Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jillianimal

Adding the definition to the dictionary

27 posts in this topic

In case the title isn't self-explanatory enough, I think we should try to get the "person who doesn't experience sexual attraction" wedged into the dictionary, but worded more carefully to see it as a valid orientation than a "I'm kind of asexual today" description. Does anyone know how this can be done? Do we write a letter or petition to...whoever is in charge of publishing dictionaries? Would that do anything at all or do they just do this stuff themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merriam-Webster Online has a page on How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?

The OED has an FAQ page that is worth looking at. The issue here would be adding a new sense for a word:

I've made up a word. Please add it to the OED.

Many correspondents seem to regard getting a word into ‘the dictionary’ as a sure route to fame and even fortune. They are often disappointed to hear that the process of adding any new word, or a new sense of an existing word, is long and painstaking, and depends on the accumulation of a large body of published (preferably printed) citations showing the word in actual use over a period of at least ten years. Once a word is added to the OED it is never removed; OED provides a permanent record of its place in the language. The idea is that a puzzled reader encountering an unfamiliar word in, say, a 1920s novel, will be able to find the word in the OED even if it has been little used for the past fifty years. Our smaller dictionaries of current English, such as the Oxford Dictionary of English and the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, tend to include new vocabulary more rapidly. These dictionaries are designed to be as up to date as possible, and are frequently revised, but their new entries are usually based on the same solid body of evidence.

What is a ‘non-word’?

It is something of a misnomer to call words not yet in the OED ‘non-words’. They are simply words that we have not included up to this point because we have not yet seen sufficient evidence of their usage. Some of these words may appear in other dictionaries which deal with current English, and which do not have an obligation to illustrate usage. The OED is unique, however, not only in never removing a word once it has been included, but also because we illustrate each entry with real evidence taken from a very wide range of print sources.

How does a word qualify for inclusion in the OED?

The OED requires several independent examples of the word being used, and also evidence that the word has been in use for a reasonable amount of time. The exact time-span and number of examples may vary: for instance, one word may be included on the evidence of only a few examples, spread out over a long period of time, while another may gather momentum very quickly, resulting in a wide range of evidence in a shorter space of time. We also look for the word to reach a level of general currency where it is unselfconsciously used with the expectation of being understood: that is, we look for examples of uses of a word that are not immediately followed by an explanation of its meaning for the benefit of the reader. We have a large range of words under constant review, and as items are assessed for inclusion in the dictionary, words which have not yet accumulated enough evidence are kept on file, so that we can refer back to them if further evidence comes to light.

How can I send evidence of a new word or sense to the OED?

We can assess examples of new words and senses that are not illustrated in the OED, providing the information is sent through the OED Online website, in the appropriate form. This captures the quotation and its accompanying citation details, and transmits the information in a format that our editing system can interpret, which therefore enables our editors to make use of the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about how much the word is used in media(e.g. "doh" by Homer Simpson was added to the dictionary a fee years back). With the internet, everything changed as words popped up more frequently. If someone were to make a solid effort, I'm sure asexual could be added to the dictionary with ease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think length of time of asexual being used in this way is an issue since AVEN's been around for 10 years. Also the fact that New York & Vermont have it written in a law that asexuality is considered a sexual orientation I'm sure would help a lot. So I guess the real obstacle to get past is how often it's used. There's also the issue of trying to ensure that the definition is something that's enduring as any other orientation (the fact that some people see it as a lack of orienation because it's about lacking attraction doesn't help much). Any ideas with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the issue of trying to ensure that the definition is something that's enduring as any other orientation (the fact that some people see it as a lack of orienation because it's about lacking attraction doesn't help much). Any ideas with that?

The issue for "enduring" isn't how enduring asexual identity/orientation is or is not in individuals over time, but how persistent (the term) "asexual" is in general usage in the sense that we mean it. Some new words (or new senses) have a flash-in-the-pan character to them, where they're popular for a short time and then die out. Because of inherent difficulties in accurately guessing what's going to catch on (long term) and what won't, the length of time is used to try to keep flash-in-the-pan items out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, this actually sounds like it would be a cool project. Seems like the main steps required would be:

1) agree on wording for definitions, probably for asexual and asexuality. good starting points are working with AVEN's definitions, and also referring to standard dictionary definitions of bisexuality.

3) Find sources which use the word in reference to the orientation, preferably reliable print sources (ex. published books, scholarly articles maybe?) and compile a list of specific, dated references.

