Next Step for Pamphlets (my bad!)

[KAGU143]

I clicked on the links above. And waited.

Are they showing the current version?

I saw some very minor grammar things and etc, but I'm not sure if you may have already caught them. I'm not 100% certain about the page layout as it appears, but I don't think it's terrible by any means.

I don't care much for the unshaded version of the logo because it loses some of the meaning, but if that is a graphics complication then I won't worry about it overmuch.

Overall it looks very encouraging.

*curses painfully slow internet connection*

-GB

[2tabbymom]

One small thing however; 'There are also asexuals who identify as aromantic, or those who are not romantically attracted to anyone' could be confusing to some people. Perhaps 'There are also asexuals who identify as aromantic, as they are not romantically attracted to anyone'? Makes it clearer.

I totally agree. I kept reading the pamphlet and wasn't quite happy with it, but didn't know how to fix it until I read emmarainbow's idea.

[Omnes et Nihil]

I think it's looking awesome in general. I do have one concern that I think is really important: trans isn't a sexual orientation. Most people (trans and otherwise) have both a gender and a sexual orientation of some ilk. I do think we should talk about gender diversity in asexuality, but I don't think we should confuse it with sexual orientation.

In the section "how does asexuality relate to other sexual orientations?" sexual orientations are listed straight, gay, lesbian, bi or trans.

I think that line should read something like straight, gay, lesbian, bi or other or straight, gay, lesbian, bi or something else.

I like that that section positions asexuality clearly as a sexual orientiation, and explains romantic orientations. I think mixing gender diversity in there would get too confusing, so I would suggest a new section for that.

I think that gender should be added as a separate section, particularly since androgyny is mentioned at the back. Possibly something like this:

"How does asexuality relate to gender?"

Just like sexual people, asexual people identify with a wide range of genders, including androgynous and trans people. Although some asexual people (and sexual people) do experience gender-related problems, asexuality is not caused by gender-related distress, nor is asexuality a symptom of it. Most asexuals are comfortable with their genders.

Note: This is just to put a suggestion out there... my issue is that trans isn't a gender and that I think gender and sexual orientation should both be dealt with (and separately) in the pamphlet. Thoughts people?

[Coleslaw]

I think it's looking awesome in general. I do have one concern that I think is really important: trans isn't a sexual orientation.

ACK! Thank you for bringing that up again! That was a brain fart on my behalf--I completely forgot to make those edits.

Yes, I do rather like your idea, but I am going to incorporate it a bit differently... I'll update the pamphlets now so you can give me some feedback.

GBRD, get nit-picky with the grammar issues. I'd rather deal with that stuff now than hear about it from someone I am handing pamphlets out too, if you know what I mean...

Also, emmarainbow and 2tabbymom, I hear your concern, as I'm not wild about the wording myself, but the suggestion you've given... It doesn't flow as well? I don't know if I am making sense... I'm no good at editing, so I won't try my hand at it, but maybe you have another suggestion of how to word it? If not, don't worry about it; I may be a bit too OCD for my own good, so it may just be me. Hehe.

Thanks everyone!

[echidna]

Great work - nearly there!

I agree with EmmaRainbow about the aromantic sentence. I had to read it several times to make it read as you intended because I was reading 'or' as leading up to an alternative state to aromantic rather than an alternative description of someone who doesn't experience romantic attraction. I prefer her alternative.

I like the triangles - good to have something that isn't text. I don't mind if they are pointing in or out.

I agree with Omnes et nihil's point about gender/orientation. That was what I was trying to say when I said that heading should be sexual identities rather than orientations but it turned out we had different ideas about what those words meant. If we are saying asexuality is an orientation, we have to be sure we are using that in a generally accepted way and if we imply trans is an orientation, that suggests we are confused. The aromantic/romantic distinction is also not a sexual orientation. Notwithstanding the discussion in previous posts, I think most people would agree you can only have one sexual orientation at a time but there are lots of components of your identity. A section headed 'how does asexuality relate to other sexual orientations' could therefore only describe alternatives to it, not additional labels people might adopt.

In the paragraph 'what is asexuality', there is an extra 'you' in the penultimate line.

