“DSM isn’t a bible.”
No, but it is created by psychologists, who base what to put in it on scientific investigation. I personally don’t believe textbooks OR bibles “prove” anything, but you’re the one who’s obsessed with authority (considering your first comment sought first and foremost to convince me I don’t have any business writing anything in Psychology Today), so I figured you might respect it. Apparently even if scientists collectively agree on something–scientists in this field, whose work you still refuse to read while laughing at me for agreeing with them–you will reject it if it serves your own agenda.
Let’s make no mistake: you have a really unfortunate personal problem with asexuality, which you are irresponsibly trying to hide behind extreme desire to defend science from people whose experiences you believe threaten it. You kept going after me on how I’m *just a writer*, but aren’t you *just a person in some sort of undisclosed science whose biased views also aren’t a bible*, and aren’t you *just a human*? You go on and on about how you’re ever so important and ever so unable to waste time on this nonsense, but here you are, day after day, comment after comment, claiming MY continued responses here are indicative of mental illness. (Again, it’s disgusting that anyone claiming to care about the sanctity of science would weaponize diagnosis, psychology, and mental illness this way.) It’s pretty clear that I have a reason to be invested in this topic. I don’t know what you’re pretending your excuse is, though. Your opinions are all the more vile because you’re pretending they aren’t opinions, but you couldn’t even mask your personal disgust long enough to keep from ruining your “logical” facade by making broad generalizations about Tumblr users and mocking me for my supposed association with an entire group of people you believe are self-evidently ridiculous.
“You clearly love being outraged to play Damsel”
I know you keep bringing this up and that it appears to be your personal Issue right now, but damsel in this context does not make sense. I saw you try it above claiming that Tom could not “white knight” against you because you’re a woman, so clearly anyone who disagrees with you is actually swooping in to save me instead of, you know, disagreeing with you. Quick distract everyone by pretending this is about gender dynamics! And then you did it again and a third time, claiming this is all about me needing attention and crying about my victimhood . . . except that the only person, literally the only person here, who is attacking me over this is you. You don’t merit outrage. Your comments are whiny and groundless and mildly incoherent, but they are not outrageous. They are actually exactly what I wrote about above–poorly reasoned, specious, and grounded in personal hatred of what you don’t understand. I’m not crying persecution and screaming for rescue and pretending to be helpless just because I point out the biases, compulsory sexuality, and preconceived notions that people taken for granted when approaching sexuality-related subjects in their lives. I’m the one actively taking the steps to stop these things from hurting more vulnerable people. It’s pretty entertaining to see my actions portrayed as anything even remotely passive.
“Misquoting my replies to other people doesn’t make you look good, it makes you look insane. On some level, you must understand this because you daren’t link to me.”
. . . I do not know what or where you think I should be linking you. I’m not “misquoting” whatsoever, and I am discussing your words in the exact same place that you’re putting those words, so it is not obscured what you’re really saying. (But I guess if you’re that determined to believe I’m out to get you, go for it.) I’m sarcastically rephrasing what your comments sound like to me, and despite that you are appealing to the masses claiming they would all unanimously agree with you, everyone else in this thread disagrees with you too. So do my followers on Tumblr and the people who saw what you said on Twitter. Not a single person has come here to say “hey, that scientist person, they’re the one that has a point!” And it’s easy to see why.
“You aren’t that special, nobody objects to you personally because you simply aren’t on their radar of those important enough to notice. You’re hiding behind other (scientific) people I would much rather read by the sounds of it (maybe they chose you because you’re free or some such)”
Keep telling yourself that. I would actually appreciate it if you’d go read some of those folks, but I did not quote them because I was “hiding behind” them. You’d already made it clear that I’m a woman talking about my feelings on a blog and that’s not scientific (even though it was an entire article about how sexual orientation is not a description anyone proves through scientific inquiry or experimentation), so I did not recommend my own book to you (the first book on asexuality that was published by a mainstream publisher for layperson audiences), nor did I suggest the multiple other asexuality-related pieces I’ve sold or the interviews I’ve done. You appeal to authority over and over again, calling out this magazine to shut me down because you deserve better, but when I recommend a source you would theoretically trust if you were not biased (e.g., the DSM), you of course have reasons why that isn’t enough either.
As for not being on the radar enough for *anyone* to notice me, well, you do seem to be a fan of evidence, as well as a fan of authority, so maybe it will make a difference if I tell you exactly who has respected my work in this field enough to give it a platform (though it is, explicitly I say, not scientific work I am doing; I am DESCRIBING this community and my experience as part of it, and that is not a worthless thing).
