been following the allosexual debate. it seems like it’s not really about allosexual? it’s about any term that groups non ace spec people apart from ace spec people, that it’s harmful to talk in any way about people who aren’t ace spec? because any non ace spec term could include people who don’t identify with sexual attraction or who don’t feel sexual attraction is important to or a defining part of their orientation? with the debate being framed on allosexual I’m not sure if I’m parsing right. (I mean about the way that allosexual, or any term for non ace spec people, is intended to be used, as a simple “not us” grouping for discussion purposes, not anything extra/problematic someone might do with the term or lump onto the term)
indeed, many of the arguments that people are making against the usage of the word allosexual aren’t even really about the word allosexual itself. in fact, many of the same arguments are also being made verbatim against the usage of monosexual.
that suggests that it’s not just about a word being used to talk about the experiences of people identifying on the ace spectrum vs not identifying on the ace spectrum. no, there’s a lot more to it than that and i’m pretty sure that those making these arguments would agree.
i find it telling that no one making these arguments seems to be able to explain why these arguments, which are equally applicable to numerous other words, seemingly only apply to allosexual and monosexual.
…it’s almost as if they don’t care that many of the very same arguments that they make against allosexual and monosexual could similarly be made against words that they themselves use. apparently such arguments don’t apply when it’s inconvenient for them to.