#all aphobic comments will result in blocking

[the-sky-the-stars-the-sea]

Okay people of Tumblr. Now it’s time for you to go wild or do nothing.

Get this post to 100k notes and I’ll give my tumblr-using crush my url.

Get this post to 200k notes to get me and I’ll tell said crush I have a crush on them. (Yes telling them my url and telling them are two different things and yes both require lots of motivation just go with it)

(Yeah I know they’d probably figure out I have a crush on them once they find my tumblr but we’re not into logistics right now)

Get this post to 300k notes and I will ask said crush plus my other crush if they maybe want to start a polycule. (I keep imagining we’d make a great throuple)

Get this post to 500k notes and I’ll tell my other other crush who is also polyam that I’m open to dating them if they are open to the idea of dating me.

Get this post to 666k notes and I’ll tell my roommate of one week (school trip) that I’ve had a crush on them since the autumn of 2020.

Get this post to 999,999 notes and I’ll tell my childhood best friend that I have known for as long as we’ve been friends that I’ve always loved them and always will, and maybe not just in a platonic or queer platonic way. (I still can’t figure out just how I love them. I just feel like I’m hiding something from them when they don’t know just how much I feel for them)

Make any homophobic/transphobic/aphobic/ anti-polyamory comment and you’re blocked.

No you are not allowed to judge my non-existent love life or my looking for love priorities. I can’t stop you from asking questions but I can’t guarantee I’ll give you answers (though I am more likely to give answers to genuine questions)

And because I’m curious, here’s a poll:

If you see this post after the poll closes (look I know that some people know how to manipulate polls to make them longer than a week but I’m not that smart) but still wanna answer the question just put in comments or tags which one(s) you’re most invested in.

Alright, Tumblr. I’ll give you 6-12 months. I’ll shorten the length if this takes off faster than a rocket. However this will remain the same: if this post does not reach 100k notes by the Ides Of March 2025, then nothing will happen.

(also if you think I should rearrange these priorities feel free to tell me, I’m open to opinions)

Alright tumblr. Do (or don’t do) your thing.

[forgottendance]

Some scary aphobic rhetoric to debrief

So, I argued with some aphobes last night. Not particularly intensely, it was pretty tiny, but I do want to go over what happened/what I woke up to because I think the tactic these people used to silence me is particularly terrifying and I want to make sure other acespecs and arospecs know exactly how Wrong these people are. 

I also want to encourage everyone to consider who should be engaging with such people and how. Personally, I believe these people have been given too much fuel. As long as we keep talking at them, they keep finding ways to manipulate our words and spout their hate. This is particularly damagingto those of us who are acespec and arospec! Allo folks, how can you protect us while challenging this? Acespec and arospec folks, let’s protect ourselves and each other before engaging with such harmful people. 

So, what happened?

Someone made an incredibly valid post to point out that straight trans people existed and were lgbt. They then reblogged their own post to clarify that this didn’t include “people who don’t have sex”.  Either this person really means “people who don’t have sex”, which implies that sexual behavior is a condition for being lgbt, which not only negates acespecs that don’t have sex, but any sex-repulsed lgbt person, anybody lgbt person who may choose not to have sex, including those who do it for religious reasons and some survivors of sexual abuse, and even people who just happen to not be having sex at the moment for one reason or another... More likely, this person is using this to mean “asexuals”, which shows a huge lack of understanding of what asexuality is. Personally, I believe that if someone can’t even used the correct word, or define it properly, they’re not really knowledgeable enough on the subject to make an informed opinion and should probably do some more research before making such comments. Most importantly, this was absolutely unnecessary to add. They had made their point that this was about straight trans people in the beginning. The only reason they had to include a crude, misinformed reference to ace people was to attack. It was an active attempt to exclude acespecs from the conversation, despite the fact that we hadn’t been in the conversation to begin with. Basically, this person dragged us into a conversation just so they could say “no, not you”. 

We went back and forth twice, I didn’t want to escalate or fall into the path of justifying (which gives strength to aphobes’ arguments), so I simply made it clear where I stood on the matter, particularly for any a-spec person following me, and then went to bed. This morning, I woke up to responses from a new person and from one of the aphobes I was interacting with last night claiming that I had derailed a conversation about trans people.