I don't have a problem with the justification of the main text - looks straight to me. I agree that the definition of an aseuxal on the back should be straightened up though.

[echidna]

coleslaw - you got in there while I was writing my post! An alternative to emmarainbow's sentence would be 'There are also aromantic asexuals who are not romantically attracted to anyone.'

[Coleslaw]

coleslaw - you got in there while I was writing my post! An alternative to emmarainbow's sentence would be 'There are also aromantic asexuals who are not romantically attracted to anyone.'

I'm sneaky like that!

Thanks for the suggestion; I actually think that works better than both the alternatives. I'll add it in now so we can get a look over it.

Backtracking a bit... Omnes, I like your suggestion, but as was discussed earlier, the word "problem" throws up all sorts of red flags, so while it may be nice to include a little note on gender identities, I think your wording will come across wrong to some people...

Echidna, maybe you can help me out here? Like I said, I'm a terrible editor, but I was thinking of turning the "How does asexuality relate to other sexual orientations?" to "How does asexuality relate to other identities?" and have an all-encompassing section on alternative identities and their relation to asexuality... But, for the life of me, I can't word it right, and the section title sounds too vague. Maybe you could offer me some suggestions?

Again, thanks!

[echidna]

I think the replacing 'sexual orientations' with 'identities' in the title would be fine. The wording then needs a little adjustment to split the gender and romantic attraction identities, bearing in mind that it shouldn't duplicate the 'can asexual people fall in love' section. I'm afraid I can't think about that right now - I will come back in a few hours.

[Omnes et Nihil]

Backtracking a bit... Omnes, I like your suggestion, but as was discussed earlier, the word "problem" throws up all sorts of red flags, so while it may be nice to include a little note on gender identities, I think your wording will come across wrong to some people...

That's cool, and I think you're right. It was a suggestion. The issue seems to come up a lot for those of us who aren't exactly typically gendered... but I can completely see how it might be easier to leave out that kettle of worms.

Note: I'm hoping the updated version isn't up yet because the only one I can see is still the one with triangles but with the additional "you" that echidna pointed out. If there's another one posted, would someone please help me find it, because I seem to be wallowing in ineptitude.

I think the replacing 'sexual orientations' with 'identities' in the title would be fine. The wording then needs a little adjustment to split the gender and romantic attraction identities, bearing in mind that it shouldn't duplicate the 'can asexual people fall in love' section. I'm afraid I can't think about that right now - I will come back in a few hours.

I think as a section it would work, but I still think it would still be important to NOT tack trans on the end of a list of sexual orientations. And given the gender diversity on AVEN, and because androgyny is on the back as something asexuality isn't, I do think gender diversity should get its own sentence, or at least its own clause. (And that trans shouldn't be the lone list entry in it. People aren't just trans and cis afterall.)

P.S. you rock for using the word 'penultimate'

[Hallucigenia]

*pokes nose in*

Cole, you said you were having trouble wording an inclusive "identities" paragraph so I tried my hand at it.

Many asexuals can be emotionally and/or romantically attracted to other people and may further identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bi, or something else. There are also asexuals who identify as aromantic and are not romantically attracted to anyone. Asexuals can also have any gender identity and may identify as cisgendered, transgendered, androgynous, neutrois, or something else. Each word has a recognised definition but it is for each individual to decide how to use these words to describe themselves.

(the bold part is the part I added. It shouldn't be bold on the actual pamphlet.)

I'm not sure if I listed the different gender identities properly but that should be easy to fix if I did it wrong - just substitute some things on the list with other things. Um, does that work for people?

[echidna]

Took a bit longer than expected to get back to this but here are some further thoughts. I drafted before I saw Hallu's post - I hadn't even heard of cisgendered or neutrois but they would fit in too.

It seems that as some individual sections have evolved, the overall relationship between the paragraphs isn't as good as it was originally. I know it's a pain to move things, but if people think it would be better another way then it is best to put the extra time in now - hopefully the leaflets will be around for some time. (If other people don't think things should be moved though, obviously there's no problem!)

