Smiral said
Where's the period jokes
Robeatics said
I get that. But I am positive that most people when they describe themselves would not immediately say "I am an intersex genderqueer aromantic pansexual" or something similar. Or even really say that they were gay, if you want simplicity. No one is saying it is their entire identity. Let's go back to the sweets analogy: Yes, cookies, cupcakes, cakes and donuts are all sweets. But if someone points to a bakery display case and says, "What do you want?" It's pretty damn vague to just say "Sweets".Yessir. :0 I'll tone it down a little. Just passionate.
Kaga said
Ok, Rob, you've convinced me. I'll take back the [2] I sent in Aragorn's direction.
Robeatics said
What is even your definition of describing something like a science experiment? Using accurate words?No middle ground. Really. Explain snails.
Robeatics said
Look, not to be rude, but sexuality is something that actually affects people differently and is much more easily discussed when one has an array of terms to choose from. Trying to discuss nonbinary panromantic demisexuals would be pretty damn hard to do if you had to say "You know those people? Like, the people who don't conform to the gender binary and who like other people either within or outside of the gender binary, but they don't like them sexually unless they have formed a strong, trusting connection? Those people?"To just say "Let's just call them people!!!" essentually erases their identity and makes it much harder to gain visibility and community. You wouldn't look at a cake, a donut, a cupcake and a cookie and start yelling about all the terms for them because "Why can't we just call them sweets all the time!"