This is FUCKING CREEPY.  First point, I want to make this very clear, the conversation was derailed the minute OP dragged acespecs into this. I was not the one derailing, I was challenging aphobic rhetoric as it appeared on my dash. This conversation was derailed and causing harm long before I touched it. 

Second point, it’s really easy to believe someone when they says something like this. We all want to be better people, we want to learn how to listen to all sorts of trans people, we want to not derail conversations. Except, when someone says something aphobic on a post specifically about trans people and then claims that any argument against their aphobia is derailing the conversation about trans people, they are not only ignoring the fact that they were the one to derail, they are abusing a true desire to support trans people. They have turned transness into a manipulative get-out-of-jail free card. My transness does not exist to help aphobes avoid arguments, and neither does anyone else’s. 

Third point, acespec and aropec trans people exist! And we are deeply harmed by posts like this, which basically tell us that only certain parts of our identity are legitimate. To challenge an aroace trans person for challenging a post that directly harms them increases this harm. All I can say is that these folks are lucky that I’m not a straight aro trans person or a straight ace trans person, because that would have caused even more harm. 

So, fellow acespecs and arospecs, I would like to encourage you to think critically when an aphobe acuses you of transphobia or of derailing a conversation and making it about you. Yes, sometimes we do that, we aren’t perfect people, but it appears that aphobes are trying to gaslight us into thinking we’re doing it when we aren’t. Always ask yourself - why do I feel the need to challenge this comment? Why are a-spec identities important in this conversation? Who am I showing my love for when I add my voice? What am I trying to say? Am I saying it? Is this an effective and appropriate way to say it? You may find that the aphobes have you doubting yourself more than you think.

And allos! Especially trans allos! Please consider context when you reblog something. It doesn’t matter how good a post is about trans people, if it’s made by an aphobe, it doesn’t support trans people because some trans people are ace and/or aro. And, if you see a positive trans post that is actively excluding a-specs, don’t be surprised when we respond to us. We were dragged into the conversation against our will. 

[gotinterest]

The biggest issue with the inclusion/exclusion discourse from the exclusion side is the tendency to compare it to other movements of exclusion instead of facing it as the unique situation it is.

To preface, I do believe that ace people are a part of the lgbt community. I say are and not should be because... well... lets be honest. Ace people are present in pride activities and LGBT communities around the world. Regardless of if people like it or not, ace people are active members of the LGBT community. We have evidence of asexuality being actively discussed as sexuality going back decades. They are already there. The case for exclusion is one of kicking them out, not preventing them from entering.

The problem with the way we discuss ace exclusionism is that it is currently painted with the exact same brush as other exclusionary movements such as TERFS and truscum... when a large portion of exclusionists have almost nothing in common with either of those groups. Yes, there are exclusionists who harass people, who say that asexuality doesn’t exist, who discount the experience of ace rape victims, who are terrible people. 

But unlike TERFS or truscum, there isn’t a component of systemic danger from the activities of most ace exclusionists. The worst the vast majority of ace exclusionists do is make ace people feel unwelcomed in the community. Which is bad, but it isn’t blocking access to healthcare, making the very act of going to the bathroom anxious and political, funding alt-right groups, organizing mass harassment campaigns, increased policing, committing hate crimes, etc. So painting ace exclusionist in general as the same kind of threat as TERFS or truscum grossly misrepresents the kind of people most of them are and the sort of threat they pose. As a result it is hard for many people (so many of whom are on the fence on the issue of inclus v exclus) to take exclusionism seriously as an issue when it appears as though the people who are discussing it have no sense of scale when it comes to the kind of threat it is to people’s material safety.

We cannot actually DEAL with exclusionism until it is openly acknowledged that a lot of people are exclusionists or lean towards exclusionism both because of the aforementioned misrepresentation and because the ace community has an issue with self moderation. 

Many of the exclusionists I have gotten a chance to talk to about their views have told me that the majority of ace people they have come across have been wildly homophobic. Now, just because that is their perception, doesn’t mean it’s reality (furthermore the homophobia of individuals should not be used to discount everyone who shares their sexuality). But it is worth looking into why this perception even exists.

The ace community is not anymore homophobic than any other community, but a growing problem with the ace community- particularly the online ace community- is how defensive it is of itself. 

