bydontost

Just popping in to say that "attraction" in general is useful for me;

the term platonic attraction isn't sth I apply to my experience, but I use the word "admiration" to describe similar things sometimes;

feeling is a much much more broad category than attraction and one where attraction fits too

2 hours ago, Mark said:

With "nonamorous" being a term which is likely to confuse people. Since it's a synonym, in Latin, for "asexual".

Honestly I haven't seen anyone be confused about this. in my experience people get confused, but mostly about how it relates to polyamory. i dont think nonamory was supoosed to be about any attraction. anyway, this is not a terminology discussion, or is it..??

2 hours ago, Mark said:

In the aro community physical affection appears to be a similarly divisive issue. Possibly also dating and other romantic coded activities.

And I'm not surprised in the least, since so much of it is romo coded and what is romo and what isn't to an individual person is highly subjective 

sigh so I think that the problem may be in the interaction of most common, or the loudest perspectives and uhh insecurity or the desire for people not to assume anything about them..?? and the most common/loudest voices don't have to be the same for every person either. so one person is gonna see someone talk about their nonamorous, 0 attraction aromanticism and think "oh this is *the* aro experience", while another is gonna see someone talk about squishes and qprs and think that's aromanticism for everyone. but well, idk, that's where I think the insecurity comes in for some (that'd be the questions "can i be aro if [insert sth other than "i dont relate to aromanticism"]" or the desire for people not to assume anything incorrect about them (that'd be, in an environment where qprs are talked about a lot, terms like nonamorous or aplatonic)

as for what we can do about it, bc I too think that too many terms probably aren't helping much, other than helping the long discussions about what a certain term mean, I'm not sure, except for on every forum post on some topic there should be someone saying "oh no, this is not my experinece at all". or having contact with diverse aros... or using language like "some aros" instead of just "aros" when you wanna talk about some generalized experiences... 

1 hour ago, TripleA said:

Well I've not seen any that say they haven't had any squishes before

that may be happening because people usually talk about experiences they have, not the ones they don't have. so its possible you'd see people going "oh I have a squish" and others replying "yep me too!!", to which it'd be weird to reply "haha and I don't get squishes", creating a view that people are only talking about getting squishes and not talking about not having them at all

anyway, getting squishes is definitely not a thing that happens to every aro

6 hours ago, Chandrakirti said:

Great start to a site I can see myself using daily... I'm just a bit confused about the identity glossary as the first 3 sound so similar I can't detach them from each other and the last one is too widely encompassing for me, so I wouldn't know where to place myself as an aroace.

It is, however, a work in progress and comes across as a much needed space.

Great! And I'm unsure what you mean by this, is it correct to assume this is not a suggestion to change anything on the website, but a matter of personal identity?

3 hours ago, nonmerci said:

I have not finish to look yet,  but I notice that you wrote alloromatic instead of alloromantic wmin the FAQ, in the answer of the question "Are aromantics lonely without romantic relationships?" (It's written in reader with the links to the glossary) That's just a detail but I wanted to say it before I forget.

By the way, with the lin to the glossary, it leads us to the top of the glossary page instead of leading us to the word we are looking for.

Oops, thanks, fixed that. Thanks for reporting this too, we are working out what made the links (and anchors) break this way.

On the behalf of the team working on the Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy (AUREA) website, I'm happy to announce that the beta version of the website is up at www.aromanticism.org! Since we're in beta, the site isn't yet a final product and to make it so we'd like to hear back from the community. We'd like to invite you to visit the website so you can take a look or read what is there and if you notice something could be corrected - please inform us about that by writing to us at contact@aromanticism.org. We'd be happy to receive feedback about substantive content, like resources or FAQ, though if you see a broken link or a site functionality issue comes up, you can report that too. If you take time to help us out this way - big thanks! If not - the beta will last 2 weeks, so you may come visit us after the launch of the final version at aromanticism.org!

On 5/10/2019 at 7:44 PM, Coyote said:

What I understand this to mean is that the team is intending to not invite any outside beta readers/not release any part of the web copy before publishing the site.

 

Why?

On 5/10/2019 at 8:58 PM, Mark said:

Seconded!

