asexual is a modifier!

cishethet:

asexuality and the terminology that is used to describe it is actually really incoherent.

the split attraction model was created for a-spec people whose romantic and sexual orientations are split. this essentially leaves room for a-spec people to identify as “biromantic asexual” or “aromantic heterosexual”, which is fine.

however, in order to understand one’s social location regarding sexual orientation, one needs to specify which gender(s) one is attracted to.

asexuality when used in the SAM acts as a modifier, letting us know the degree of attraction one experiences rather than the genders one is attracted to. aroace is what one would say is a person who experiences no attraction to any gender whatsoever.

so now that we’ve started to figure this out, many people have been saying that asexuality is not a modifier for use in the SAM but is instead a whole orientation that means “feels no sexual attraction [to any gender]”.

this is why asexual terminology is incoherent!! this makes no sense! “asexual” cannot be used as a whole orientation using the split attraction model because it doesn’t specify which genders you’re attracted to, and frankly not using the split attraction model for a-spec identities is confusing bc now you’re switching your own terminology on us.

you cannot pick and choose whether or not asexuality is a modifier. you must specify which genders you are attracted to (“no genders” also is something you should specify) and if you are a-spec then please use the split attraction model or convince everyone else in the community to not use it and come up with an explanation for why “asexual” isn’t a modifier just used to figure out degree of sexual attraction as opposed to which genders you’re attracted to.

this switch on terminology whenever you feel is most opportune for you is unnecessary and confusing for everybody.

wow!! what a hot take. and hey, this reminds me; you know what other sexual identities have been modified to specify unique experiences?

every other sexual identity.

so much so, there’s newfangled and popularized terms for them. like ‘bisexual/pansexual’, for those who are attracted to, say, women, but also another gender (or more)!! they modified their sexual identity to reflect their attractions, and how these attractions affect their life.

my point? if you’re gonna claim ‘asexuality’ as the modifier for – as an example – ‘demi lesbian’, you also have the same claim for ‘demi lesbian’ being its own unique experience and identity on its own. and not split between ‘the REAL thing’ and a mere modifier.

because sure, the words as they exist now are modifying languages, but the ~material reality~ (like you exclusionists always say you have an omniscient understanding of) is that demi(this) or grey(that) and etc, they’re their own unique thing and affect us very differently.

aka – they’re a whole, unique identity of its own. if we gave ‘demi lesbian’ its own, separate name – basically; if we didn’t utilize ‘modifier languages’ to describe aspec identities, your argument falls flat.