Every time a post comes across my dash that calls out a loudly inclusionist ace person for homophobia or some other kind of bigotry, it is a) originally from an exclusionist and many times b) has comments added onto it which contain some kind of defense of the ace community by ace inclusionists.

Those defenses can be anything from “This isn’t actually homophobic” to “Not all ace people are homophobic” to “Well what about the stuff that [insert terrible exclusionist here] did?” 

The fact is, however, that just as the ace community is not any more inclined to homophobia than any other group, it is also not any more immune to homophobia than any other group. 

It is not appropriate to respond to specific accusations of homophobic behavior by individuals in a community by saying “well homophobia isn’t actually a problem in this community.” or “Well what about the behavior of these other people?” It is homophobic to immediately jump to defending the ace community, rather than acknowledging that- just as with every other community- homophobia is a problem in the ace community.

Furthermore, I have seen a growing number of posts that seek to distance the ace community from many accusations of problematic behavior by blaming trolls, old posts, or by downplaying the amount of ace people actively engaged in that behavior. While yes, there are trolls, old posts, and a few vocal individuals, many of these posts that I’ve seen lately (including a specific popular one that I’ve seen multiple times) attribute almost ALL problematic behavior to those three things. 

An example of a very popular problematic behavior to do this with is “ace people asking gay people to refrain from discussions of sex or public displays of affection”. I have heard many stories from several people I know IRL (who are even inclusionists!) of this EXACT thing happening in their GSA or college LGBT group. This isn’t just a case of loud random assholes on the internet, it’s a widespread enough IRL issue that it should be dealt with maturely rather than just being brushed off to the side.

Then, of course, there is the issue of ace inclusionists preemptively attacking people for “exclusionism” when they aren’t even exclusionists. For example, recently a post went around about (I believe) a bunch of LGBT+ flags being added to a list of emojis. In the list of added emojis, there were about 6 or so flags being added, but somehow neither the trans, bi, nor a single lesbian flag were included in the new list of flags. The OP made some sort of comment about “how do you forget the LG and T of LGBT?” The notes of the post were FILLED with people accusing the OP of being an exclusionist and using this to attack ace people. In reality? The OP wasn’t an exclusionist. They weren’t degrading the inclusion of the other flags at all, merely expressing outrage that three of the MAIN LGBT identities were left out for seemingly no reason. This sort of jumping to conclusions is not as common an issue, but it is one that I have increasingly seen.

What I have not seen, however, is a clear movement of ace inclusionists who look to address the kind of homophobia that is specifically within the ace community. I see, for example, plenty of posts from trans men decrying the sexism, nbphobia, and transmisogyny specific to the trans male community. I see plenty of posts from lesbians and bi women decrying the transphobia and, specifically, transmisogyny that develops in their communities. I’ve seen posts by lesbians addressing the biphobia in their community. So on and so forth.

I do not see a similar movement of self moderation from asexual inclusionists. I have seen plenty of asexual ace exclusionists decry the homophobia within the ace community, but not asexual ace inclusionists. As I’ve said, the ace community is not more homophobic than any other sexuality, but the way that homophobia manifests in the community can be specific TO the community (just as there are specific forms of transmisogyny in afab trans masc and nb communities, or specific forms of biphobia in the gay and lesbian communities, etc) and yes, that’s even after taking into account that there are many gay/bi ace people (because internalized homophobia can be uniquely influenced by the other identities held by an individual).

I don’t see inclusionist ace people discussing “how do we craft spaces that are safe both for sex repulsed ace people, AND gay/bi people who wish to discuss sex? At what point does one’s discomfort with discussions of sex in certain spaces go from being valid to being homophobic?” 

I don’t see the discussions of the latest big elephant in the room: “Why is there a repeated problem of the ace and sometimes even aro flags being newly included in things while stuff like the lesbian flag is still being left out? How can we best stand in solidarity with the lesbian part of the community on this issue?” 

I’ve not seen a single post by an asexual inclusionist going “Hey can we stop co-opting the struggle of trans women by making post after post after post that makes it seem like TERFS are one of the primary sources of ace exclusionism and that we are one of their main targets even though the vast majority of TERFS are neither in the LGBT community nor really think about ace people one way or another?”

