Jump to content

Erasure on AVEN


Guest

Recommended Posts

There have been a lot of comments on AVEN where sexuals and aces have tried to erase the identities of greys both in and out of the grey area. Personally, I don't like it when people imply that I "chose" my orientation because I'm slut shaming sexuals. I don't like being told I don't exist. In short, I miss the AVEN where it was like "you're a grey, cool...have some :cake:"

I have thought of a way to amend the TOS to come up with a solution to this problem:

Instead of this

Making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their asexuality, is strongly discouraged. We are here to figure ourselves out, not to put each other in boxes.

We should have this:

Making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their sexual, romantic and gender identities, is strongly discouraged. We are here to figure ourselves out, not to put each other in boxes.

Also instead of this:

Aven does not tolerate racist, queerphobic, or sexist bigotry, as these create an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views. You may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability. This includes anything bigoted against 'asexuals', 'sexuals', 'aromantics' or 'romantics' as identifiable categories.

We should have this:

Aven does not tolerate racist, queerphobic, or sexist bigotry, as these create an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views. You may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability. This includes anything bigoted against 'asexuals', 'sexuals', 'demisexuals', 'grey-as', 'aromantics', grey-romantics, or 'romantics' as identifiable categories.

I know there is going to be a TOS overhaul soon but I think these changes are necessary ASAP which is why I'm bringing them up now. Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the first one, I think that grey-A's still count under the umbrella of asexuality, much like different breeds of the same species with asexual being an umbrella term. I dunno, I haven't been around for a while and I'm very surprised and quite sad to hear there's been any issue with this at all. :/ This is, or perhaps was, the friendliest forum I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the first one, I think that grey-A's still count under the umbrella of asexuality, much like different breeds of the same species with asexual being an umbrella term. I dunno, I haven't been around for a while and I'm very surprised and quite sad to hear there's been any issue with this at all. :/ This is, or perhaps was, the friendliest forum I know.

Community wise, maybe, but not really when it comes to orientation. Grayness is more like on the bridge between sexual & asexual.....that's the best metaphor I could come up with for it.

I didn't even know this was a problem. Where is the TOS anyway? I'm for the idea, but I'm not sure if people are even going to notce it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the changes you've suggested, personally.

I don't want anyone to feel left out of AVEN or like someone is forcing a label on or off of them. People will have their opinions, but people should try to keep those opinions civil.

I am a little tired of hearing about this "erasure" thing because it seems like we're talking about the erasure way more than the number of posts where people have actually been doing erasing...but that could just be me...I tend to look at things way too positively and not see any even intended attacks as actual attacks.

But the concept does present a problem. If erasing or policing do happen in a grand, offensive scale, I think there should be something done about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a lot of comments on AVEN where sexuals and aces have tried to erase the identities of greys both in and out of the grey area. Personally, I don't like it when people imply that I "chose" my orientation because I'm slut shaming sexuals. I don't like being told I don't exist. In short, I miss the AVEN where it was like "you're a grey, cool...have some :cake:"

A few things if i may

tea..overly dramatic and a slightly less open about the claims and information...the slut shaming was never said on aven

it was said in tumblr by one of those those sado's that use it and a new member decided to make it a platform for a rage and rant by bringing it in here to reply to it

http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/65974-why-i-dont-consider-demi-sexuality-as-a-valid-sexual-orientation/page__pid__1968367#entry1968367

erasure..what an over simplification for effect and a total nonsense

what did you think was going to happen when you open a new forum? every one was going to say hi we all agree?..in effect tea what you and some are proposing is that the tos be ammended so no one can say anything different..you want to shut asexuals/sexuals or anyone else who has a different point of view..down

grey is the largest group of unsures we have in aven..did you think they were all going to agree? and to make it like your coming under a sexual and asexual alliance attack is reminiscent of orwell :rolleyes:

when a new forum is created it always takes several weeks to be nice..it starts by asking some HONEST questions..things then get very animated.. then they settle down..as grey is finding

if you wanted a forum where no one is allowed to have a different view then you have either been missled or need to create a completely different forum elsewhere because the last time i looked..we were allowed to disagree and have the right to do so

you think you've got it hard? (by the way a massive vote to create grey hardly looks like erasure does it!)