So here's my thoughts - to take or leave as always:

- move 'is asexuality the same as abstinence' to be the 2nd paragraph on the 1st fold

- move 'how does asexualtiy relate to other identities' to be the 3rd para on the 1st fold

- move 'what causes asexuality' to be the 1st para on the 3rd fold (this isn't the 1st question people are likely to ask themselves)

- amend the identities paragraph to the following-

How does asexuality relate to other sexual identities?

Although asexuals don't experience sexual attraction, they can be romantically attracted to other people. They may therefore identify as straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual. There are also aromantic asexuals who are not romantically attracted to anyone. Asexuals can identify with any gender: male, female, androgynous or transgender. Labels are useful for discussing the many different aspects of sexual identity but not everyone feels comfortable adopting them to describe their individual experience.

- combine the sections 'can asexual people fall in love' and 'what do asexual relationships look like' to give the following

What relationships do asexual people have?

The relationships of asexual people are based on elements that are also important for many sexual people, like understanding, communication and trust. Emotional and physical intimacy may be important or they may be minimal. Some asexuals are happiest on their own or with a group of close friends, while others have a desire to date and seek long-term partners. Asexual pople are given few expectations about how their relationships should work and often blur the lines between friendship and romance

[Omnes et Nihil]

Many asexuals can be emotionally and/or romantically attracted to other people and may further identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bi, or something else. There are also asexuals who identify as aromantic and are not romantically attracted to anyone. Asexuals can also have any gender identity and may identify as cisgendered, transgendered, androgynous, neutrois, or something else. Each word has a recognised definition but it is for each individual to decide how to use these words to describe themselves.

(the bold part is the part I added. It shouldn't be bold on the actual pamphlet.)

male, female, androgynous and transgender

I like that paragraph.

Minor detail though... The gender part sounds a little technical. We do want people to understand what we're getting at, whether or not they happen to identify a particular way. (And a good chunk of ungendered people who don't identify as neutrios.) Also, I know there are debates about whether it should be transgender or transgendered. Transgender (as an adjective) seems to be a bit more recent, but that might be a local thing. If we're using the short form "bi", then there's no reason we can't use "trans" or "transidentified" if you think people will know (but that's a very minor issue). Also, some trans people identify as "trans" while others identify as "man" "woman" (or something else), but we can sidestep all that by rephrasing a little.

And then there's the debate with people about whether male and female are genders or sexes, with man and women or masculine and feminine being genders, and the wording of all that.

How's this:

Many asexuals can be emotionally and/or romantically attracted to other people and may further identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bi, or something else. There are also asexuals who identify as aromantic and are not romantically attracted to anyone. Asexuals can also have any gender identity, and may identify as androgynous, without gender, or otherwised gendered; and some asexuals are transidentified. Each word has a recognised definition but it is for each individual to decide how to use these words to describe themselves.

[Sam B.I.]

Wow, it keeps on looking better and better. It's really coming along nicely.

Seeing that Cole opened the door to nitpickyness, here's my 2 baht.

Guys, I really think this is getting way too technical. Yes, gender identity is important and yes, there are a lot of asexuals who are not cisgendered but if I were someone who considered myself to be hetero and sexual I would probably not have done a lot of thinking about my sexuality nor my gender. That means that a big part of this paragraph would be incomprehensible to me.

Why don't we leave out all the jargon and focus on asexuality. I would like that paragraph to read something like this:

Many asexuals can be emotionally and/or romantically attracted to other people and may further identify as straight, gay, lesbian, bi, or something else. There are also asexuals who identify as aromantic and are not romantically attracted to anyone. Asexuals can also have any gender identity but asexuality is not caused by gender-related distress, nor is asexuality a symptom of it. Most asexuals are comfortable with their genders.

I feel the use of "gender-related distress" is acceptable in this sentence.

I realise we don't want to alienate the queer community but if we make this too complicated only they will be able to understand the pamphlet.

[Hallucigenia]

Fair enough, Omnes. No sense confusing people with jargon. But, as a nitpick, your own edit seems to leave out people who are perfectly comfortable with their assigned gender. So I'd prefer something like this:

Asexuals can also have any gender identity, and may identify as male, female, androgynous, without gender, or otherwised gendered; and some asexuals are transidentified.

You can change "male" and "female" to "masculine" and "feminine" or whatever the most widely acceptable words are for it.

