Hey guys can we not do this?

[Euracil]

 I stumbled across this wiki article and it seems... worrying to say the least.

 

http://aromantic.wikia.com/wiki/Animaromantic

Quote

An Animaromantic is a person who only experiences romantic attraction in the context of a metaplanar soul connection, either through convention by extradimensional epiphenomenalist spiritual interface or a kismetic, reincarnationalist eternal bond as manifested through the consequence of such a union.

 

Okay, hopefully I'm not stepping out of line in hypothesizing that pretty much everyone besides the person who made up this term thinks it's utter garbage. This is concerning to me at least because I don't feel like this will be the last "out there" term we come across in the future. 

 

I feel like this is something that needs to be nipped in the bud for the xromantic movement before we end up with something like this page. This is more than just an inconvenience. It's a real issue because extremely specific and incomprehensible identity terms can often lead to "attack helicopter" reactions by those on the right as a way to delegitimize other GSRM identities. Is there anything we can and/or should do about this?

 

(((Edit: I've grown up... I don't really care about this anymore. These people are just as valid as anyone else. Leaving this up for the sake of the discussion)))

[mikeman7918]

I definitely agree.  This whole identity politics thing is going WAAAY too far and it's stealing credibility from real issues.  This is not just a gender and sexuality issue, it extends to some people calling everyone a racist and making people with real gender dysphoria and real anxiety disorders be laughed at.

 

I've had many people think that my real diagnosed and rather debilitating anxiety disorder is something I made up to be a special snowflake because of all those assholes who claim to get PTSD from internet comments.

[EveryZig]

Honestly there isn't any reliable way to tell between people being disingenuous or being sincerely unusual, especially when over the internet. There is nothing so out there that you can be completely sure someone doesn't honestly believe it, and there is nothing so common or justified that there aren't people willing to deride it as "so absurd nobody would really believe it".

 

From my perspective as an aspergers person, people do weird nonsensical stuff all the time and some of the things I do probably seems weird and nonsensical to them. I think some things really are rational or not, but making rules on a basis of "well of course I am obviously right and they are obviously wrong" has the same problems inherent in making rules on a basis of "well of course my views on religion are obviously right and others' are obviously wrong". Because of this, you can criticize the reasoning behind weird stuff but should not make rules against it unless you have evidence it is harming or intentionally deceiving anyone. (And when a claim is about someone's subjective emotional state, there's a limit of how much reasoning there can even be to criticize. I mean sure in this case there's logical arguments you can make about the nonexistence of souls or fate, but beyond that you get to the point of basically saying "no you don't really feel that way" as if you know the subjective experience of someone else better than they do.)

 

Also, classifying "making the community look less legitimate" as a form of harm is essentially the logic of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respectability_politics. It can be (and frequently is) used by basically any minority to marginalize any less mainstream sub-minority (like those times when some aces want to exclude aro-aces because not feeling love is so weird don'tcha know, or how right now there are probably some LGBTQ people somewhere saying that of course everyone really has a sex drive even if they deny it and "asexuals" should stop making the LGBTQ community look like something tumblr dreamed up). I am not ok with that sort of thing.

[cute kitty Meow! Mewo!]

3 hours ago, Euracil said:

Is there anything we can and/or should do about this?

ignore all naysayers. let other people be crazy if it suits them, know who you are and keep your focus on the things in your daily life that changes your actual in-person experience. 

[DannyFenton123]

Ehh... people'll find any reason to discredit a community they don't believe in, and we don't have to cater to them. I personally believe people can identify however they want, and I'll support them in it

 

Edit: totally forgot to mention the wiki. That page isn't all that relevant; that's an aromantic wiki, after all.

[DeMorgan]

     What worries me even more about this is that the citation is hidden behind a paywall.  While this is true of many—if not most!—scientific journal articles, it does not bode well for accountability in a relatively small user-edited wiki.  I suggest that we restrict wiki citations to those that can be read in full for free online so that we can more judiciously evaluate the claims that editors make based on those sources.  This does, of course, effectively prevent us from using cutting-edge research; while that is disappointing for a community fueled by relatively new developments in psychology and the social sciences, it also seems to be the only way to prevent people from making stuff up and attaching dubious citations to their claims.  I do not mean to pass judgement on the veracity of the claim that animaromantics exist, and neither would this rule.  So long as a reputable, open-access citation can be found to back up that statement, I don't mind the page's existence at all. 