try being asexual in this forum..with an increase in"sexual fantasies tmi" on an asexual forum

try explaining asexuality outside of this room as a person who doesn't experience sexual attraction and the first thing they do is point to aven and grey and say..yes you do...them lot call themselves asexual AND have sexual attraction

please do not confuse people asking questions different to those you feel comfortable with ..with erasure..it's attention getting headlines and no more

look at it another way ..one that isn't your mememe way

by adding grey it has increased the chances of asexuals having doubt thrown at them even more so and you think thats everyone elses fault so you want a change in the tos????

you cannot create a forum that almost all supported then start to create isolationism and now starting to demand new rules just for you over and above anyone else

it makes it look like a forum for prima donas instead of a forum that wants to be included

i had high hopes for grey..but the amount of victim mentality coming out of it with a surge in accusatuions of pure asexuals/eltists asexyuals and now the stupid claim of erasure ..has me now considering wether the grey addition was a cost worth paying

greys..don't fuck it up

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest member25959

The changes seem good to me. I like the idea of having sexual, romantic or gender identities, rather than just ''asexual'', or rather than attempting to list out every identity.

But I'm with Copeland here aswell. I dunno about anyone else, but I've always considered gray-a as asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SQL ate my original post :(

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'm glad to see that most people who responded find this idea to be a good one.

Honestly I thought grey-a would fall under the umbrella of asexuality, but it doesn't seem to. Like Jillianimal said, it's more of a bridge between asexuality and sexuality.

Also PiF, if you read the changes close enough you will see that it won't just affect grey-as. There are protections for gender and romantic orientation in there as well.

Furthermore, I'm not trying to cause drama. I've seen comments about how since I identify as grey, I must be slutshaming because obviously I think that all sexuals are hypersexual :rolleyes:

If you want me to dig up the comments please go ahead and ask, but right now SQL is being a pain so I won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I'm with Copeland here aswell. I dunno about anyone else, but I've always considered gray-a as asexuality. [/b][/color]

Some gray-As might consider themselves asexual. Some might label themselves as sexual. And others may use neither label or possibly even both. It's all about self-definition really on AVEN, as I understand things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SQL ate my original post :(

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'm glad to see that most people who responded find this idea to be a good one.

Honestly I thought grey-a would fall under the umbrella of asexuality, but it doesn't seem to. Like Jillianimal said, it's more of a bridge between asexuality and sexuality.

then you might need to dig up on the proposal discussions for when it was suggested..it was very clear multiple times that the greys were seen as that missing middle step between sexuals and asexuals..you want spectrums and rainbows? perhaps the lgbt is more driven that way

Also PiF, if you read the changes close enough you will see that it won't just affect grey-as. There are protections for gender and romantic orientation in there as well.

funny that tea..you didn't want to protect everyone like this before grey existed... goes to show by actions the two are linked however you try and backpeddle now and make it out like it's for everyone

Furthermore, I'm not trying to cause drama.

so the slut shaming ? you used words like slut shaming..that were not said in aven..and erasure ..which hasn't happened just to say hi then?

If you want me to dig up the comments please go ahead and ask, but right now SQL is being a pain so I won't.

no need to tea..you couldn't be bothered with this tos suggestion before grey was introduced..then try and launch an attack on both sexuals and asexuals then say hey not me buddy no drama here

stands out a country mile what you tried to do and why

and yes the sqls stink as much as the need for this thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only going to address one thing about what you read because yes this was originally for greys, and no, I don't want to cause drama, HOWEVER I don't want you to have the wrong idea of what this would do.

Here is what the proposed change would look like:

Making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their sexual, romantic and gender identities, is strongly discouraged. We are here to figure ourselves out, not to put each other in boxes.

and this:

Aven does not tolerate racist, queerphobic, or sexist bigotry, as these create an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views. You may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability. This includes anything bigoted against 'asexuals', 'sexuals', 'demisexuals', 'grey-as', 'aromantics', grey-romantics, or 'romantics' as identifiable categories.

Notice the italicized words, that's what I added in there.