It didn't occur to us initially to invite beta readers, because we didn't expect the site launch to immediately catch the attention of everyone outside the aro community, just the insiders so to speak, so we were going to accept suggestions and feedback then. For the past few days we've been thinking about changing that though, because it's true that any errors that could find their way in could decrease credibility if the website was presented as a final version from the start. So we were thinking of starting with a short beta period for the whole website, possibly on a different domain, a link to which would be shared on the forums and with selected people from discord and tumblr. We'd ask for feedback (tangible recommendations of what could be improved) in the e-mail form so that it's easier to keep track of and after addressing that feedback and making the changes, we'd launch the site in a final-ish version (as we'd be still open to feedback then).

21 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I realized that my scepticism of others comments came from that I had a different view of how the role of the website was presented. I'm reading it as just giving the general idea of what aromanticism is and a guide to find other resources and people who would be interviewed.

As @bananaslug said, our goals right now are as follows:

On 5/4/2019 at 12:33 AM, bananaslug said:

• Creating an extensive aromantic glossary with coinage and variation in definition listed  
• Providing accessible online and printable resources, as well as a listing of in-person aromantic groups
• Creating an aro community contact point for media outlets and researchers
• Maintaining a community feed with information on events, surveys, and news articles

As we mentioned before, we want this website to act like an official resource for education about aromanticism and a way to connect various aromantic discussions happening in different spaces. This first aim and trying to get contact from media through the website especially means that we'd be treated as representatives, as a way for people who aren't aromantic to get insight into aromantic perspectives from an inside source. That said, we will invite others to contribute or volunteer and represent the organization as a whole, should they wish to. We don't want to be the only representatives (i.e., ignoring others or pretending we know everything) but our team is made up of people who are ready to devote the time and energy to do their research and act as spokespeople for official purposes.

21 hours ago, Holmbo said:

Maybe a way for  @bydontost

to relieve these concerns would be to explain how it will be made clear that the people running this website is a closed group and not chosen by anyone to be representatives.

We'll have an "About" page, which will introduce everyone on the team, so it'll be clear who is actually working on the website, in what capacity and what specific input they have (for example in terms of non-sam identities). We can include the basis on which people were chosen for the team. We won't include anything about not being the chosen representatives, because this would just undermine the website in the eyes of people coming from the outside of aro communities. We'd rather work to really represent aromantics as well as possible.

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

I'm just saying, "representing others," necessarily, is something that this initiative entails, by definition.

It's true, one of main aims of this initiative's is to represent aromantics, because we think we (aros) need that.

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

I have questions I think it's not unreasonable to want answers to. At the moment I have one question in particular that I think is pretty good & that I would appreciate some support in getting the team to answer.

We are monitoring this thread - if you have a question, feel free to ask it and we'll answer. What's the question?

For me, the problems I have with my aromanticism come from the society around me, not the fact that (at least for now) my aromantic plans for life include staying single nonromantically and otherwise. So, yeah, some of my friends may move on, but maybe not everyone and I'll make some new ones, I'll have my family... It'll hurt when someone implies I should give romance a shot, but I'll know that I'm living a life true to myself without it. Like idk, I think not being depressed helps a lot - I'm not sure what the future has in store for me, but I don't see it as bleak..?? This may sound like empty words, but hell, there are people out there who share the same values as you, who would think of your friendship as precious, even though it may be harder to find them, when more people are focused on romantic relationships. So uh yeah. And romo love still isn't the cure to everything, ensuring that the people who feel it will have Their Person - relationships don't work out, feeling are not reciprocated, feelings fade. So idk, I don't think we're getting such a bad deal I guess

10 hours ago, hUllO said:

Cool! Thanks for you answers! Although what if the person is cisgender, heterosexual and heteromantic but lithromantic too; are they lgbt+? 

Hmm, you mean like, a lithromantic person who gets het crushes, but the attraction then goes weird, fades, or there's no need to be in a relationship..?? On a principle I'd say that since lithro is an aromantic spectrum identity and aros are queer, then yeah. I guess it depends if you feel queer because of it though too

15 hours ago, Mark said:

I can see what the team members have posted on Arocalypse, quite easily.
I can also what one team member has posted on tumblr, since that's listed. Possibly also some other team members with some investigation.
What they have written on other platforms I have no idea of.

The kind of things I'd look for would be challenging the notion of aro being a subset of ace; understanding that experiences of people who are ace(spec) and aro(spec) can be quite different from the experiences of people who are aro(spec) and allo(sexual); being good allies to aro-allos.

