From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


We already have asexual. Merge? TheoryOfPractice 12:04, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Holy shit[edit]

I think you guys might be going a little bit overboard on the labels here.


Wtf indeed! Parogar (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean any disrespect, but this article honestly reads like a Pokedex Parogar (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is a neologism doesn't mean it is invalid. And yes, it reads like a Pokedex, because it is a taxonomy, much like a Pokedex. Asarelah (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsure how to Wiki[edit]

Hi! Sorry for being a WikiRabbit, but I've written up a brief essay on asexuality, in particular what it's like to be one in modern culture, and I'm not sure about the protocols (or methods, even!) of putting that on here. I've seen a bunch of other essays on RationalWiki. Are they special/distinct from articles? If so, how would I go about creating one?

Thanks, and all the best! Onychoprion (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. ^^; Onychoprion (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Denial and vicious words[edit]

Yeah, that shit exists. Arguments I had to deal with yesterday included "It doesn't exist/it's impossible"; "You're lying"; "If you think it's normal then it people born with paralysis should be considered healthy"; "If you think it's normal then people should think it's normal that I like to crap in my truck and smell it"; "I use this label to excuse my virginity"; "You're missing out and denying yourself enjoyment"; "Pathetic"; "Soyboy"; "Virgins"; "It's not natural"; "There's no research, it's just some pseudo label to give virgins the want to be treated 'normally'.

Some twatknuckle said this over GameFAQs and didn't even get banned over it. It doesn't matter if this is a troll or not, this sounds awfully like anti-gay bigotry. We need to outline common words about bigotry in this article. You also see it documented in several places, tumblr and memes sure, but this asspickler spouts all the bigot talking points both the ignorant and bigots use toward asexuality. Just saying, if people like him exist, there's probably more, as again, he sounds just like what's documented here.

I'm saying this also because we had a section on it earlier, but it was removed for being unsourced. The thread I was in was deleted but you have to take my word for it, and check some links.

--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario: Yeah, acephobia exist. Although it's not as known as transphobia and homophobia because aces aren't as mainstream. Most people know that gay people exist and maybe bisexual people (some people think that bisexual people can't decide on a gender). Anything else (e.g. polysexual, pansexual, and asexual) the general public is unaware of. So yeah, good luck finding any sources on acephobia on mainsteam websites. I say you go through twitter and search the hashtag "acephobia" and "asexual". I saw a tweet saying aces are incels.チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm just leery on tumblr and that stuff but I think documenting the tropes should be helpful. There has been research into it, though it's relatively new and not thorough at all. Crossing my fingers in the future that these sort of comments are going to be widely viewed as unacceptable and "LGBTIA+" gets wider acceptance and not incredulous "why not the entire alphabet soup". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The list of orientations is bullshit[edit]

I read the Wikipedia article on asexuality, and it says that there is no clear consensus among scholars on whether it is a sexual orientation or not. I think we should replace "sexual orientation" with "identity" in this article, and we should remove the list of orientations. There is also a "split attraction model" and a neologorrhea of definitions of various "orientations." It reminds of the infamous Myers-Briggs Type Indicator where we have all of these plausible categories and definitions, but not much rigor. I imagine I could write a similar article where I replace "polyromantic" with "INTP" and replace "romantic orientation" with "sensing/intuition." Another red flag is that most of the content here is tautological. Tautologies are always true, but that means they are independent of any observations of the real world, that is, they can't be falsified, nor do they help us predict things about the world. Why should we consider a list of tautological definitions scientific? It's strange to uncritically describe these things on RationalWiki where we take pride in debunking pseudoscience.

I am not against asexual people, and people can identify as asexual or even any of the "microlabels," but the scientific validity of these "orientations" is speculative at best. The list of orientations is bullshit.

