I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.
I’m not going to argue with you on words that have already become accepted by the people whom they affect, or that most of the things you are saying are othering to the people affected and work to say that there is something wrong with them for being different / have been used to actively dehumanize marginalized groups.
I will say you are on the wrong Lemmy if this is the fight you want to make.
Oh but there is an implied value - superiority. When you give a group of people a descriptive property with no inverse you are basically creating a construct of “assumed default”. This comes with other issues of those falling outside the default having no way to effectively talk about people of the assumed default group without using words that have value judgements baked in. Like if I am calling you “a normal person” the implicit value judgement is that I am an abnormal person. I am “othered”.
This sort of denial of language assumes that a group that you are given tools to talk about never and should never talk about your group back utilizing those same tools.
I don’t think there needs to be a word that describes the negative of a condition. You just don’t need a descriptor at all. There’s no value add.
Inject vs eject? Am I being trolled here?
You’re not being trolled this is literally how the English language works: https://www.google.com/search?q=eject etymology &ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m
So would you propose we just say autistic people and normal people? Doesn’t that seem kind of cruel and bothering?
Should we also say asexual people and normal people, or aromantic people and normal people, trans people and normal people?
Where do you draw the line?
autistic/non-autistic, asexual/sexual, aromantic/romantic, trans/cis
asexual and aromantic are already based on being the negative, adding another term to reverse that just makes a double negative
I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.
I’m not going to argue with you on words that have already become accepted by the people whom they affect, or that most of the things you are saying are othering to the people affected and work to say that there is something wrong with them for being different / have been used to actively dehumanize marginalized groups.
I will say you are on the wrong Lemmy if this is the fight you want to make.
Oh but there is an implied value - superiority. When you give a group of people a descriptive property with no inverse you are basically creating a construct of “assumed default”. This comes with other issues of those falling outside the default having no way to effectively talk about people of the assumed default group without using words that have value judgements baked in. Like if I am calling you “a normal person” the implicit value judgement is that I am an abnormal person. I am “othered”.
This sort of denial of language assumes that a group that you are given tools to talk about never and should never talk about your group back utilizing those same tools.