 

     Moreover, I believe that the wiki's scope should be limited to topics directly related to aromanticism—that is, after all, the wiki's topic.  Animaromantics are clearly romantic in nature, so they wouldn't qualify for a position in the wiki regardless of whether or not they exist.  This further kills the need for the WTFromantic page, which is as potentially-damaging an identity to give credibility to as animaromanticism is.  Don't misunderstand me, however, I am not arguing that there aren't people who fit the WTFromantic description—there are quite a few on this site alone, perhaps even angrily reading this sentence.  I am rather claiming that WTFromanticism, despite its prevalence in our community, is not a necessarily aromantic identity.  This is not a controversial claim, as the article itself states that a quoiromantic is one who neither identifies with any romantic orientation nor believes that one necessarily describes one's identity.  So it's not related to aromanticism (or even romanticism more generally), and would thus be beyond the scope of the wiki under this change.

 

     Finally, I strongly suggest that more rigour be used in requiring citations for claims on the wiki.  I believe it to be unequivocally essential that every statement made on the forum be either unquestionably general knowledge among the overall human population, a definition, or backed up by an easily-verifiable scientific source.  Anything less than this will eventually cause the wiki to be overrun with petty squabbling among editors and administrators about the rules accompanied by absurd or self-contradictory claims being made throughout the site.  We are clearly developing our own theories regarding romanticism and embedding them in the collective culture of the users of this site.  While that is amazing in its own right as well as necessary to the advancement of societal understanding of romanticism both orthodox and not so, a wiki is not a place to store those ideas unless in its own page clearly labelled speculative or something to that effect.  One can see the results of not tightly regulating the wiki's contents already beginning to erode at the site's reputability by leaving astonishing claims (that are not necessarily false) throughout the wiki without evidence of their veracity.  For example, the article on hostiamanticism claims that "hostiamantics usually are attracted to each other as they can relate well to each other's problems".  I am highly skeptical of this claim's soundness, as there is no non-empirical way to show its truth without resorting to logical fallacy.  In lieu of real psychological research into the likelihood of interpersonal attraction between hostiamantics, no such statement should be made anywhere that aims to be a source of information to be taken seriously by reasonable agnostics in the matter of romanticism.

 

     This all illustrates the central danger that our community faces: the traps laid by the frustrating lack of accessible research into romanticism and simply lack of serious scientific research more generally.  With no easy way to directly change the situation, we are left alone with our imaginations to try to create for ourselves a coherent image of a terribly complicated part of human behavior.  Much like prehistoric man, we naturally seek to develop a coherent picture of how processes important to us function.  Much like prehistoric man, we bring our inadmissible personal experiences into this process along with our implicit personal biases.  Much like prehistoric man, we fail at this task until we can methodically analyze the reality of the matter objectively.

[aussiekirkland]

I've had some strong opinions about this topic (the aromantic spectrum) for quite some time now and for the most part I've been keeping my mouth shut.

 

On one hand I feel like letting people do what they want without letting it affect us is an easy way to respect those with legitimate identities, while ignoring the attention seekers and not giving them the uproar they want. Ultimately I can't think of another solution that doesn't give these people what they want (attention) and risk hurting people who are genuine other than to just say "other people's identities are none of my business".

 

I do my best to live by this idea but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of these aspec identities and gender identities make me really frustrated. Since this thread is opening the discussion, this is probably the only place I will admit it but I think a lot of these identities are so insulting to the asexual, aromantic and trans/nb communities. In my experience; they ruin the reputability of trans and aspec identities that are genuine and not attention seeking.

 

I feel like the main reason asexuals, aromantics and trans/nb people receive so much shit online is because of all of these assholes who make up random ass words for attention and most likely to stir the pot.

 

Im honestly embarrassed to be associated with people like that, and it makes me super hesitant to talk about being aromantic outside the Internet. It sucks and I shouldn't have to worry about  other people dragging the legitimacy of my sexuality through the dirt.

 

So yeah, this shit makes me mad but I almost never say anything.