4) (if necessary): write several sample sentences/phrases illustrating proper use of the word. (again, looking at examples for homosexuality/bisexual/etc. provide good examples)

5)Research each dictionary's policy for submitting/accepting new words, or in this case, new senses of words. Some will be easier to change than others - for ex, I'd think wiktionary probably has a more lax policy than, say, the OED.

6) once the procedure is known, proceed to follow it - probably either submitting info online, or completing certain forms, etc. This is where having pre-made and screened definitions/examples/citations would help.

7)Repeat for each publication.

*EDIT* Actually, looks like we're already in wiktionary. Online dictionaries will be an easier place to start - I believe Merriam-Webster has an online dicitonary for new/slang words that is easier to submit to - I can look into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the issue of trying to ensure that the definition is something that's enduring as any other orientation (the fact that some people see it as a lack of orienation because it's about lacking attraction doesn't help much). Any ideas with that?

The issue for "enduring" isn't how enduring asexual identity/orientation is or is not in individuals over time, but how persistent (the term) "asexual" is in general usage in the sense that we mean it.

Mmm, true. I know I've gotten into at least one argument about asexuality meaning "lacking sexual attraction to anyone" or "not having interest in sex". People on both sides tend to be very persistent with their description.

But as for the whole enduring thing, I know dictionaries won't care about that. That doesn't really matter. What I'm concerened about is people reading the definition & thinking they're asexual for the day because it's not being clear that lacking attraction to anyone is not a periodical thing (unless the person's sexuality is fluid, but you get what I mean).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For dictionaries, the question of who is "really asexual" (or even if anyone is "really asexual") is largely beside the point. What the really issue is (as far as dictionaries are concerned) is stated nicely by Mirriam-Webster:

How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?

This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked.

The answer is simple: usage.

Many people think of dictionaries as telling people how they should use language. The primary aim, by contrast, is how people actually do use language. For anyone at all familiar with linguistics, a distinction is made between descriptive and prescriptive grammar. Dictionaries aim to be the former, although many people use them for the latter, which means that attempts to do the former easily have an impact on the latter, whether the lexicographers like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked up the sexual orientations for a sense of wording on MWO & they define them as "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward _____ sex".

So I guess if we were to submit asexual as an orientation it will look like:

"of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward neither sex"

Looks kind of funny worded like that. Maybe "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency of lacking sexual desire toward any sex" would work better while still being consistent.

For mondofacto: A person not sexually attracted to persons of any sex

Vocabulary: a person who is not sexually attracted to any sex

-----------------------

As for sources, I think we could use:

AVEN (obviously)

Vermont's laws protecting sexual orientation

SONDA (may be problematic since there's no definition for any of the orientations)

Relationship of Serum Testosterone Concentrations to Mate Preferences in Rams (refers to rams who showed no interest in mating with either sex as asexual)

CNN story

Lori Waite Turner, Frances Sizer Webb. 1992. Life choices: health concepts and strategies. West Pub. Co. p313

"Still other people are asexual, meaning that they are sexually attracted to neither sex." link

Michele J. Eliason. 1996. Who cares?: institutional barriers to health care for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p25-26

"Some people argue that asexual should also be included, acknowledging that some people have no sexual attractions." link

Gianna E. Israel, Donald E. Tarver, Joy Diane Shaffer. 2001. Transgender Care: Recommended Guidelines, Practical Information, and Personal Accounts. Temple University Press. p47

"Asexual individuals have no erotic attraction for others." link

A.F. Bogaert, 2004:

"Asexuality, the state of having no sexual attraction for either sex" link

Arlene Istar Lev. 2004. Transgender emergence: therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. Routledge. p86

"Sexual orientation can be directed toward members of the same sex (homosexual), the opposite sex (heterosexual), both sexes (bisexual), or neither sex (asexual)." link

Ronald L. Jackson, II. 2010. Encyclopedia of Identity, Volume 1. SAGE. p65

"asexual describes those who do not experience sexual attraction"

Elizabeth J. Meyer. 2010. Gender and sexual diversity in schools: an introduction. Springer. p141

"Asexual A sexual orientation for a person who does not feel sexual attraction or experience a desire for sexual contact."link

L. A. Brotto, 2010:

"The findings suggest that asexuality is best conceptualized as a lack of sexual attraction; however, asexuals varied greatly in their experience of sexual response and behavior." link

I think they're fairly solid when it comes to sources. Anybody think that more pop culture oriented sources (though still in consistent use) would help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing these possible definitions out there for consideration:

  • of, relating to, or characterized by no (particular) tendency to direct sexual desire towards any sex
  • of, relating to, or characterized by no (particular) tendency to direct sexual desire towards individuals of any sex

I noticed that the initial suggestion was "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire towards neither sex", which could be seen to enforce a binary, which I think might be undesired for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me wonder... how are people outside the community defining asexuality?

