The good faith was aimed at all participants of this discussion. It is much needed, apparantly. [Your posts are among the rational posts in this discussion (well, as rational as this discussion can be), IMHO.]
Yeah, well, I mean, it’s a touchy discussion for a lot of reasons. I’m fully willing to own up to being pretty sensitive about this stuff, and easily frustrated/hurt by discussions relating to it, and I get that other people are, too. Having ~feelings~ isn’t an indicator of bad faith on either side, imo. Feelings can be “rational”, in that they are natural responses to stuff.
[…]I don’t have a huge problem with the term “sexual people”, or stuff along the lines of “folks who don’t ID as asexual”, etc; obviously “sexual people” is imperfect, but it’s better than calling us “sexuals”, at least in my estimation - which is what sparked this whole debate - so maybe while we continue to have these conversations it’s good enough?
I’ve lost a bit track of this discussion (time zones…) but as far as I have seen, that was the consensus on the asexual side, too: Sexual as an adjective: yes (with opinions ranging from “it’s quite neutral” to “it’s rather blunt”); sexual as a noun: no. There should be a word that’s similar to “ace” (I believe I’m far from the first person in this discussion to have said that), but in general it’s very difficult to find something that’s handy and accurate. You see that in the discussions about asexuality and straightness - “straight” may be handy but when it comes to asexuality it loses its accurateness.
I think imma start self-referring as a sexysexual, because I think it sounds funny and it carries a degree of sarcasm that appeals to my snarky sense of humor.
But yeah, sexual as a general descriptor, while I agree with the “it’s rather blunt” assessment, I’ve never really had a HUGE problem with (again, because I’ve seen a lot of confusion on this point in other posts: my problem has always been specifically with the term “sexuals”, and with being assigned a label of a marginalized experience of mine without my consent or input) because as a descriptor, it can be qualified, played with, included in with other descriptors, etc, as necessary. But it still strikes me as pretty imperfect.
I mean, generally I’m of the opinion that most language is inherently fucked up, and trying to find perfect terms for things can be a losing game if you let yourself get sucked into JUST discussing that exclusively forever. Still and all, I’d love to see more actual, constructive dialogue between asexual folks and sexual folks about this - and about what asexual and sexual even MEAN in general, how those communities and identities can intersect, etc, etc. In this case, I really don’t like the “us and them” approach that I see coming from a lot of people/places. I think it obscures a lot of really important persepectives, voices, and points being made.