Online dating isn’t easy – especially when you’re asexual (2018)
theverge.com
theverge.com
This article (or maybe its participants) seem pretty defensive over this point, and maybe with good reason; given the slew of labels and terminology in this article:
> heteromantic
> asexual spectrum
> gray asexual or demisexual
> aromantic spectrum
where does this come from? All self-diagnosed identity? It seems to mirror clinical language at least.
In some cases it seems different phrases are invented to describe the same (or similar) thing, just for the sake of it. Or maybe to give the perception of development?
There's even a diagram: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/asexual-spectrum_n_3428710
Yet it's apparently sourced from "AVENwiki", the "Asexual Visibility and Education Network" - it has "Education" right in the name! Yet it's very light on where the objectivity might come from.
To be clear, I have no problem with people self-identifying/diagnosing and coming up new words to describe their experience. What I have a problem with is feigning scientific authority by using clinical-sounding words, and being insulted if people question your ideas (despite their subjective nature) - there are flat earth "networks" too, that doesn't mean they are right.
Basically anything can be a source of identity. When someone says something matters to them, I see no point in doubting it, because I have no way to disprove that. The only evidence is in their mind, so the best I can do is to trust their observation of it. Doubting them would imply I knew them better than they know themselves, which would be at best silly, at worst insulting, and certainly unproductive. So when someone tells me they identify as $X, acceptance is rational.
I don't think sciency-sounding vocabulary convinces any rational person of scientific authority. As you say, flat-earthers do it, and yet everyone agrees they're full of shit. Latin is just a language.
> Doubting them would imply I knew them better than they know themselves
Not exactly. Doubting something is different from contradicting it, i.e. asserting the opposite. I can doubt the moon is made of cheese without asserting that it isn't, for example.
Also, self-diagnosis is a problem, to the extent that medical professionals would warn against it even among themselves. There is a difference between "knowing oneself" and being able to diagnose oneself - diagnosis necessarily requires an abstraction/regressive step beyond subjective experience.
It's one thing to subjectively identify, describe oneself as asexual/aromantic - it's another to treat this as if it was an objective clinical category, and "educate" people about it as such.
Now this maybe leads to a larger discussion that I probably don't have the qualification to participate in: what is a diagnosis/pathology/condition versus regular personality differences and traits, and what/why are the implied social entitlements for things categorised as such.
> when someone tells me they identify as $X, acceptance is rational
only so far as "all progress depends on the unreasonable man"
-- https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/536961-the-reasonable-man-a...
alternatively, you needn't accept anything, but just avoid those discussions if they are unproductive.
The two seem different. It's like saying to a flat-earther who calls themself a flat-earther using whatever subjective/pseudoscientific term they choose, and saying "no you're not."
AFAIK clinical diagnoses are a somewhat "physical", or phycological description (whatever the difference there is), of a persons neurology that is more than just belief, or even personality. Pathology seems to be less environmental, and affect a persons mental abilities to a greater degree than "belief".
Consequently, I wouldn't argue what a person says they believe; but then I also wouldn't consider those beliefs inherent, or non-consensual either.