I do have a concern that someone who's ace(spec) might not recognise how an "aro resource" is ace(spec) specific (or how to change it to be more generally applicable).

This, rather long, tumblr post is certainly worth a read.

Again, we're not asking you to trust us at this point, but to be willing to suspend your distrust when you see the website and then judge if we're doing good or if we need to work on allo aro inclusiveness more. I think that actions speak louder than words and in this case, the actions is the website and I'm not sure if our assurances that (as one example) we all don't see aromanticism as a subset of asexuality would convince you. Thank you for the suggestion of issues we should be mindful of, I can happily tell you that everyone on the team is familiar with alloaroworlds and hir work on tumblr. At this point I'm not sure further conversation is leading anywhere.

8 hours ago, sennkestra said:

 

 

Can I ask why you think that an umbrella aromantic organization should necessarily seek majority "aro allo" leadership (as opposed to say, parity or just letting things fall based on who volunteers?) I'm familiar with all the arguments and reasons why it's important to have both ace and non-ace aro representation (as well as representation from those in the grey-areas in between!  Let's not forget that seeing "allo vs. ace" as a binary in itself can cause harm), and I don't think there's anything bad with a hypothetical majority-aro-allo group in and of itself, but I also don't think that necessarily translates to "more allos than aces is obviously better" and I think it's important to talk about why that's being suggested instead of taking it as a given,

From what I understood, Mark would be more comfortable with the majority of the team being allo aro, because they're allo aro themself and it'd probably protect allo aros' interests better. We can't provide that comfort for Mark, but I can share what the criteria were for choosing people for the team, so maybe it's more understandable why identity wasn't the most important.

First of all, I and the team wanted people who we knew and trusted, as the initiative is more serious than a blog, involves money and our personally identifying information being shared.

Then, we wanted people who were active in the aromantic community, informed, contributing to it, people who could really do the work that we set out to do in a way that would be good for the community.

We also looked for people who were facilitating discussions and stayed reasonable during them, were willing to hear all arguments and try and reconcile multiple points of view instead of jumping to conclusions, as well as be responsible. 

And we also considered identities. Out of the people who met all those criteria and were contacted, we gathered our team. One allo aro who we asked couldn't participate in the project and we're still waiting for a response from another one. 

1 hour ago, Mark said:

I would be rather more comfortable with this project had a majority aro allo leadership.

Understandable, however at the moment we don't have a majority of aro allo leadership and identity was a secondary criterion when picking members.

1 hour ago, Mark said:

Will you ask such groups what they do to specifically include aro allo people before deciding how to list them? Especially if they have a history of being ace groups.
In the case of many written resources a better option than linking might be a rewrite and reference.
This applies even to aromantic terms. Be they the fairly obscure quoiromantic to aromantic itself. Given that there are some rather poor definitions around which are easy to find. An ideal medium to long term plan would be to get the likes of AVEN to link to an aro resource site for all matters aro.
There's also a huge need for resources about romantic coded  behaviour, romance repulsion, monogamy repulsion, how to communicate with alloromantics about aromanticism in ways which are easy for them to understand.

We haven't yet, but we're going to ask them about their policies about including allo aros. Due to the nature of this project, it may be not finished when the site goes live, but we're going to work on that. As for the links, yeah, what I meant was that the references would be to ace-first sites/groups/communities.
Our glossary isn't going to be a collection of links and we're right now in the process of tracking down coinages, divergences in use and all that. We're especially aware of the issue with quoiromantic and its definitions. And our plan is to be that resource for all matters aro. 

As for the resources about romantic coded behaviour, romance repulsion, monogamy repulsion and talking about aromanticism with allos - thanks for bringing those up, we have resources in mind for romance repulsion and explaining aromanticism to allos, we'll write in romantic coded behavior as a project and as for monogamy repulsion, I'm not sure if it's an aromantic issue, could you elaborate/provide a source?

15 hours ago, Mark said:

A problem I see here the lack of allosexual representation.
What are your plans to address this issue before anything goes live?

We're going to be an aromanticism site, not asexual + aromantic site, which means asexuality itself won't be a focus. We'll also have some resources for allosexual aros. Since aromantic communities in general are less established than ace ones and ace ones have some resources on aromanticism, we'll end up with a lot of links to ace+aro resources (for example in the "in-person groups" section, which has groups for aces and aros together). The solution to that is that we'll specify which resources are specific to aros and which are aspec, so that people who want to interact with the aro-specific ones will be able to access them easily. And, as @eatingcroutons pointed out, I myself am allosexual, so this perspective is definitely not going to be overlooked and while there may be a disproportion in resources, in the informational sections we will be including allosexual and asexual parts of the aros' experience both.