My book was excerpted in TIME Magazine. It was featured in the New York Times. I was interviewed in the Washington Post because of my work. The book was given a starred review in Library Journal. I have been interviewed on the BBC twice, on international television twice, and have done guest lectures about asexuality at various events and places of higher learning, including University of Virginia, Creating Change in Atlanta, and Princeton University. I have had extensive interviews published in Marie Claire, Salon, the Daily Beast, and the Huffington Post (plus more than a dozen smaller publications). I was quoted liberally (no, not mocked by the researchers) in an academic examination of asexuality that was published in the journal Contemporary Sexuality, and I was cited several times (again, not mockingly) in a law paper that was published in Stanford Law Review. I was in a documentary on this topic that has been rated on Netflix over 125,000 times (so who knows how many hundreds of thousands more have watched it without rating). And my book is now a finalist for the Lambda Award, the most prestigious book award in the LGBT world. But it doesn’t really matter that I trotted all this out, because when people who say the things you’ve said demand evidence that anyone important cares and I give overwhelming examples of people in high places who do not think I’m a blubbering woman with a persecution complex and multiple mental health issues (you know, since that is something logical and truth-driven people routinely mock) . . . they always say it does not matter. Because it is never actually about who respects me, even though people in your shoes frequently do go on like this:
“Your writing cannot stand alone and would never pass peer review scrutiny in a million years in academic publication.”
. . . Good thing I am not and never have claimed to be submitting academic papers for publication, but I digress. My writing, however, does seem to be standing alone, as my book just by itself went into its second printing very soon after it came out and continues to sell reasonably well for a book on a niche subject and, I say again, has been designated a finalist by the Lammy authorities. It is funny that you think your baseless comments about no one listening to me have any basis in reality, though. More bullying tactics from a person who knows they are not coming from an evidence-based position, but are determined to claim that good old stump for logic and science.
“You’re trying to turn this into something it isn’t, doubtless to profiteer later. Without asexuality, you wouldn’t have a job, unless you count writing books about fairies (that is more your level of expertise).”
Writing about asexuality isn’t my job, though I’ve made plenty of nice side money doing so. I’ve been employed for all of my adult life, so trying to rub my face in my failures is shockingly low as well as untrue. And the attempted insult about *writing books about fairies* is funny too. Who knew that also being a fantasy novelist would be something a clueless person with a vendetta would attempt to spin as evidence of my being unfit to write other things? Ah, the straws people like you grasp at–anything to turn your blatant personal attacks into veiled condescension that you think works to subtly undermine my credentials.
“your anti-science approach (personal emotionality>medical evidence from fields like endocrinology, which you predictably ignore), take everything personally when you’re supposedly discussing the medical human body, plural, and berate skepticism in a field trying to shed liberal arts-level pandering to anecdote over evidence.”
See, you’re seeing what you want to see, not what I wrote. “Personal emotionality” was not even on the radar, and it was not what I said–even though I and the other commenters pointed it out to you explicitly, you couldn’t stop with your hatemongering for asexuality (“that doesn’t exist!”) long enough to understand that sexual orientation isn’t an ~emotion~. It is a description of who you feel attracted to. And I don’t think it’s unscientific to say that when you name a feeling, it’s actually supposed to be based on your feelings.
If you believe that *endocrinology* and other biologically based fields are able to create tests that would be the sole arbiters of what sexual orientation is, you are not even listening to the basic thesis statement of this piece. Occam’s Razor notwithstanding, sexual orientation is not determined by a biological reaction. Pretending otherwise is not “scientific.” It is one-dimensional oversimplification. First of all, asexual people *have been tested in a lab* in one of the studies I mentioned above (which you again refuse to read because you are already sure that asexuality doesn’t exist–very scientific of you–but it doesn’t matter much because one of the people who administered the study was instrumental in getting the current DSM to recognize asexuality as not a sexual aversion disorder based on what she found through research on our community, and in your world that probably ruins her credibility). Their sexual response to stimuli was the same as the non-asexual people in the study. They identify as asexual because they don’t find anyone sexually attractive. Not because their bodies or minds have a dysfunction (at least, not by definition). I’m assuming you did not even know that asexuality means people who don’t find anyone sexually attractive, given that you won’t stop harping on how biological reactions are what proves someone has a sexual orientation.
But secondly, hey, let’s go with your oversimplified black and white view and say that if someone has the ability to become aroused and you test them with various stimuli, you can definitively say what sexual orientation that person is. I guess if a man becomes aroused while watching a guy-on-guy film and yet insists he is not gay, there is no possible explanation for why he would get an erection except that he is lying. Same with sexual arousal that seems to come out of nowhere, or when someone gets aroused when they’re nervous. We can just oversimplify and pretend sexual arousal is sexual attraction, that endocrine systems and stimuli and biological normals are all we need to examine, and that variations like asexuality are far more likely to be fairly rare diseases than to be an asexual orientation.
And, if your example is any indication, the correct way to react to people whom we think have disorders, mental health problems, and diseases is to repeatedly urge them, with condescension, to “get help,” offer them pity, compare them to children having tantrums and also to teenagers behaving inappropriately, gaslight them by asserting that their reality is wrong, post multiple strongly worded statements about how broken you think they are, and tell them they are immature. (The preoccupation with “maturity” here is pretty typical with folks like you too. Anything you can desperately grasp at to weaponize. It generally doesn’t work very well with people who aren’t insecure about their maturity. I am honestly surprised that you did not add on the usual accusation of my probable childhood abuse or suggest that no one loves me, “explaining” my supposed need for validation. But none of you can hit all the bingo card squares by yourselves.)
I think it is time for you to reply to my comment by reminding me how little of your time I deserve as you give it to me anyway.