So, here are definitions from an assortment of books (in a sexology-type context, not a biology-type context), ordered by year because alphabetizing is unappetizing and time is more interesting:

M. T. Johnson. 1977. "Asexual and Autoerotic Women: Two invisible groups." in ed. Gorchros H.L. and Gochros J.S. The Sexually Oppressed. Associated Press. p384

"While the asexual woman, who has no sexual desires at all, is almost completely unrecognized, the autoerotic woman, who recognizes such desires but prefers to satisfy them alone, is similarly dismissed."

Lori Waite Turner, Frances Sizer Webb. 1992. Life choices: health concepts and strategies. West Pub. Co. p313

"Still other people are asexual, meaning that they are sexually attracted to neither sex."

Linda Garnets. 1993. Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences. Columbia University Press. p4

"A bisexual status reflects relatively high homophilia and heterophilia (androgynophilia), whereas an asexual status reflects relatively low levels of both homophilia and heterophilia."

Michele J. Eliason. 1996. Who cares?: institutional barriers to health care for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p25-26

"Some people argue that asexual should also be included, acknowledging that some people have no sexual attractions."

Larry A. Morris. 1997. The male heterosexual: lust in his loins, sin in his soul? Sage Publications. p13

"Individuals who appear totally disinterested in any type of sexual activity with either sex, in spite of possessing perfectly healthy sexual equipment, are typically seen as having no sexual orientation (asexual)."

Joretta L. Marshall. 1997. Counseling lesbian partners. Westminster John Knox Press. p19

"Those who, for various reasons, do not relate at intimate sexual or emotional levels to anyone are asexual. Asexuality should not be confused with a conscious choice of celibacy at particular times in life."

Julie Endersbe. 1999. Sexual Readiness: When Is It Right? Capstone Pr Inc. p7

"Some people do not feel much attraction at all or do not have sex with others. This is called asexual orientation. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual orientations are all normal."

Robert P. Marinelli, Arthur E. Dell Orto. 1999. The psychological and social impact of disability. Springer Publishing Company. p266

"Non-sexual, asexual: “Non-sexual” means no sexual activity. Asexual is defined biologically. In its application to people, asexual can be said to include absence of sex identity or orientation as well as activity (Klein, 1991)."

Gianna E. Israel, Donald E. Tarver, Joy Diane Shaffer. 2001. Transgender Care: Recommended Guidelines, Practical Information, and Personal Accounts. Temple University Press. p47

"Asexual individuals have no erotic attraction for others."

Karen J. Carlson, Stephanie A. Eisenstat, Terra Diane Ziporyn. 2004. The new Harvard guide to women's health. Harvard University Press. p545

"while asexual individuals would be minimally attracted to both the same and the other sex."

Arlene Istar Lev. 2004. Transgender emergence: therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. Routledge. p86

"Sexual orientation can be directed toward members of the same sex (homosexual), the opposite sex (heterosexual), both sexes (bisexual), or neither sex (asexual)."

Boston Women's Health Book Collective. 2005. Our bodies, ourselves: a new edition for a new era. Simon and Schuster. p147

"Asexual: Describes someone who is not experiencing or is not acting on sexual attraction at a given time"

Caroline Bunker Rosdahl, Mary T. Kowalski. 2008. Textbook of basic nursing. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p981

"Asexual: Individuals who are not particularly attracted to either sex"

Craig A. Hill. 2008. Human sexuality: personality and social psychological perspectives. SAGE. p210.

"This is likely to be equally true with respect to sexual group membership for those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or asexual (an asexual orientation is one in which an individual does not have a significant sexual interest in either women or men; asexual individuals experience little attraction or arousal to either sex)."

Robin Anne Reid. 2009. Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy: Overviews. ABC-CLIO. p19.

"Asexuality has a variety of definitions but generally describes the state in which individuals lack sexual desire or interest in sexual activity of any kind. When used less frequently in discussions of sexual orientation, asexuality is typically understood to be a relatively fixed sexual identity, such as homosexuality and heterosexuality."