I don't think this page really says anything one way or another about the science behind these terms; currently asexuality is very poorly studied. It is not implausible to call asexuality a sexual orientation since asexuality is about sexual attraction (in this case, the lack of any). The Wikipedia article you linked includes it as a sexual orientation in the sidebar. Most recent media and papers seem to have settled on asexuality as an orientation. I guess one way to look at it: if not an orientation, what would it be? To me, the alternative categorizations you see in some earlier research (eg calling it a "disorder") seem very problematic in the same way calling homosexuality/transgender/etc. an alternative category ("disorder") would be.
I made a mistake of not describing the term "sexual orientation" more explicitly. The Wikipedia definition says that an orientation is an enduring pattern, and it mentioned some studies suggesting many asexuals change. There are also some suggestions that sometimes asexuality is a result of disorders. So if someone's asexuality is not their orientation, then it could just be a temporary state, possibly resulting from a disorder. Indeed, the alternatives to asexuality being an orientation have problematic implications. Although you could say that asexuality itself is not a problem to be solved, but rather a warning sign of a possible latent psychiatric condition, it would have problematic implications for how asexual people are treated by doctors. Now, I don't think we should credulously accept the problematic implications of these few studies, but we can't rule them out only on the basis that they are problematic. I think it's plausible that the state of asexuality can exist as a sexual orientation or as a symptom depending on the individual. However, I would be delighted if we could rule out mental illness as a common cause of asexuality :) — Unsigned, by: 2600:1016:B11E:F1A9:585F:3112:AF0:148E / talk / contribs
Yes, the subcategory labels are more community / social type definitions as I understand it. This is, I think, probably no different than the difficulty people describing the fluid range of "in between" gender identities and the large amount of terms in that direction (genderqueer, gender fluid, agender, bigender, pangender, etc.)
There probably is a biological component with the general asexuality category overall, though, if I had to guess (eg similar to transgender, which is probably the most studied of the in-between gender identities, seems to have some biological elements, but still is poorly understood). For instance, there are a few hints in papers here and there that suggest a link between asexuality and the autism spectrum. Unfortunately much remains unknown.
Indeed, I believe asexuality can be explained biologically, though this is consistent with the possibility that it is not always a sexual orientation as I described in another comment. My skepticism is mainly towards treating the entries in the list of orientations as a valid categorization of asexuality just as you might be skeptical of categorizing personality in terms of Myers-Briggs. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1016:B11E:F1A9:585F:3112:AF0:148E / talk / contribs
Now, whether or not a laundry list of asexuality subtypes is in scope of RationalWiki is a good question. I don't think we do that for other orientations / identities, at least not with this degree of detail. BobJohnson (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the comparison between the Myers-Briggs is a bit dishonest. The MB does not provide a plethora of possibilities, as a inventory it sticks people into an arbitrary binary (i.e. being either introverted or extroverted, never both). It claims to be able to classify anyone who can take the test, and has extremely low statistical reliability as a psychometric. It purports itself to be science while being widely rejected by psychologists. That’s why it’s psuedoscience. Variously coined asexual identities don’t posses any of those properties, hence this is a faulty analogy fallacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not intend to use the comparison with Myers-Briggs as an argument that the asexual orientations are pseudoscience, but instead only because they are similar as specious psychological classifications. Nevertheless, I think the comparison is useful to make an argument that the orientations are pseudoscience. The MBTI clearly purports itself to be scientific, but what about the orientations? We can go to places like r/asexuality on Reddit where people classify themselves as one of these types and there are different subreddits like r/aegosexuals, where people view these things as who they are. The terminology also has a scientific veneer like "autosexual." Both MBTI and the ideas on orientations make claims in the domain of psychological science. As for the fact that MBTI is a binary, that actually makes it a better hypothesis because it is falsifiable. If I have a study without 16 clusters, I can rule out MBTI. On the other hand, some of the asexual orientations are so vague that they are almost meaningless like "grey ace." If you don't fit into one of the categories, you can just add another epicycle. There is also almost nothing definite or testable about any of the orientations, and they are nothing more than a trivial list of definitions. One of the few definite claims is that these categories are who people are, but what if someone changes from demisexual to something else after a year? Another claim that the orientations do make is that there are orthogonal sexual and romantic orientations and it appears to be based on a so-called "primary vs. secondary sexual attraction model" that some forum user came up with. If we modified MBTI to place people on a spectrum in its dimensions, it would still be bad because there are better choices of dimensions like those of the big five model. Why should asexuality consist of romantic and sexual dimensions? Can we actually distinguish between the two? Are there more dimensions we don't know of? I don't think there are any studies demonstrating poor psychometrics of the identities or a wide rejection by psychologists, but shouldn't the burden of proof for its validity rest on those making the claims? It also seems like most of the ideas come from the AVEN activist group, and people are unwilling to reject these ideas because they identify with them. I think I've made it clear that these asexual orientations are pseudoscientific, and it's sad to see some people cling to these identities. One time I talked to a person who insisted that he was asexual, but he wanted to masturbate with his roommate. You can find people online who stop seeing psychiatrists because the psychiatrists think low libido could be a manifestation of some other problem. I have also seen a document published by AVEN intended to "educate" mental health professionals about asexuality, but I can't find a link to it.— Unsigned, by: 2600:1016:B12B:D6A1:98EC:35CB:C67:581 / talk / contribs

What about aromantic[edit]

I think we should make an article about being aromantic since it's different enough from asexuality to be its own article, and, unlike other romantic orientations, (e.g. Homoromatic, Biromantic, Heteroromantic etc.) which are mostly covered in the articles of their counterparts (e.g. Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Heterosexuality) being aromantic is not as linked to being asexual as being, say, panromantic to pansexual. — Unsigned, by: Thesenate / talk / contribs