[SoulWolf]

It sounds kinda ridiculous, and I don't understand most of the fancy terms in that little paragraph, but that doesn't mean it can't still be a real valid thing... right?

 

I don't really give much of a damn for the people who are looking for any little excuse to think aromantics are weird/crazy because they won't take us seriously anyway.

 

http://nikolasrose.com/ - seems like a pretty interesting fellow. Doesn't seem like the animaromantic thing is really his focus though. Maybe that paragraph is even totally out of context on the wiki, who knows. And nobody can really check without buying the book, so maybe that's the biggest problem with this whole thing...

 

5 hours ago, DeMorgan said:

I am rather claiming that WTFromanticism, despite its prevalence in our community, is not a necessarily aromantic identity.  This is not a controversial claim, as the article itself states that a quoiromantic is one who neither identifies with any romantic orientation nor believes that one necessarily describes one's identity.  So it's not related to aromanticism (or even romanticism more generally), and would thus be beyond the scope of the wiki under this change.

If it weren't for WTFromanticism (or the description thereof at least), I might not have figured out that I'm aro. So I for one am really glad that it was up there somewhere for me to find.

[DeMorgan]

17 hours ago, SoulWolf said:

that doesn't mean it can't still be a real valid thing

     That's true, but the fact that it references reincarnation makes it unverifiable.  I would nonetheless prefer that we don't start judging whether or not different orientations exist as a community.  That tends to be what happens, and it just makes life worse for a lot of people.

17 hours ago, SoulWolf said:

If it weren't for WTFromanticism (or the description thereof at least), I might not have figured out that I'm aro. So I for one am really glad that it was up there somewhere for me to find.

     I feel like it would fit better on a page about the romantic spectrum, which is relevant to the wiki because aromantic orientations are a subset of romantic orientations.  I still don't know if the idea should be given a name with "romanticism" in it given that the entire point is that a WTFromantic doesn't identify with a romantic orientation or perhaps even the idea of romantic orientation.  I think that we need an "about" page in the style of AVEN's that could include general statements about stuff like that in order to have people searching for related terms to learn what our views on romanticism are.  People looking for that type of stuff could be in very emotional periods in their lives—I don't know if an open wiki is conducive to handling those types of situations.  If someone trolled that page of the wiki tonight, how long would it take for us to notice?  Certain types of misinformation could really screw with people seeing it for the first time.

 

     Anyway, do we know who administrates the wiki?  Is it even ours?  I just realized that I've been simply assuming that the entire time.  We should probably think about what to do, and whether or not to do anything at all.  The precedent that we set now will effect the site greatly as this community grows.

[cute kitty Meow! Mewo!]

Generally I try to relly on the most abstracted label I can. Trying to be more precies with a name is kind of silly - the best way to be precise is to just say it in words what you mean. words are already pretty abstract, and the best way to communicate my ideas depends hugely on the context in many ways. The belief that one label will rule them all for any individual is kind of silly. 

[Philbo Wiseroot]

On 12/1/2016 at 5:14 AM, aussiekirkland said:

I will admit it but I think a lot of these identities are so insulting to the asexual, aromantic and trans/nb communities. In my experience; they ruin the reputability of trans and aspec identities that are genuine and not attention seeking.

 

I feel like the main reason asexuals, aromantics and trans/nb people receive so much shit online is because of all of these assholes who make up random ass words for attention and most likely to stir the pot.

I'm curious: which identities annoy you?

[aussiekirkland]

10 hours ago, Kaiger Pufflehugs IV said:

I'm curious: which identities annoy you?

It really depends on the person. Sometimes you can just tell that someone who is otherwise straight is trying to be a "special snowflake qweer" and other times that's just how they feel. I don't think that has a whole lot to do with which words they use, but sometimes it does and I don't really feel like specifying for fear of invalidating people who genuinely feel that way.

 

It's all very confusing and a very sensitive topic.

[Philbo Wiseroot]

6 hours ago, aussiekirkland said:

I don't really feel like specifying for fear of invalidating people who genuinely feel that way.

 

It's all very confusing and a very sensitive topic.

That's fine  

[Cassiopeia]

I'm keeping an eye on this topic as mod because in my opinion it has a potential to turn ugly very quickly. So far it's nice, so let's keep it that way.

