a type of pavlovian conditioning.
the basic point that i think so many people get wrong here is that they assume that this is all programmed, all hard-wired. the evidence is slowly overturning this perception. but, the remnants of social norms are still kind of lingering around.
my position is that all of these things that we assume are inherent have to be taught, and if you don't teach them then they just don't happen. i'm convinced, personally, that one of the reasons that i ended up identifying as female is that nobody ever really taught me how to be a male. it's not that simple. the mere absence of instruction is not enough to imply a specific outcome. i could have decided to pursue that path on my own, and sought different role models. but, being born xy doesn't necessarily imply you'll grow into a man - you have to be taught, somehow, one way or the other. it doesn't just happen. it's not innate, not automatic, not inherent.
likewise, sexual attraction is not something innate. it doesn't just appear out of our genome. mammals need to be taught almost everything by their parents, and sexuality is really no different. if you don't teach your kids about sex, they won't necessarily learn about it on their own - they might decide they'd rather do something else, or they might build up walls and barriers and stigmas. they may even take solace in their isolation, and elevate it to a part of their identity.
likewise, sexual attraction is not something innate. it doesn't just appear out of our genome. mammals need to be taught almost everything by their parents, and sexuality is really no different. if you don't teach your kids about sex, they won't necessarily learn about it on their own - they might decide they'd rather do something else, or they might build up walls and barriers and stigmas. they may even take solace in their isolation, and elevate it to a part of their identity.
she could probably change her mind if she wanted to, but the older you are, the harder it gets. and, she can't get back the life experiences that she didn't have when she was younger.
is asexuality essentially just another way to say you're sexually immature, then? by definition, perhaps. but, accepting diversity and autonomy and agency means it's ok to be immature and ok to accept that immaturity as an identity - that there isn't a correct path to follow in life.
is asexuality essentially just another way to say you're sexually immature, then? by definition, perhaps. but, accepting diversity and autonomy and agency means it's ok to be immature and ok to accept that immaturity as an identity - that there isn't a correct path to follow in life.