Jerrold S. Greenberg, Clint E. Bruess, Sarah C. Conklin. 2010. Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p358

"It is the absence of sexual attraction." (citing Barnes, 2005)

Miriam E. Nelson, Jennifer Ackerman. 2010. The Strong Women's Guide to Total Health. Rodale, 2010. p18

"Asexual. People who are not experiencing or acting on sexual attraction."

Ronald L. Jackson, II. 2010. Encyclopedia of Identity, Volume 1. SAGE. p65

"asexual describes those who do not experience sexual attraction"

Elizabeth J. Meyer. 2010. Gender and sexual diversity in schools: an introduction. Springer. p141

"Asexual A sexual orientation for a person who does not feel sexual attraction or experience a desire for sexual contact."

Ellen E. Pastorino, Susann M. Doyle-Portillo. 2011. What Is Psychology? Cengage Learning. p419

"asexual: one who has little to no attraction to either sex"

Here are some ways that some researchers in the field have recently described asexuality:

A.F. Bogaert, 2004:

"Asexuality, the state of having no sexual attraction for either sex"

N. Prause, C.A. Graham, 2007:

"Content analyses supported the idea that low sexual desire is the primary feature predicting asexual identity."

L. A. Brotto, 2010:

"The findings suggest that asexuality is best conceptualized as a lack of sexual attraction; however, asexuals varied greatly in their experience of sexual response and behavior."

There are a bunch of media pieces listed here, and there are way more of all of these things out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, some of these go pretty far back... cool!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me wonder... how are people outside the community defining asexuality?

So, here are definitions from an assortment of books (in a sexology-type context, not a biology-type context), ordered by year because alphabetizing is unappetizing and time is more interesting:

M. T. Johnson. 1977. "Asexual and Autoerotic Women: Two invisible groups." in ed. Gorchros H.L. and Gochros J.S. The Sexually Oppressed. Associated Press. p384

"While the asexual woman, who has no sexual desires at all, is almost completely unrecognized, the autoerotic woman, who recognizes such desires but prefers to satisfy them alone, is similarly dismissed."

Lori Waite Turner, Frances Sizer Webb. 1992. Life choices: health concepts and strategies. West Pub. Co. p313

"Still other people are asexual, meaning that they are sexually attracted to neither sex."

Linda Garnets. 1993. Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male experiences. Columbia University Press. p4

"A bisexual status reflects relatively high homophilia and heterophilia (androgynophilia), whereas an asexual status reflects relatively low levels of both homophilia and heterophilia."

Michele J. Eliason. 1996. Who cares?: institutional barriers to health care for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p25-26

"Some people argue that asexual should also be included, acknowledging that some people have no sexual attractions."

Larry A. Morris. 1997. The male heterosexual: lust in his loins, sin in his soul? Sage Publications. p13

"Individuals who appear totally disinterested in any type of sexual activity with either sex, in spite of possessing perfectly healthy sexual equipment, are typically seen as having no sexual orientation (asexual)."

Joretta L. Marshall. 1997. Counseling lesbian partners. Westminster John Knox Press. p19

"Those who, for various reasons, do not relate at intimate sexual or emotional levels to anyone are asexual. Asexuality should not be confused with a conscious choice of celibacy at particular times in life."

Julie Endersbe. 1999. Sexual Readiness: When Is It Right? Capstone Pr Inc. p7

"Some people do not feel much attraction at all or do not have sex with others. This is called asexual orientation. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual orientations are all normal."

Robert P. Marinelli, Arthur E. Dell Orto. 1999. The psychological and social impact of disability. Springer Publishing Company. p266

"Non-sexual, asexual: “Non-sexual” means no sexual activity. Asexual is defined biologically. In its application to people, asexual can be said to include absence of sex identity or orientation as well as activity (Klein, 1991)."

Gianna E. Israel, Donald E. Tarver, Joy Diane Shaffer. 2001. Transgender Care: Recommended Guidelines, Practical Information, and Personal Accounts. Temple University Press. p47

"Asexual individuals have no erotic attraction for others."

Karen J. Carlson, Stephanie A. Eisenstat, Terra Diane Ziporyn. 2004. The new Harvard guide to women's health. Harvard University Press. p545

"while asexual individuals would be minimally attracted to both the same and the other sex."

Arlene Istar Lev. 2004. Transgender emergence: therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. Routledge. p86

"Sexual orientation can be directed toward members of the same sex (homosexual), the opposite sex (heterosexual), both sexes (bisexual), or neither sex (asexual)."