Is this still too technical for you, Sam? I don't really think that words like "androgynous" are jargon, but...

[Omnes et Nihil]

You're right-- this is absolutely the time for knitpicking.

Asexuals can also have any gender identity, and may identify as male, female, androgynous, without gender, or otherwised gendered; and some asexuals are transidentified.

You can change "male" and "female" to "masculine" and "feminine" or whatever the most widely acceptable words are for it.

Is this still too technical for you, Sam? I don't really think that words like "androgynous" are jargon, but...

I agree that androgyous is pretty common usage. But I can understand the point about a long list of things most people have never thought about being a little alienating. This is about asexuality not gender afterall. So...

So here's my suggestion:

Asexuals can also have any gender identity. Many consider themselves male- or female-gendered, or androgynous, while others identify otherwise; and some asexuals are transgender.

If for some reason it needs to be one sentence, here's an alternative:

Asexuals can also have any gender identity and may consider themselves male- or female-gendered or androgynous, or may identify otherwise; and some asexuals are transgender.

Note that the sentence of gender-related distress addresses a different point than this does. The two aren't interchangeable, but they wouldn't be redundant either.

[Sam B.I.]

Instead of answering your question I am going to ask you a few which should immediately tell if we're on the right track.

Who is our target audience?

If we're hoping to reach the people found at sexuality conferences, I think we're on the right track. The people found at gay parades? On the right track. First years at university during orientation week? Here I don't know so you tell me. High school students? Not sure.

Note: I come from South Africa and people are a bit less informed about these issues. But once I go back there, I could always to minor editing (and present it to the PT and AVENites for feedback etc) before printing anything.

[Coleslaw]

I have to agree with Sam here, everyone. This pamphlet is really supposed to be bare bones (An introduction, if you will), and should only introduce new ideas, words, or concepts that DIRECTLY RELATE to asexuality... To get into all the nuances of gender identity would detract from the original purpose of the pamphlets.

I have updated, here:

http://www.take-flight.net/pictures/AVEN-p...lets-inside.jpg

Things I changed:

- Deleted the extra "and".

- Updated the paragraph on sexual orientations and gender identities.

- Reordered the sections [Echidna, I believe that a logical flow for the pamphlets would follow this path: What, How, Specific Questions, and Why (Which doubles as a conclusion). Your thoughts?]

[Sam B.I.]

I likes it.

Now, I will let it simmer for a bit and read it again.

[ily]

Yay, we're onto the ULTA-nitpicky stuff! This is good! Okay, you might want to check out these punctuations:

"Whether you think you might be asexual, or know you are not,..."

I think that first comma should be removed.

"We hope that, as research on human sexuality continues to move forward..."

Think comma should be removed here as well.

[Hallucigenia]

I have to say I like Omnes's latest version of the gender sentence even more than I like the version that's in the newest revision of the pamphlet; but the one that's in there now gets the point across.

And can I just say that I love how we're all working on this together in a public, civilized manner and seeing the results of our suggestions? 'Cause this is, like, the exact opposite of how the pamphlets were getting done last time around.

[emmarainbow]

I don't see why it can't be aimed at high-school students. Perhaps it isn't full of shiny pictures, but 15 yr olds who'd read a pamphlet on sexuality probably aren't that stupid...

[Omnes et Nihil]

1) Some more knit-picky stuff... in the "What do asexual relationships look like?" section, the third line (from the top) has some intense spaces... artefactual of the justification to the right and to the left. It might look better if "trust" was put earlier in the sentence (ie. right before or after "understanding"). It wouldn't change the meaning of the sentence, but it might look prettier.

2) I still have a very minor concern with the gender line ( "... may identify as male, female, transgender, androgynous, without gender, or otherwise gendered."). All of the labels with the exception of "transgender" tend to stand on their town. While some people do identify as transgender (and nothing else in terms of gender), for a lot of trans people, the "trans" describes the fact that their gender identity differs from the one assigned at birth. Very often, "trans" doesn't describe a gender per se, anymore than cis describes the gender of your average cis-gendered person. Both cases, trans and cis people are quite likely to identify as either a man or a woman.

It's a subtle point (that people might decide is irrelevant for the purposes of the pamphlet) but it is a point I feel I need to make.