These are all specific manifestations of bigotry in the ace community. So they should be dealt with! But currently even calling one of these things out as issues can get you labelled as an exclusionist and aphobic even if you are an inclusionist and/or ace. We will not be able to change the narrative of the inclusionist ace community as having an issue with bigotry, and specifically homophobia, if we do not actually address that bigotry. Ace people are a part of the LGBT community, so we ought to stand in solidarity with the rest of the community by working out these issues.

[promptsforthestrugglingauthor]

A very happy Pride Month to all my followers, closeted, out and proud, or just wonderful allies! I’m looking forward to a wonderful month ahead, but do be warned that any homophobic/biphobic/transphobic/aphobic/et cetera comments will result in blocking with no hesitation! <3

[andihowl]

Polyamory is queer.

Or rather, Polyamorous folk are queer if they self-identify as such.

Below, I’ll be explaining why any attempt you make to deny that is by definition gatekeeping, and why you need to stop. This will be added to / updated as I talk to more polyamorous folk and hear more of their stories. This is not a debate, I will liberally use my block button, I’m just sick of repeating myself over and over in group after group because polyphobic assholes think they can throw polyam folk under the bus and we won’t say anything. Read. Think. Do better.

Given the shared premises that “queer” is being used in it’s non-pejorative, reclamative usage as an umbrella term representing sexual and gender minorities who have been marginalized and oppressed as a direct result of their identities, and that gatekeeping members of it is an inherently shitty thing to do (goodbye swerfs, terfs, aphobes, etc.), the main reasons I see for people denying polyamorous folk into queer spaces, or into queer discussions generally read like this:

why are we even having this discussion, omg, wtf, gtfo

it’s only used by skeezy heterobros who are looking to get a second girlfriend

it’s only used by skeezy “bi” couples who are unicorn hunting

there are oppressive countries around the world who are practicing polygamy and that’s certainly not good

it’s a kink

it’s a choice

it’s a practice, not an identity

it’s a relationship dynamic, not a sexual orientation or gender identity

everyone wants to be polyam anyway, it’s not an oppressed class.

I'm personally polyamorous, and I don't see it as an identity

I'm uncomfortable with cis-het-allo folk claiming the term queer

These arguments can be categorized more or less into the following main sections:

The Disregard

why are we even having this discussion, omg, wtf, gtfo

By disengaging conversation about this, you are preventing the growth and learning of the community, and you need to knock your shit off. Only through critically assessing our own behavior and the behavior of the community with which we engage can we ever hope to make ourselves, and our world, any better.

The Bad Actors

it’s only used by skeezy heterobros who are looking to get a second girlfriend

or

it’s only used by skeezy “bi” couples who are unicorn hunting

This is one of the weakest arguments against this, and one of the quickest debunked. Simply put, all identities have bad actors. I've certainly interacted with gay men who haven't taken no for an answer. I've certainly met bisexual people who have used their sexuality as an excuse to cheat on their partners. Just because bad actors exist within a community, does not invalidate the entire identity. You cannot hope to have such a diverse group of people from such diverse backgrounds and upbringings and mental health statuses and economic statuses and expect them all to behave and think the the same homogenous way. Not all gays are alike. Not all trans folk are alike. Not all polyam folk are alike. Deal with it, move on.

Conflation

there are oppressive countries around the world who are practicing polygamy and that’s certainly not good

or

it’s a kink

Polyamory =/= polygamy. Stop conflating the two. Polyamory (when referring to the practice) is the egalitarian ethical practice of non-monogamy between consenting adults. Polygamy is an authoritarian tool used by patriarchal societies to oppress and silence women, most often without consent. Stop conflating, and move on.

Also, Polyamory is not a kink. To call something a kink, you are tacitly and wilfully admitting that the behavior in question is and should be seen as deviant in society, and derives sexual pleasure out of that deviancy. Polyamory is not, at least not in any healthy relationships I've seen, practiced in such a shameful manner. If you're equating the two, maybe you should address your own underlying phobias regarding polyamory rather than gatekeeping others.

The Choice

it’s a choice

or

it’s a practice, not an identity

or

it’s a relationship dynamic, not a sexual orientation or gender identity

These are a bit trickier of a discussion. No, the United States, nor any other country offcially recognizes polyamory as a valid sexual orientation to be protected under federal law. And yes, some people feel they opt-in to a "polyamorous lifestyle". There have been studies conducted on this, and while many respondents to do not classify their polyamory as an orientation, many others did respond saying that they felt they were wired that way, that they felt they were that way since childhood, that monogamous relationships always felt wrong for them.