Boston Women's Health Book Collective. 2005. Our bodies, ourselves: a new edition for a new era. Simon and Schuster. p147

"Asexual: Describes someone who is not experiencing or is not acting on sexual attraction at a given time"

Caroline Bunker Rosdahl, Mary T. Kowalski. 2008. Textbook of basic nursing. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p981

"Asexual: Individuals who are not particularly attracted to either sex"

Craig A. Hill. 2008. Human sexuality: personality and social psychological perspectives. SAGE. p210.

"This is likely to be equally true with respect to sexual group membership for those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or asexual (an asexual orientation is one in which an individual does not have a significant sexual interest in either women or men; asexual individuals experience little attraction or arousal to either sex)."

Robin Anne Reid. 2009. Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy: Overviews. ABC-CLIO. p19.

"Asexuality has a variety of definitions but generally describes the state in which individuals lack sexual desire or interest in sexual activity of any kind. When used less frequently in discussions of sexual orientation, asexuality is typically understood to be a relatively fixed sexual identity, such as homosexuality and heterosexuality."

Jerrold S. Greenberg, Clint E. Bruess, Sarah C. Conklin. 2010. Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p358

"It is the absence of sexual attraction." (citing Barnes, 2005)

Miriam E. Nelson, Jennifer Ackerman. 2010. The Strong Women's Guide to Total Health. Rodale, 2010. p18

"Asexual. People who are not experiencing or acting on sexual attraction."

Ronald L. Jackson, II. 2010. Encyclopedia of Identity, Volume 1. SAGE. p65

"asexual describes those who do not experience sexual attraction"

Elizabeth J. Meyer. 2010. Gender and sexual diversity in schools: an introduction. Springer. p141

"Asexual A sexual orientation for a person who does not feel sexual attraction or experience a desire for sexual contact."

Ellen E. Pastorino, Susann M. Doyle-Portillo. 2011. What Is Psychology? Cengage Learning. p419

"asexual: one who has little to no attraction to either sex"

Here are some ways that some researchers in the field have recently described asexuality:

A.F. Bogaert, 2004:

"Asexuality, the state of having no sexual attraction for either sex"

N. Prause, C.A. Graham, 2007:

"Content analyses supported the idea that low sexual desire is the primary feature predicting asexual identity."

L. A. Brotto, 2010:

"The findings suggest that asexuality is best conceptualized as a lack of sexual attraction; however, asexuals varied greatly in their experience of sexual response and behavior."

There are a bunch of media pieces listed here, and there are way more of all of these things out there.

This is beautiful. I'll add some of these to the list later. I shouldn't even be on right now :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hexaquark, do you have the links to some of those references? I decided to use

Lori Waite Turner, Frances Sizer Webb. 1992. Life choices: health concepts and strategies. West Pub. Co. p313

Michele J. Eliason. 1996. Who cares?: institutional barriers to health care for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p25-26

Gianna E. Israel, Donald E. Tarver, Joy Diane Shaffer. 2001. Transgender Care: Recommended Guidelines, Practical Information, and Personal Accounts. Temple University Press. p47

A.F. Bogaert, 2004

Arlene Istar Lev. 2004. Transgender emergence: therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. Routledge. p86

Jerrold S. Greenberg, Clint E. Bruess, Sarah C. Conklin. 2010. Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p358

Ronald L. Jackson, II. 2010. Encyclopedia of Identity, Volume 1. SAGE. p65

Elizabeth J. Meyer. 2010. Gender and sexual diversity in schools: an introduction. Springer. p141

L. A. Brotto, 2010

so that may help narrow it down (I decided to weed out the ones whose definitions weren't consistent with the others or supported misconceptions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hexaquark, do you have the links to some of those references?

Tell me if these links don't work...

