case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-09-07 06:48 pm

[ SECRET POST #3900 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3900 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.



[Harry Potter]


(Minor X-Files character Albert Hosteen)










Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-08 11:25 pm (UTC)(link)
I mean, I'm pretty sure asexual actually used to be a biological term originally where it meant organisms that are able to reproduce asexually. So the real question is: is the person ITT who's insisting on using the word in the correct way an amoeba, bacteria or fungus?
digitalghosts: valentin_icon (Default)

[personal profile] digitalghosts 2017-09-09 12:02 am (UTC)(link)
Actually need to look that up as you probably are right on first use in biology of the world but I think there was some other thing it described first as I recall it not making sense. Anyway, meant human sexuality related uses :P, otherwise we'd have a lot of public reproduction. I imagined people casually cutting themselves in half and building new human out of spilled organs. Yeah, I know it is all cellural levels but the picture amused me.