The polyamory community houses both types of folk, those who feel it's a lifestyle, as well as those who feel it is deeply engrained. As polyadvice writes (specifically toward other polyam folk):

Is polyamory an orientation? Why do we care? Why are we so caught up in whether the way we love other people is a way of being or a way of doing? Why do I get this question so often, and why are we all so invested in the answer?

  If you experience your polyamory as an innate part of your self, as something you are rather than something you do, great. It’s part of your orientation. We can split semantic hairs and say it’s a “relationship orientation” as opposed to a “sexual orientation.” Some people don’t experience it that way, and that’s fine too.

  What’s not fine is if we start fighting about it and make it some big political or identity-political issue within the [polyam] community. Because you know what? The rest of the world doesn’t care nearly as much about the nuances of our definitions. They’re prepared to deny us health insurance, child custody, media representation, hospital visitation, and plenty else regardless of whether we sort this out amongst ourselves. If we start turning on each other, there’s no one to have our backs.

Simply put, it's none of your damn business if it's an orientation or a choice. Even if it is a choice, as Michael Carey with Slate wrote:

We are all human first. Everything else—nationality, sex, race, orientation—is secondary, and irrelevant to our fundamental rights. As Brian D. Earp recently argued in “Future Tense,” even if homosexuality becomes a choice, mutable under pharmacological “treatment,” it should still be regarded as part of the normal range of human behavior. We should agree on the principle that anyone pursuing consensual, loving, respectful relationships, forming happy families, and participating productively in society should be welcomed, not ostracized in the name of irrational, ossified stigma.

Not Oppressed

everyone wants to be polyam anyway, it’s not an oppressed class.

Hooooooooold up there partner. Y'all gotta be kidding me. Let's put aside the fact that one of the most common thing's polyam folk hear when they come out to people is "well, that's nice, but I could never do it myself". Let''s put aside the comments/sneers of "so you just sleep with whoever you want?", or the automatic assumption that polyam folk are sluts/skeezes/sex-addicts/cheaters.

The fact of the matter is, for someone who is polyamorous, there are no legal protections for them, whether they be for housing, employment, or medical care (in any of the 50 United States or any other country that I'm aware of). That means if someone is outed at work, they can be fired on the spot for that reason. They can be kicked out of their apartment, lose their home, or be denied medical coverage because of it. Polyamorous relationships are not recognized as valid spouses in hospital situations, they cannot receive tax benefits for their relationship, and they are routinely denied next of kin rights and inheritance. Loss of child custody is common, as family courts do not recognize polyamory as a valid responsible child-rearing environment (which experience and common sense can tell us otherwise)

It's bad enough that Ann Sweeny argued in 2010 in favor of legally expanding the definition of sexual orientation to include polyamory to help protect polyam folk against these kind of grievances (you can download the original pdf argument at that link, it's a long but interesting read). An excerpt:

... polyamorists risk custody loss, workplace discrimination, loss of friends, alienation from their families, and ostracism from spiritual and other communities as a result of revealing their polyamory. In addition, their children often face discrimination at school. Indeed, in one study, nearly half of [polyam] respondents reported having experienced prejudice as a result of their polyamory. Additionally, Emens has noted that the “social hostility [against relationships involving more than two people] sustains various legal burdens on polyamorists, including two-person marriage and partnership laws, adultery and bigamy laws, [and] residential zoning laws.” Furthermore, Rambukkana documented negative reactions to the formation of an on-campus polyamory group that included the university newspaper’s public ridicule of the group on the basis that the group was comprised of “a bunch of ‘culty’ sex maniacs” and the suggestion that the group was a “recruitment machine” that sucked people in “‘with promises of sex and more sex.’”

She goes on to argue:

These forms of discrimination are considerable, and they have the potential to impose severe, indeed devastating, burdens on individuals who espouse polyamory... The many ways that monogamy (as represented by marriage) is privileged under the law, while non-monogamy is burdened, demonstrate that non-monogamous persons, including polyamorists, are oppressed under an “organising principle of inequality” and therefore that they meet Cooper’s test for extension of legal protections.

