[ SECRET POST #6184 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6184 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.




























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #884.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

What in the world are you talking about, then?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm saying that, just because a dude who says he was sexually attracted to all his girlfriends and his wife also says he's ace, doesn't mean the word has lost all meaning.

Words still means the same thing, even if someone uses them incorrectly.

And I would appreciate it if people didn't use the misuse to claim that the word asexual has no meaning. Because once the word has no meaning, well, then we shouldn't use that word - which is just a way to erase asexuals from the conversation, which is what the anti-ace people want.

The definition of asexual is part of my identity, just like the gay/fag/queer/lesbian/etcetcetc are words that mean something to the lgbt community.

What are YOU talking about?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm talking about people appropriating terms from a community and, making those terms about them instead, and diluting their meaning in the process.

A word doesn't become meaningless just because someone declares that it is. It becomes meaningless when its common usage becomes so broad that it no longer has a cogent definition. Language is alive, and dynamic; none of it is set in stone, and if enough people decide to use a word "incorrectly," then the incorrect usage eventually becomes the correct one.

Was it you who said that it's easier to reclaim a word when it doesn't get lost in the first place? Well, that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about maintaining a strict boundary around these words so that they retain their current meaning, and so that they continue to belong to the communities they currently describe.

[(Anonymous)]

A strict boundary isn't policing who can use the term. That way lies genital checks. A strict boundary is understanding when someone says something patently absurd because you understand the definition. I don't care how many people say that fascism is democracy, it doesn't make it true. It doesn't make democracy become meaningless. Language is alive and dynamic and sometimes words can take on new meanings, but they have to take on new meanings. Asexual still means without sexual attraction. Just because some aphobes are trying to use it to erase the ace community doesn't mean the word has changed.

And no one should just roll over and let them.

After seeing a guy describe himself as aromantic and asexual while talking about how deeply in love he was with his wife and how hot he found his girlfriends, I'm...inclined to agree with AYRT

And THAT. That is rolling over and letting them.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT - Out of interest, how do you feel about men calling themselves 'women' and 'female' then? These are words that have had a standard definition for decades, if not centuries, but are now considered somehow nebulous or have circular definitions in some (expanding) circles.

[(Anonymous)]

Men never have and still do not normally call themselves women.

[(Anonymous)]

Not normally, but these men are not normal by any use of the word. But that's exactly the problem here, the distortion of language by changing the use of words far from their original meaning.
If we cannot ringfence a word as basic as the one that refers to the adult females of our species, how can you protect the (non-reproduction-tactic-based) meaning of asexual when someone appears to be stretching it beyond the original definition? It's a much less concrete concept than 'man' or 'woman'. If you can identify into the opposite sex, you can identify into any sexuality (or lack thereof) or identity you choose and no-one can say a thing against it.

AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry you missed the meaning of my comment, I thought it would come through without a spelled-out answer.

Men do not call themselves women. The people you call "men calling themselves women" are not men, they're women. Even if you don't like them, it's still a science-based fact that they're women. So you're the one who is using the word incorrectly. Hope that helps!

[(Anonymous)]

You just had to find a way to bring this bullshit up even when it wasn’t relevant to the discussion.

Trans women are women.

[(Anonymous)]

They're blatantly men, otherwise they wouldn't be trans (read: fake/pretend). Duh.