Lori Waite Turner, Frances Sizer Webb. 1992. Life choices: health concepts and strategies. West Pub. Co. p313

Michele J. Eliason. 1996. Who cares?: institutional barriers to health care for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p25-26

Gianna E. Israel, Donald E. Tarver, Joy Diane Shaffer. 2001. Transgender Care: Recommended Guidelines, Practical Information, and Personal Accounts. Temple University Press. p47

A.F. Bogaert. 2004. Asexuality: Its Prevalence and Associated Factors in a National Probability Sample. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 279-287

Arlene Istar Lev. 2004. Transgender emergence: therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. Routledge. p86

Jerrold S. Greenberg, Clint E. Bruess, Sarah C. Conklin. 2010. Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p358

Ronald L. Jackson, II. 2010. Encyclopedia of Identity, Volume 1. SAGE. P64-65

Elizabeth J. Meyer. 2010. Gender and sexual diversity in schools: an introduction. Springer. p141

L. A. Brotto, G. Knudson, J. Inskip, K. Rhodes, Y. Erskine. 2010. Asexuality: A mixed methods approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 599-618.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to be the definition all though unliked by a few..generally works and is easily identifiable

where it goes wrong is when we add..but..or spectrum

we do have some definitions existing already..the most obvious is wikipedia and the urban dictionary

as to the recognised dictionaries..well soem we have to work on and i feel that's very much what the pt should be doing

example..collins concise english dictionary is used by most schoolss in the uk but it lists asexual as

1. having no apparent sex or sex organs,

2. (of reproduction) not involving sexual activity,

◇ adv asexually

it's places like the major dictionary providers the pt should be corresponding with to ensure the definitions are changed or updated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hexaquark, do you have the links to some of those references?

Tell me if these links don't work...

Lori Waite Turner, Frances Sizer Webb. 1992. Life choices: health concepts and strategies. West Pub. Co. p313

Michele J. Eliason. 1996. Who cares?: institutional barriers to health care for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p25-26

Gianna E. Israel, Donald E. Tarver, Joy Diane Shaffer. 2001. Transgender Care: Recommended Guidelines, Practical Information, and Personal Accounts. Temple University Press. p47

A.F. Bogaert. 2004. Asexuality: Its Prevalence and Associated Factors in a National Probability Sample. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 279-287

Arlene Istar Lev. 2004. Transgender emergence: therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. Routledge. p86

Jerrold S. Greenberg, Clint E. Bruess, Sarah C. Conklin. 2010. Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p358

Ronald L. Jackson, II. 2010. Encyclopedia of Identity, Volume 1. SAGE. P64-65

Elizabeth J. Meyer. 2010. Gender and sexual diversity in schools: an introduction. Springer. p141

L. A. Brotto, G. Knudson, J. Inskip, K. Rhodes, Y. Erskine. 2010. Asexuality: A mixed methods approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 599-618.

They work ^_^ Though I'm having trouble finding where it mentions asexuality in Encyclopedia of Identity so I didn't put a link for that one yet. There was another source I took out because it turned out it completely mixed up attraction with arousal.

it seems to be the definition all though unliked by a few..generally works and is easily identifiable

where it goes wrong is when we add..but..or spectrum

we do have some definitions existing already..the most obvious is wikipedia and the urban dictionary

as to the recognised dictionaries..well soem we have to work on and i feel that's very much what the pt should be doing

example..collins concise english dictionary is used by most schoolss in the uk but it lists asexual as

1. having no apparent sex or sex organs,

2. (of reproduction) not involving sexual activity,

◇ adv asexually

it's places like the major dictionary providers the pt should be corresponding with to ensure the definitions are changed or updated

Which is why I did a quick search. Don't know how recognized some of these are but I'm gonna look into them some more.

As for the whole spectrum thing, I think it's too complicated to throw into a dictionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merriam-Webster Online has a page on How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?

Damn, I was going to mention that one. XD

I'm not sure how others do it. Such as, the Oxford Dictionary. I'd assume that they have a similar system?

Arca, Andrew posted the guidelines for the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in the same post you just quoted. :P

EDIT: I realized belatedly that you might be referring to other dictionaries published by the Oxford University Press, so I did a search:

On the general Oxford Dictionaries site, it says this in the FAQ

New word suggestions

Details on how to suggest a new word, or contribute new evidence for a word already in the Oxford English Dictionary, are available from the OED website.

We recommend that you read the following section before contacting us:

How do you decide if a new word should go in an Oxford dictionary?

See also other Dictionary FAQs.

Clicking on the suggested topic, "How do you decide if a new word should go in an Oxford dictionary gives the following (spoilered for length):

How do you decide whether a new word should be included in an Oxford dictionary?

Every year hundreds of new English words and expressions emerge: we need to keep track of them and choose which ones to add to our dictionaries.

Finding new words

Oxford University Press has one of the largest and most wide-ranging language research programmes in the world. Our most important resources are the Oxford English Corpus and the Oxford Reading Programme. The Corpus consists of entire documents sourced largely from the World Wide Web, while the Reading Programme is an electronic collection of sentences or short extracts drawn from a huge variety of writing, from song lyrics and popular fiction to scientific journals. It's based on the contributions of an international network of readers who are on the lookout for instances of new words and meanings or other language changes.