It really is for everybody (okay now that I think of it everybody is a broad term XD but the point is it's more inclusive than the original)

Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that you had your facts straightened out.

Believe what you will about the rest of it, I'm out

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the first change but I'm not so sure about the second. Really everything is already covered in the line above with "You may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability." adding a list underneath of all the things you can't attack just seems silly. I know the list is already there but if we start adding more to it then everyone is going to want their label added to it and at that point we will just have a list longer than the TOS itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the first change but I'm not so sure about the second. Really everything is already covered in the line above with "You may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability." adding a list underneath of all the things you can't attack just seems silly. I know the list is already there but if we start adding more to it then everyone is going to want their label added to it and at that point we will just have a list longer than the TOS itself.

What does it hurt to spell out specific groups? I think it's very helpful, visibility-wise, and it sends a strong message to the groups listed that they are recognized and supported. That goes a long way. And a lot of things that are "supposed to be covered" don't wind up that way - I'm thinking employment protections based on "gender" that don't actually protect transgender people, and even those for "gender identity" that don't always protect non-binary people. When room is left for interpretation, it can create vulnerability.

Like, I can see someone arguing that demisexuality or grey identity isn't a valid sexual orientation, and maybe even pointing to how they aren't spelled out categories like asexual and sexual are in the ToS as evidence of that.

I dunno, I think it's important to err on the side of inclusion, rather than fear some slippery slope into 'over-inclusiveness.' Perhaps not listing every term everyone has ever come up with, but generally accepted umbrella terms like grey and highly visible identities like demi? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about the second part a bit, and I think one of two things should happen:

1) keep the change, but include demiromantic in there (a friend reminded me that I should have put that in there earlier if I was making lists and I apologize to said friend X_X)

2) scrap that whole last bit altogether. and just have this:

Aven does not tolerate racist, queerphobic, or sexist bigotry, as these create an environment that is hostile to the reasonable exchange of views. You may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability.

I'm personally in favor of the second idea because of what arche said and I'm a bit of an all or nothing person. I can't get everything in the second part and it's already covered earlier in the paragraph anyway. I do think that by taking out that sentence it might actually make it more inclusive because it doesn't divide up everybody into categories. I know that sounds strange but from my experience being broad in these cases is sometimes better than being specific. If there are no spelled out categories then it's probably better for everyone.

But yea thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

second part..well grey kinda proves the reason why we should not have it as groups..as soon as you get all the differences listed someone will say..hey i'm not 100% one of those why am i not covered in that? the generalisations covers the general community..the individual groups leaves it open to be continually challenged to have subs of subs of subs and may even cause problems more that there was before

it's obvious to me this is grey driven and given the victim mentality coming out of it of late.. I'm starting to think grey has not been what we hoped for it and my personal opinion is that we may have made a mistake given the effect it's having on aven..for this first time in a long time given that i whole heartedly supported grey..i will admit..i think i made a mistake in doing so

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it hurt to spell out specific groups? I think it's very helpful, visibility-wise, and it sends a strong message to the groups listed that they are recognized and supported. That goes a long way. And a lot of things that are "supposed to be covered" don't wind up that way - I'm thinking employment protections based on "gender" that don't actually protect transgender people, and even those for "gender identity" that don't always protect non-binary people. When room is left for interpretation, it can create vulnerability.

Like, I can see someone arguing that demisexuality or grey identity isn't a valid sexual orientation, and maybe even pointing to how they aren't spelled out categories like asexual and sexual are in the ToS as evidence of that.

I dunno, I think it's important to err on the side of inclusion, rather than fear some slippery slope into 'over-inclusiveness.' Perhaps not listing every term everyone has ever come up with, but generally accepted umbrella terms like grey and highly visible identities like demi? Sounds like a good idea to me.

