rey at ascei wanted to know why we do not approve of using the harmful term “Allosexual” as the opposite to Asexual. Here ya go:
You mentioned the example of Cisgender vs. Transgender, but it is not equivalent as Cis is a gender term like Trans is a gender term. But “allosexual” is not an orientation, and Asexual is. There are no ‘opposite’ orientations. Each orientation is valid and folks deserve the right to choose their own label.
The equivalency is more like straight folks labeling those who are non-het as “homosexual”. As it is a term which has been summarily rejected by SGA/MGA folks as a label for others to place upon them (it can be reclaimed).
As for the term itself, “allosexual”, it separates folks into two camps. You are either Asexual or “allosexual”. Essentially saying that everyone who does not label themselves as Ace- is now automatically someone who experiences sexual attraction.
Which, we know is not true. This is especially important when it comes to our most vulnerable populations (abuse survivors, POC, minors, mental health sufferers, etc…) who may have complicated relationships with sex, but do not ID as Ace. i.e., us “exotic” ethnicities are hypersexualized enough already!
It is invasive to label other folks as “-sexual”. As a person’s sexual attraction is their own business and not for others to label or assume about them. If Ace folks want to refer to folks who are not Ace, there is already a perfect term for that ‘non-ace’.
When someone says they are “non-ace”, all you know about them, is they do not ID as Ace. You know nothing about their personal relationship to sex- as it should be. That is up to the person to disclose, not for you to assume.