Note: Just reiterating that these are minor issues. We've gone from a draft that I would never give anyone, to creating something that I would feel comfortable sharing. This is good. This is very good.

[Sam B.I.]

I don't see why it can't be aimed at high-school students. Perhaps it isn't full of shiny pictures, but 15 yr olds who'd read a pamphlet on sexuality probably aren't that stupid...

I think it should be written in such a way that high-school students would understand it, they are the ones who would need it most. And you are right, it's always a bad idea to talk down to an adolescent. I just think that they might not have heard of those terms before. At that age I certainly haven't.

[dash]

Actually, although it wasn't called asexuality, a lack of interest in sex for its own sake has been seen as a sign of virtue throughout much of recorded human history.

Much of recorded Christian history?

[emmarainbow]

I don't see why it can't be aimed at high-school students. Perhaps it isn't full of shiny pictures, but 15 yr olds who'd read a pamphlet on sexuality probably aren't that stupid...

I think it should be written in such a way that high-school students would understand it, they are the ones who would need it most. And you are right, it's always a bad idea to talk down to an adolescent. I just think that they might not have heard of those terms before. At that age I certainly haven't.

I had very little knowledge of gender issues... I can see your point that that should be kept quite simple. But whether it was there or not, the rest of the pamphlet would have made me very happy at 14/15 and the first moment I had I would have looked up AVEN...

[Hallucigenia]

Much of recorded Christian history?

I dunno, man, but there's plenty of emphasis on virginity in Muslim and Hindu and sub-Saharan African cultures (not to mention in ancient Judaism, although that's often lumped in with Christianity). The ancient Greeks had lots of virtuous chaste goddesses. There's celibate monks and nuns in Buddhist and Vaishnava cultures.

We might be obnoxious about these things, but we didn't just randomly make them up one day.

[dash]

There's plenty of emphasis on virginity in Muslim and Hindu and sub-Saharan African cultures... The ancient Greeks had lots of virtuous chaste goddesses. There's celibate monks and nuns in Buddhist and Vaishnava cultures.

Can you give me some citations? /interested/ I know nothing about celibacy/abstinence (and their associations with spirituality) in Muslim, Sub-Saharan African, and Vaishnavan cultures.

We might be obnoxious about these things, but we didn't just randomly make them up one day.

I never said it was "randomly made up", it's been around for a very long time in Christianity. By "we", I assume you mean Christians, of which you are one?

[echidna]

Couldn't log in there for a while!

The point about who it's for is very important. I think the consensus is that it should be for everyone, as far as that is possible. I agree with that. It's not so much a problem of talking down to people, but alientating them because they are not familiar with the complexities of human sexuality. I'm not sure what the current version of the 'identities sentence' is but it sounded like it was heading in the right direction.

Following the comment about commas, "whether you think you might be asexual, or know you are not....." could be simplified to "whether or not you think you might be asexual....".

Going back to the paragraph order, I'm not sure that 'what, how, specific q, why' is necessarily the most logical (apart from 'what' first). I was thinking of the order people would be most likely to think of questions. I just didn't think on first reading the definition we've given of asexuality, people would ask themselves 'what causes that?'.

I still think the repeated mentionning of romantic attraction and relationships in 'can asexual people fall in love', 'what do asexual relationships look like', 'how does aseuxality relate to other identities' should be considered further. That's what my post above was trying to addres. Doesn't anyone else think there is some unnecessary repetition here?

I'm off for a week or so now. Maybe when I get back the leaflets will be done! Great work everyone. It's been too long that AVEN has been without basic publicity material - thanks again for finally getting this project completed (nearly!).

[emmarainbow]

Dunno - in my experience some sexuals really don't seem to get the romantic thing, so it might need emphasising.

[2tabbymom]

It's my turn to pick nits.

Are we doing British or American spellings? I noticed behaviour, fulfil, recognise. The only one that bothers me is fulfil, it looks like a typo without the second L.

In the section of "What Do Asexual Relationships Look Like?" I am not sure about the sentence "Asexual people are given few expectations about the way their relationships should work..."

I think it might be better to say "Asexual people have few expectations..."

I'll post again if I come up with anything else.