Honestly, go read that article. It lays out a lot more than I could ever hope to properly summarize here, and outlines pretty succinctly why polyamory is an oppressed class.

What goes for me goes for everyone

I'm personally polyamorous, and I don't see it as an identity

First off, wonderful! Thank you for being polyam and for demonstrating your courage and representation in a world that wants to erase you. Full stop.

Second off. It's fine if you don't feel like your polycraft is inherently part of your identity. That's allowed. Many Nonbinary folk don't feel trans describes their experience; many gay men don't like to use the term queer. That's fine, that's your biz. That doesn't mean that holds the same for everyone else, though, and you shouldn't be limiting the voice and power of others because you have enough privelege to disregard opression you may experience. They do deserve a voice, they do deserve rights, and you consistently chiming in saying "Well I don't" isn't helping the conversation, it's distracting and beside the point.

One person's experience with a community is not necessarily representative of an entire identity's experience with it, and you don't get to claim the right to silence the voices and experences of others in your community.

The Personal Appeal

I'm uncomfortable with cis-het-allo folk claiming the term queer

Well, I'm sorry you are uncomfortable. Honestly. It sucks. However dealing with an expanding and inclusive community is and should be uncomfortable. It should force us to ask questions we didn't want to ask. It should make us rethink things we once thought were firm and held dear.

But just as -allo was added to cis-het bring light to the added axis of identity and oppression that is the asexuality spectrum, it's about time we added -mono to that, to bring to light the fact that being polyam, and being polyam + other identities, brings with it unique problems and unique pride that is deserving of attention, and deserving a seat at the table.

Included Links and Additional Resources

CW: some of these links use the nickname "poly" for "polyamorous" rather than "polynesian". Inclusion here is not an endorsement of that kind of usage, as I have tried to refrain from that usage here and in my everyday conversation. Additionally, I have replaced its usage in the above quotations with [polyam] to prevent further crawlers linking to it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201610/is-polyamory-form-sexual-orientation

(http://polyadvice.tumblr.com/post/114048167048/this-might-be-a-question-you-get-often-but-is

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/10/is-polyamory-a-choice.html

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632653

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/10/polyamorous-excluded-queer/

https://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2013/12/dan-savage-is-poly-queer.html

https://www.autostraddle.com/six-queers-on-polyamory-and-identity-419254/

[ace-aro-positivity]

Is “aspec” an autistic term?

Recently, along with the "ace discourse" that started up a few years ago, this is a huge question that many people have had. Unfortunately, the discourse on this never really died down. So let's take a look at this.

(Most of it is under the cut for a quicker-to-read version, but you can see the full Google doc here.)

I started my search by trying to find sources that were NOT Tumblr or Twitter. The first one is an autism forum. Pictured is the poll conducted on the thread, and a few of the comments left in response to the question "Have you used the term 'aspec' for the autism spectrum?" 

No one there thought "aspec" was meant for autistics, so I also searched on urbandictionary (which can be a wildcard, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to check). Only 1 of the 5 definitions said anything about autism, and it wasn't posted until 2019. 

I searched on Reddit next, and there was only ONE post that had the term "aspec" referring to the autistic community. The majority of posts on Reddit were about cars or other unrelated things. 

Facebook was next. You can look at the Google doc link for more screenshots (many were from private groups and though I blocked out names, I want to be able to easily remove them just in case), but here are some of the public posts on the matter: 

In summary, from Facebook there were about 108 total comments/posts/replies/etc. by autistic people, and of those 108, there were 7 people who had seen “aspec” used as an autistic term. NONE of them had a problem with it being used for the ace/aro community.

There are TONS of screenshots from Tumblr. So I'll just include some of the more thorough ones, but you can see more on the Google doc. This first one, by autistic-kitten, disputes the argument that the idea of a "spectrum" can be stolen at all. 

From autistic-answers, we have another post talking about how the ace/aro community using the term "aspec" does NOT hurt the autistic community, and it lists things that /do/ hurt the community. 

This next post has a response by rhodanum, who mentions they've been active in the autistic community for 15 years and never heard "aspec" used as an autistic term. They are just one person, but this type of statement has been made by countless other autistic people. 