Keeping track and making choices

We continually monitor the Corpus and the Reading Programme to track new words coming into the language: when we have evidence of a new term being used in a variety of different sources (not just by one writer) it becomes a candidate for inclusion in one of our dictionaries. For every new dictionary or online update we assess all the most recent terms that have emerged and select those which we judge to be the most significant or important and those which we think are likely to stand the test of time.

Evidence

In previous centuries dictionaries tended to contain lists of words that their writers thought might be useful, even if there was no evidence that anyone had ever actually used these words. This is not the case today. New terms have to be recorded in a print or online source before they can be considered: it's not enough just to hear them in conversation or on television, although we do analyse material from Internet message boards and TV scripts.

Timeline

It used to be the case that a new term had to be used over a period of two or three years before we could consider adding it to a print dictionary. In today's digital age, the situation has changed. New terms can achieve enormous currency with a wide audience in a much shorter space of time, and people expect to find these new 'high-profile' words in their dictionaries. This presents an additional challenge to lexicographers trying to assess whether a term is ephemeral or whether it will become a permanent feature of the language.

Personal inventions

People often send us words they have made up and ask if we will add their invented terms to one of our dictionaries. Unfortunately, the answer is usually no, because we only add words that we consider to have genuinely entered the language: we assess this by looking at all the evidence we have in our databases. Of course, some invented words do catch on and become an established part of English, either because they fill a gap or because they are describing something new. Examples of this type of invented word include wiki, quark, spoof, and hobbit.

See other FAQs about dictionaries.

Find out more about the Oxford English Corpus.

That link under the spoiler to "other FAQs about dictionaries" seems like it could be relevant as well. There's a lovely link there to an infograph about how a word can get into the Oxford Dictionaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merriam-Webster Online has a page on How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?

Damn, I was going to mention that one. XD

I'm not sure how others do it. Such as, the Oxford Dictionary. I'd assume that they have a similar system?

Arca, Andrew posted the guidelines for the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in the same post you just quoted. :P

EDIT: I realized belatedly that you might be referring to other dictionaries published by the Oxford University Press, so I did a search:

On the general Oxford Dictionaries site, it says this in the FAQ

New word suggestions

Details on how to suggest a new word, or contribute new evidence for a word already in the Oxford English Dictionary, are available from the OED website.

We recommend that you read the following section before contacting us:

How do you decide if a new word should go in an Oxford dictionary?

See also other Dictionary FAQs.

Clicking on the suggested topic, "How do you decide if a new word should go in an Oxford dictionary gives the following (spoilered for length):

How do you decide whether a new word should be included in an Oxford dictionary?

Every year hundreds of new English words and expressions emerge: we need to keep track of them and choose which ones to add to our dictionaries.

Finding new words

Oxford University Press has one of the largest and most wide-ranging language research programmes in the world. Our most important resources are the Oxford English Corpus and the Oxford Reading Programme. The Corpus consists of entire documents sourced largely from the World Wide Web, while the Reading Programme is an electronic collection of sentences or short extracts drawn from a huge variety of writing, from song lyrics and popular fiction to scientific journals. It's based on the contributions of an international network of readers who are on the lookout for instances of new words and meanings or other language changes.

Keeping track and making choices

We continually monitor the Corpus and the Reading Programme to track new words coming into the language: when we have evidence of a new term being used in a variety of different sources (not just by one writer) it becomes a candidate for inclusion in one of our dictionaries. For every new dictionary or online update we assess all the most recent terms that have emerged and select those which we judge to be the most significant or important and those which we think are likely to stand the test of time.

Evidence

In previous centuries dictionaries tended to contain lists of words that their writers thought might be useful, even if there was no evidence that anyone had ever actually used these words. This is not the case today. New terms have to be recorded in a print or online source before they can be considered: it's not enough just to hear them in conversation or on television, although we do analyse material from Internet message boards and TV scripts.

Timeline

It used to be the case that a new term had to be used over a period of two or three years before we could consider adding it to a print dictionary. In today's digital age, the situation has changed. New terms can achieve enormous currency with a wide audience in a much shorter space of time, and people expect to find these new 'high-profile' words in their dictionaries. This presents an additional challenge to lexicographers trying to assess whether a term is ephemeral or whether it will become a permanent feature of the language.

