anonymous said: 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…