Then there's a post by historicallyace, in which they link to other posts that show how the discourse may have started-- autistic people asked aces/aros to not use the phrase "on the spectrum," but /suggested/ using "aspec" for the ace/aro community instead. 

In the responses to that post, some people reblogged with the results of their searches, in which they found that they couldn't find any posts prior to the overall "ace discourse" where the autistic community used "aspec." 

In that response, they link to another post where autistic people were discussing who coined the term. Two separate people, one being autistic and the other representing a group of three people (two were autistic), both claimed having coined the term "aspec" specifically for the ace/aro spectrums. These screenshots show that discussion.

It's not pictured in this thread (but you can find it in the Google doc), but one autistic person on Facebook also made a similar claim. All were very clear that they meant for "aspec" to be ace/aro spectrum.

That SHOULD be enough evidence, but I gathered much more anyway. This next post is by a Tumblr user who tried to find proof of "aspec" being used to describe the autistic community before the discourse, and they were not able to find anything. 

They were open to responses, but none of the responses contradicted their findings.

There were only two posts by autistic people who didn't want the ace/aro community to use the term "aspec." However, one has the word "aphobe" in their username and likely doesn't care about the ace/aro community overall, and the other was unnecessarily rude in their post.

(The second image here was what was posted with the second post.)

Tumblr aside, I also found there's a group called "Aspect" in Australia, which is for the autism community. I don't know anything about whether this is a good/reliable group at all, but there may be a possibility of regional differences in language based on this group. 

Lastly, I have a bunch of Twitter posts about the issue. These first two are separate, but I'll upload them together.

In this next one, the OP isn't autistic and tried to spread what they had heard about aspec being an autistic phrase, and lots of autistic people corrected them in the replies. 

Another user made a poll asking the ActuallyAutistic tag if they had seen "aspec" used as an autistic term. These are the results and a few comments. 

And here are a few more posts/comments by autistic people: 

I tried to count up everything I included in the doc, and there were about 247 comments/replies/etc. about the issue. Of those, only 6 (about 2.5%) people had a problem with aces/aros using the term "aspec" Now please stop spreading rumors. 

It's pretty clear that an overwhelming majority of the autistic community does not use "aspec" or at least does not care if the ace/aro community shares this term with the autistic community. I am also autistic myself, and everyone I know thinks this is BS. 

Again, here's the link to the full Google doc, which has more screenshots/info than I put on here (I put the most important things on this thread so it's a bit quicker to get through, but the doc just has more of the same things).

[bladeobrona]

I'm on shitty mobile right now so I can't give a full response but whatever I know it will be seen since they are pretty much stalking me. I made one remark that a post became a disaster because of wargaymon's aphobic comments on a post done by prideiconsforeveryone. They vague blogged about me as a result, using my tags of "acephobia" (a tag I use on all posts containi mg aphobic remarks/comments at the requests of my followers) and my "dragon says shit" (a general catch all tag for drama related posts) to discredit and mock me. I had been alerted to this vague blogged post. I said "hey @ me and don't use my tags as reason to discredit me" then explained why I use those tags. I got mocked and ridiculed in response. I explained again why I use those tags. I was then asked if I am a minor or autistic (though they asked minor second and autistic first). I said I'm autistic and not a minor. They then responded that it would be wrong to ridicule me and dismiss me since I'm autistic and it would make them seem like an ableist bully. Told me not to respond and then blocked me. I commented that yay in trying to avoid coming off as ableist they came off as ableist because that is totally the way of not coming off as ableist. And that I found it quite insulting. I honestly expected it to end there. I was blocked and dismissed completely. So I was kind of surprised when they reblogged from me again though I was still blocked. Several times they kept reblogging me despite having blocked me. Several times they continued the conversation despite having made an "effort" to end it. Clearly they were, and likely still are, stalking my blog. I was insulted at first, not going to lie. To be dismissed simply because I'm autistic despite being the best at debating and discussions in my classes, was insulting. I'd rather be told that I'm a retard than treated like that. At least the mistreatment is direct, ya'know? But now I'm just so amused. Because wargaymon has been reblogging me all day and even started responding to comments on my posts and mentioning me in said responses to my posts. They clearly are not stalking me, right? Clearly. Anyway, I'm tired. I'm going to sleep. Night my stalker.