The aro website is happening! We'd be grateful for help with the costs for domain, hosting and e-mail, so if you can and want to support this project your money would be very much appreciated. You can chip in here:
https://www.paypal.com/pools/c/8e0zrbpbIW

The website is going to aim to be an official front for aromanticism, featuring faq, resources, e-mail contact for press/media, glossary and such. 
Currently the team is me, Magni @Magni, Neir @running.tally, HotRamen @HotRamen, and @bananaslug aka aroacepagans on tumblr.

We'd be happy to answer questions should any arise too

On 4/8/2019 at 4:56 PM, Holmbo said:

Do you ever take aro visibility into account when you decide who to come out to? Do you use the term aromantic?

A bit, yeah, but I'm also not out to a lot of people as aromantic (it's mostly trusted friends). Sometimes I don't wanna say aromantic when I feel that this would receive more doubt that even "I don't want to date" does sometimes. I want to bring visibility to the orientation, but as always it's a choice between being true to yourself, talking to people on the level they're more likely to understand and not wanting to be doubted. 

On 4/9/2019 at 11:14 PM, Coyote said:

"more visibility" does not make for a good community goal -- because "visibility" is not the same thing as "acceptance."

This is before I read the link - but it seems impossible for me to gain acceptance without visibility...?? People need to *know* we exist before they can accept us. I think that the end goal is "acceptance", but it can't be done without visibility...?? Or do you mean to say that since "acceptance" is not clearly articulated as the end goal, our only goal is visibility?? (this may get an edit as I read the link) edit: nope, doesn't need an edit, except to add that: is the acceptance from the 5 people in the shadows better than visibility and other people who will find out about the orientation being able to find acceptance in orientation-specific communities...?? to me the second option is better tbh, bc the people who want to hate us will do it anyway. 

I wanted to suggest another one - aurea (arospec union for recognition, education and advocacy)?? it is a word, in latin (better than english tho) and an acronym for a software company 

5 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Will you please, please, please make sure not to define quoiromantic as "can't tell the difference between platonic and romantic feelings"

Yes sure to both

1 hour ago, sennkestra said:

Might need to think a bit to find an acronym that isn't taken yet

I'm not entirely sure it's feasible, some acronyms already existing do double up... It'd be preferable, but I'm not sure if necessary

1 hour ago, sennkestra said:

for the domain name specifically, I'd recommend going for a full word or two rather than an acronym

Okay, point, I think we (well, @running.tally ) came up with something that is alright and not an acronym

42 minutes ago, HotRamen said:

What about AAN which would stand for aro advocacy network

I think it'd be hard to pronounce, at least as a word, without spelling it out (unless you meant for it to be spelled out..??)

Other options (my faves) include:
ANREA (Arospec Network for Recognition, Education and Advocacy), ACARE (Arospec Community Alliance for Recognition and Education), AURA (Arospec Union for Recognition and Advocacy), ACURE (Arospec Community Union for Recognition and Education)

@Prismatangle

Thank you and I'm sorry too that I got so mad at you first instead of suggesting a change. It seems that I didn't understand what you meant by your message (that you've been there for the discussions about those certain types of attraction before) and instead understood that you're connected to and informed on the discussions (in the aromantic circles) now. My comment was about the fact I thought you referred to aspec spaces as they are right now (ace and/or aro) as "ace/aspec" and I'm sorry I didn't show more patience. 

45 minutes ago, Prismatangle said:

And I will say that now that I’ve caught up on the thread, it’s feeling better now than it was.

Same here

47 minutes ago, Prismatangle said:

 I don’t form relationships based on my attraction patterns.

I think that's a separate issue too ? Could it be described in the language of relationship favourable/indifferent/averse...?? 

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

 Although the ace and aro comms talk a lot about "attraction," it seems like there are a lot of other closely related factors, like desire and intention and cultural perception, that influence people's choice of description. See also that whole recent thread on a not-specifically-aro umbrella term, where it was mentioned that folks have been shying away from "greyromantic" because of unwanted associations (as was also mentioned on this post over here).

Yeah I follow those discussions, it seems quite a lot is breaking down over the attraction and other factors that may influence an identity. This is another symptom things could be reworked a bit I think. 

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

11 hours ago, bydontost said:

Anyway, maybe people who only have one orientation (either in terms of identity or attraction) could just say they're something"-oriented" as clarification..?? Like, "I'm aromantic, in the sense that I'm a-oriented"..?? 

 

I thought about the idea of an alternative suffix, yeah. Although it's not really my place to have a say on which one. ...Could be that people might not like the double vowels, though.

Idk if I don't want to go back on this actually, because it's so vague. This again would lead to the "but attraction/identity/preferences??" questions probably. The double vowel is why I put the "-" there Not a fix for pronunciation though. 

Phew, so, I think that the issues that were supposed to be explained by sam, but weren't very structured in sam are answers to the following questions: 
Attraction: What kind of attractions do you experience? What is the pattern of this attraction? Are those types attractions you have experienced as cohesive?
Identity: What do you identify as? What is that identity influenced by (attraction/other factors)?

And answers to those questions and concepts around them could be structured more. 

More talk in a comment here: https://theacetheist.wordpress.com/2019/03/20/remodeling-on-the-reclamation-of-the-term-split-attraction-model/#comment-9651

55 minutes ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

All in all @Coyote's Convergent, cohesive pieces/Divergent pieces and Singular composite/Singular specific/Multiple specific orientation is much more comprehensive than identifying as using SAM or non-SAM, but it is still a concept that would best apply when people have sorted shit out, which is hard most of the time

I read @Coyotes post on their blog in the meantime and I'm actually ready to agree that sam is not enough to capture those subtleties, no matter how we rename it... I hope that wouldn't make things harder, but we need something to explain how all those attractions can influence identities and how identities don't have to be about attractions and all that.

You're not sure where you fit in those 4 categories Coyote suggested - maybe there's another one, I now notice it could be harder for someone who does think of their attraction as fluid to pinpoint where they fit, so that's something to think about. I'm definitely in the divergent pieces, multiple orientations, but it doesn't feel like a fractured experience - the pieces intersect, interweave to form a single sense of self. 

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

If "orientation" means

That's what the way I've been using it, yes. You clearly were using a different meaning, so of course you're going to (eta:) misunderstand me if you don't apply the sense I mean to my words (/end eta).

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

regardless of whether or not I label it as such or use that language for myself.

only in the sense that you experience that attraction, yes. Can you have attraction without labelling it?? Yes, you don't have a problem with this. Can you have orientation (in the meaning pattern of attraction) without labelling it?? Apparently not, even though it has the same meaning to how I use them. This is tripping you up. You don't use them the same way I do, but can you let go of the way you're using it for a second and understand what I'm saying?? 

The answer to that question you asked above is still: yes if you mean orientation = pattern of attraction, and no if you mean orientation = identity. I mean it in the first sense. 

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

To the extent that aces and aros have found the term useful, it seems, I'm thinking now, to be in the context of rejecting/negating/positioning themselves apart from it.

I'm not sure I understand - you mean that aros and aces only talk about the term sam to say they don't apply it to themselves...?? Or that it's mostly useful in setting apart aces from aros?? 

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

trying to draw a few different circles around ways of relating to the concept of "orientation"

Mostly looks like those are the groups. The only issue I have is this first part of this sentence and the use of "split": 

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

This way of relating to orientation “splits” or otherwise diverges from the Western “sexual orientation” composite, but it’s still just one orientation in the singular. 

12 hours ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

The only thing I disagree with @bydontost about is that 'orientation' and 'pattern of attraction' are the same thing, simply because using them as synonyms denies the possibility that there may be other influences, in addition to pattern of attraction, that may influence someone's fundamental orientation. A specific case for this might be neurodivergency.

Hmm this is sth I'd have to think about tbh...?? I guess my understanding was that patterns of attraction(s) itself(s) were influenced by things like that tbh.

12 hours ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

Yeah, Split Attraction Model (SAM) is not the best use of words but I do like the acronym. I did think that maybe Differentiated Attraction Model might be a possible solution but that acronym.....?..?

Should throw in N there too, to make "damn" ?. But I think that to name it accurately it'd have to be like "Possible Attraction Model, You Don't Have to Apply It to Yourself, But It's an Option, Please Remember You Don't Have to Label Your Identity According To This Model", which is to say - it's not useful for everyone, the name is probably never going to reflect all the problems people have with it, while the name split attraction model remains a bit unfortunate. Differentiated Attraction Model - "so you have to differentiate??". Separable Attraction Model - "so it's possible to separate in everyone??". Split Orientation Model - "so everyone's orientation is made out of different components??" or "so everyone's patterns of attractions can be separated from each other??". 

Anyway, maybe people who only have one orientation (either in terms of identity or attraction) could just say they're something"-oriented" as clarification..?? Like, "I'm aromantic, in the sense that I'm a-oriented"..?? 

1 hour ago, Prismatangle said:

Obviously this is an aromantic forum. I’m well aware. And I assume you are aware that in 2004 there was no such thing as an aromantic community?? These terms/concepts did in fact develop within the asexual community (it was not even called “the ace community” until… hm, maybe ‘09 at the earliest? I remember in ‘07-’08 there was still debate about whether it should be spelled “ace” or “ase”... and forget about “aspec,” that’s at least 5 years more recent than that). It is shared terminology. I am naming the community I was part of when these concepts developed, for clarity’s sake.

Yes, and now you're on an aromantic forum and discussing this in terms of aromanticism and the possible shifts in meanings that you're supposedly informed on/following. I am well aware that aro community wasn't a thing when the concepts of multiple attractions were being developed, but at least when the words "split attraction model" started being used, the are community was very much a thing already. So, wording I'd prefer to see, when you're trying to prove you're connected to aro discussions (this, happening on an aro forum, is an aro discussion) would be for example "ace/aspec spaces and now aro communities too". It worked poorly to me to name the communities you were active in then, in the context of you being connected to what is going on now. This is all.

1 hour ago, Prismatangle said:

, look, you may not like where these terms originated, 

I don't mind actually, to clarify. 

1 hour ago, Prismatangle said:

this kind of reaction when I enter an aro community space just for saying I’ve been around aspec spaces for about 15 years

nope, still not a reaction to this

1 hour ago, Prismatangle said:

Now, people assume that generally, people identify with a romantic orientation because of their patterns of attraction. But I think that assumption is not always correct, even today! I personally know some people who identify as lesbian despite occasionally being attracted to a few men, because of their strong preference to only date women. And there are also people who ID as asexual for similar reasons. So yes, it’s correct to say that identity is not only affected by attraction, there may be other factors as well.

Oh cool, same page!! Yes, I agree this is not good to assume a person's identity is only, always about their attraction. I think the most common case in which this is not so are people identifying as straight, but who have some non-straight attractions. I'm going to theorize that a lot of people like that aren't going to call themselves straight in the future (well, the younger generations). But I agree that it's good to emphasize that attraction doesn't have to equal identity. Tbh I thought that people who say they're "non-SAM" mean that they don't name their identities only based on the attractions they feel. And those who use SAM, use it to label their identity according to the attractions they feel (be it romantic, emotional, sexual, platonic, etc).

3 hours ago, Coyote said:

The way that I think and speak, asking "what does it mean to you" and "is it useful" and "does it fill a lexical gap," plus the notation on when it seems to have been coined (plus the nigh constant use of quotation marks, around "split attraction model") are how I express curiosity from a language vantage point

Well I certainly didn't catch that at all tbh. 

3 hours ago, Coyote said:

Fortunately this point of confusion has been raised and addressed, and now we are on the same page, yes?

 

We have identified several definitions that people have used and ways that people have used it, as a name, or string of words, to apply to different and overlapping and intertwined concepts, and I would like to talk about the semantic work that the phrase does or does not perform, i.e. how it is and is not useful -- starting with the classification of individuals into "SAM" and "non-SAM."

Yes, okay, I think I'm on the same page.

So, useful in my opinion - helps to conceptualize that there may be different types of attractions a person feels and that some of them may not exist or pull us in different directions. Useful when to someone a certain attraction is an important part of their experience and they want to incorporate it into their identity.

Not useful - may further reinforce the concept that attraction is the sole basis of identity. It is also mostly used in a way that centers sexual and romantic attraction-based identities, which doesn't make sense to many people. I don't think an argument that it doesn't apply to everyone is a strong one - a lot of concepts doesn't apply to everyone, but can be very useful to others. 

As a word - it's not the best for sure, but I'm not certain trying to change it wouldn't be like trying to turn a river with a stick at this point.