 

But as I'm already here, I'd like to share my personal opinion as a user. 

 

I can't really seem to work myself up over this stuff. Man, whatever floats your boat.

 

In the alpabet soup community there was always an element of confusion, and also plenty weird and messed up, I'm just used to it.

The aromantic umberalla and the identities under it are fairly new, so most of it is still up in the air. Naturally people will try to figure it out the way they can. 

 

When someone comes up with something ridiculous its just a confused person trying to name their feelings so its more easy to talk about them.

 

Some identites will only make sense to that one individual person, and they might change it because they have come up with something better. As long as that identity doesn't harm others, I see no problem with it. 

 

I think at some point every user on this forum was or will be called a special snowflake, because aromanticism isn't a well known thing. But what does that word really mean? We are so afraid of being a special snowflake...why? Its just people who feel they don't fit the norm, don't belong in some way but just can't put a finger on the reason why. They feel they are weird, confused and/or confusing to others, aka queer. Its not always glamorous or dignified or hyper intellectual, but we respect each other's oddness. Being strange is what connects us. 

 

So hell yeah, try to get to know to yourself, and if making up terminology that sounds like fake science from a bad sci-fi will make it easier for you, go for it. 

By the way, actual science works just like that, you make an observation, you try to categorise the results and if its something new, you give it a name. They named grizzly bears 'dreadful bear bear (sic)' ffs, and the serious, educated scientists are still using it. So if anyone has a fear of butchering latin or greek, please pick up a medical textbook cos there is some absurd stuff in there.

And what's wrong with wanting attention? Every human being wants attention of some sort. Everyone wants to be listened to, and especially if you feel alone with no people who share your experiences, you make some noise so maybe the people who are like that will find you.

 

There are things that may be a harmful thing in this community, but making up words but in my opinion isn't one of them. 

 

 

[Philbo Wiseroot]

17 minutes ago, Cassiopeia said:

I keeping an eye on this topic as mod because in my opinion it has a potential to turn ugly very quickly. So far it's nice, so let's keep it that way.

I am also

 

17 minutes ago, Cassiopeia said:

When someone comes up with something ridiculous its just someone trying to name their feelings so its more easy to talk about them.

I agree with this: while  it might seem silly (and I've been known to take the yellow sticky water out of the more ridiculous genders, like the "frosty" or "god-like" ones), I do think that people label a particular gender to help them form an idea of their gender that they feel the "standard" labels (such as agender, demigender, genderfluid, etc.) don't fit. For example, my gender is somewhere between demiguy and cis male, but also agender and demiguy, so I call it nonbinary. But some may decide to call that something specific.

 

i would say this is a similar thing with romantic orientation. 

[Cassiopeia]

Okay, we can have a laugh, but I hope that one of the important values here would be the tolerance, and also the right to be wrong, to mess up, to be riddiculous.

 

Especially in the world of the internet, where everything is public and nothing can be ereased, people feel this pressure to hit the ground running, make no mistakes because it will all go to their permanent record. But that's not how life is. You don't have to be perfect, just don't be a dick.

 

All humans are awkward, and while watching fail videos on youtube is funny, its also comforting in a way. Some questioning people end up being straight. Some people who have put so much energy and work into these communities may wake up one day and find out they no longer feel like they fit the label. Some trans women started as an awkward teenager doing very unflattering drag. Some people decide they ID as the knights who say ni, and it makes everyone smile, but in a way I am laughing at myself as well, so its not coming from a bad place.

Its really brave to allow yourself to be that vulnerable, especially in public.

 

And I think if we can be a group where kids feel safe enough to talk about their kin type and weird gender and other things nobody takes seriously, then its worth it.

[cute kitty Meow! Mewo!]

one thing that I've learned from playing league of legends way too much is. if my other 4 teamates suck, it doesn't even matter - the only way that I will rise in rank is if I do the best that I can do, and how good or bad the other players are just balances out to 50/50 in the end. it's my responsibility to make the difference, and it is useless for me to expect anyone else to accomplish my goals for me. 

[NullVector]

On 12/5/2016 at 4:50 PM, Cassiopeia said:

You don't have to be perfect, just don't be a dick.

 

You should totally make that into a T-Shirt