The problem is if we have a list of specific groups that are supported then people are going to make the assumption that if it's not on the list it's fair game to be attacked. If we keep and simple and say no attacking a person based on their sexual, romantic or gender identity (plus all the other things mentioned in the TOS obviously) and then if someone feels attacked based on one on their sexual/romantic/gender identity they can report it and trust the mods to do their job. Doing it that way seems a lot less complicated to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the greys WERE in the TOS already. So I'm all for it being more inclusive and can't see any logical downsides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember my AVEN history right, the term "demisexual" came around when the Rabger model did which was after the TOS. I don't know when grey-as and grey-sexuals started coming out of the woodwork but I do believe that it was after the TOS (this could be wrong)

It is often thought that greys are protected but technically they aren't. There's a bit of a binary within the TOS in regards to the asexual-sexual spectrum and getting rid of the binary can't hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually technically they are.

You may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic orientation, age, or mental or physical disability]

Unless you don't consider them sexual orientations at which point I guess they wouldn't be covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about the second part a bit, and I think one of two things should happen:

1) keep the change, but include demiromantic in there (a friend reminded me that I should have put that in there earlier if I was making lists and I apologize to said friend X_X)

I think that's kind of redundant. Demisexuals/romantics fall under the gray A/romantic umbrella. You may as well forget demiromantics & take out demisexual unless you wanna add every name for the gray category in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

opinion..the talk of erasure stirs the images of auschwitz

and not some stupid talk on a internet forum..some need to remember that some comparision is not a comparison at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhh...yea

The term erasure is used in many different contexts but that's really not the point. The point is the proposed TOS changes and I'd like to get back on that please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhh...yea

The term erasure is used in many different contexts but that's really not the point.

How can you start a Thread claiming erasure, title erasure then later in the thread say that's not really the point???

If we want any tos change I offer the term erasure be erased from aven and returned to where it came from.. That shithole and cesspit.. tumblr

And should any try and use it again within aven.. We have a tos change to apply a warning to them

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that the point is not the context (as in, saying that it reminds you of auschwitz isn't the point of this).

But yea...more input on these proposed changes people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

I guess I didn't expect an overwhelmingly positive reaction, but I can't lie, I'm a little disappointed.

I feel kind of lost in here now, and while I'm not sure a sub-forum would help that...it would be nice.

From one grey to another, you don't have to be asexual to feel like you belong here. I came in here knowing I was a grey and I was accepted with open arms by people on the site.

I personally don't think that we need a subforum because most of the things I want to talk about fit well in other parts of the forum. And division seems silly unless there's a good reason for it

There have been a lot of comments on AVEN where sexuals and aces have tried to erase the identities of greys both in and out of the grey area. Personally, I don't like it when people imply that I "chose" my orientation because I'm slut shaming sexuals. I don't like being told I don't exist. In short, I miss the AVEN where it was like "you're a grey, cool...have some :cake:"

is this the same grey that you voted against in having a forum in aven?

I said that the point is not the context (as in, saying that it reminds you of auschwitz isn't the point of this

funny..you were quite clear on the context of it on your first post

so lets get this straight

you who said we should not even have a grey forum in aven..are now saying people are trying to erase greys from aven?..irony

no one ever said slut shaming in relation to greys at all except ...you

you seem to be creating situations tea to then stand agisnt what you have previously taken part in yourself to then make it look like your a champion of the cause by making stuff up like slut shaming

a bit like a pyromaniac setting something alight yourself then going to the rescue to put the fire out to be made to look like hero

you and only you introduced slut shaming into aven and erasure..and from that we are supposed to take your changes seriously

you said no to the grey forum..you can't get more anti grey than that

ring any bells tea?

Posted 21 August 2011 - 01:30 AM

I am a grey-a and a grey-romantic and I voted against the subforum

Link to post
Share on other sites

PiF...I don't want to get in an argument with you. I'd rather keep all of this on topic.

If anybody has any concerns about any of this, please PM me privately so we can keep this thread as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no argument at all tea and it is very much on topic

you claimed slut shaming and erasure was the need for this change of tos

the fact that you yourself introduced those terms into aven would seem to bring into doubt wether the channges are needed at all

you also seem to be confusing debating on the definition of what a grey is with the claim they do not exist..thats not been said at all..no one in the whole of the grey forum has not said anywhere..greys do not exist

by all means put something forward that will see a change if a wrong has been committed

but as you introduced them wrongs it would seem you created something yourself to then enforce changines against..yourself..i am sure you can see the puzzlement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...