Personal inventions

People often send us words they have made up and ask if we will add their invented terms to one of our dictionaries. Unfortunately, the answer is usually no, because we only add words that we consider to have genuinely entered the language: we assess this by looking at all the evidence we have in our databases. Of course, some invented words do catch on and become an established part of English, either because they fill a gap or because they are describing something new. Examples of this type of invented word include wiki, quark, spoof, and hobbit.

See other FAQs about dictionaries.

Find out more about the Oxford English Corpus.

That link under the spoiler to "other FAQs about dictionaries" seems like it could be relevant as well. There's a lovely link there to an infograph about how a word can get into the Oxford Dictionaries.

We're in there, sort of. Asexual is defined as "a person who has no sexual feelings or desires".

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Macmillan Dictionary, MedTerms.com & Medical dictionary added this definition too.

Should we leave it as is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're in there, sort of. Asexual is defined as "a person who has no sexual feelings or desires".

Should we leave it as is?

I'm inclined to say we shouldn't leave it as is... because that just sounds like a nonlibidoist. o.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty true and the fact that they already have a description of what they think we are, we have a leg up on that particular dictionary.

Jillianimal, you we're asking for help in another thread and I got you covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're in there, sort of. Asexual is defined as "a person who has no sexual feelings or desires".

Should we leave it as is?

I'm inclined to say we shouldn't leave it as is... because that just sounds like a nonlibidoist. o.o

Should we try adding nonlibidost as well? I don't think we'll have nearly as much sources for it to go through, but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jillianimal, you we're asking for help in another thread and I got you covered.

Thanks Ace ^_^ :cake: I noticed you posted before, but I figured the more people were aware of this idea, the more eyes we'll have open for more possibilities. Also I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people around here who've tried getting a word or 2 in the dictionary before & may be more familiar with what they're really looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online requires these fields to submit a word.

New Word *

Definition *

A sexual orientation where one does not feel sexual attraction

Part of Speech

noun verb adjective adverb abbreviation interjection other

Topic

select anatomy business food language music people physical and mental conditions popular culture sports style technology and Internet transportation weather miscellaneous

EXAMPLE SENTENCE

Please tell us how you've heard this word used

The word is used to describe a sexual orientation

If your example sentence is quoted from a media source (print publication, broadcast, Web site), please add the following details:

Author's Name

Source

Publication Date

We should think and word it carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online requires these fields to submit a word.

New Word *

Definition *

A sexual orientation where one does not feel sexual attraction

Part of Speech

noun verb adjective adverb abbreviation interjection other

Topic

select anatomy business food language music people physical and mental conditions popular culture sports style technology and Internet transportation weather miscellaneous

EXAMPLE SENTENCE

Please tell us how you've heard this word used

The word is used to describe a sexual orientation

If your example sentence is quoted from a media source (print publication, broadcast, Web site), please add the following details:

Author's Name

Source

Publication Date

We should think and word it carefully.

While that description works, I think it would be better to specify "A sexual orientation where one does not feel sexual attraction to anyone" since a lot of people think of arousal & attraction as one in the same.

On a side note, I'm going to do a quick little side project of adding Romantic Orientation to urban dictionary since I don't think we'll get that into anything major. I think it deserves more recognition. It seems like we talk about it as if asexuals are the only ones with a romantic orientation but I want to make it clear that this something that can be applied to all other sexual orientations & the 2 don't always add up for people.

I'm at school now waiting to be picked up but I'll try to get gist of it here (I had it worded better in my head before):

One's pattern of romantic attraction (overwhelming, nervous-but-euphoric feeling that often leaves one inclined to pursue a romantic [though not necessarily sexual] relationship) toward others. Though it tends to coincide with a person's sexual orientation for many people, the 2 don't always overlap (ex: heteroromantic homosexual, aromantic pansexual, etc). Romantic orientations are identical in principle with sexual orientation & are often seen in the form of:

heteroromantic - romantic attraction toward opposite sex

homoromantic - romantic attraction toward same sex

biromantic - romantic attraction toward both sexes

panromantic - romantic attraction toward someone regardless of sex/gender identity

aromantic - romantic attraction toward neither sex

I think I'll do the same sort of description with sexual orientation, but with sexual attraction obviously. Any suggetions before I submit to UD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oxford dictionary I got for Christmas defines Asexual as lacking sexuality.

Granted, not exactly the greatest definition, but at least it's not defined as being incapable of getting aroused so something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites