What, exactly, is wrong with self-diagnosis of one's sexuality? Sexuality is a personal thing that is ultimately up to the discretion and instincts of those who own their sexuality. How is someone saying "you know, your instincts about your sexuality might be right!" rather than "GET THEE TO A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL" performing a grave disservice? What gives sondjata the authority to order - not suggest - that Awkward seek medical advice in hopes of claiming privilege before daring to declare herself asexual?
Not saying this particular person isn't asexual, but there are other biological issues that could be at play here low hormones being chief among them. Since it is normal for the vast majority of the species, particularly at the age of this person, to want to engage in sexual activity and that a lot of that is hormonally driven, a medical exam would be in order for this individual prior to declaring they are asexual.
What this post really does is allow for the patient to self-diagnose and for the "doctor" to say: "If you say so." write a prescription and dismiss the patient without taking an exam. In the real world that's malpractice. [emphasis mine]
Sondjata's comment constructs her privilege as the healthy and right way to live, wielding her societal advantages to other Awkward. There is no room for Awkward, except as a freak of nature. Sondjata insults asexuals by implying that Awkward does not take care of or know her own body.
Instead of focusing on asexuality in culture, sharing experiences and perspectives on the topic, sondjata and other commenters chose to undermine Awkward's knowledge of her own body and assert the rightness, the biological superiority of their own sexuality. Instead of responding to Awkward's queries, they chose to doubt the legitimacy of her asexuality and suggest that Awkward doesn't really know what she's talking about. How could someone who wasn't silly, irresponsible, or sick not want to experience the all-consuming power of sex?
If someone wrote in about their very active sex drive, no one in the comments would suggest that they had a tumor - though that can cause an overactive sex drive. Commenters who respond with "Well, you might be sick. Make sure you're healthy so you can maybe be normal!" are robbing folks like Awkward of their agency in their sexuality and working to further entrench their privilege.
The post brought to mind the excellent and essential "Don't you realize fat is unhealthy?" from Shapely Prose:
7. Human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Fat people are human beings.
8. Even fat people who are unhealthy still deserve dignity and respect. Still human beings. See how that works?
9. In any case, shaming teh fatties for being “unhealthy” doesn’t fucking help. If shame made people thin, there wouldn’t be a fat person in this country, trust me. I wish I could remember who said this, ’cause it’s one of my favorite quotes of all time: “You cannot hate people for their own good.” [emphasis in context]
If health is not mentioned in an individual's discussion of their problematized body - in sexuality, or size, or gender identification - interrogating them on their health is a condescending display of privilege. It de-legitimizes and others their experiences, and robs them of an identity, reducing non-standard agency to simple, nonthreatening sickness.
Bottom line: other people's health are not your business. Their body belongs solely to them, and do not exist to soothe threats to your privilege.
More reading: The top ten responses to asexuality