Goad Initials Request with airSlate SignNow

Goad initials request

Hey folks, it's raining where I am, so if you hear rain or thunder, that's all it is. I'm gonna bring you another Letters to an Asexual. This is 59. Um, and it's a really long and involved one, uh, so I'm not gonna set it up with too much preamble. But before I get into that, I'm gonna show you something cute. I have a Cookie Cat pillow. And it's really, really squishy. This is from Steven Universe, if you are not familiar. And I also have a Lion from the same show. Very cute. Um, I'm also gonna show you something that's not quite as cute. I like to collect the toys for Steven Universe and sometimes they come out with some pretty cute stuff, but recently they came out with these. They're called Micro Pozers. They sorta do this thing where they stick to each other? Yeah. I don't know. Uh, it's very peculiar. Um, but I'm a collector, so I still collected them even though they're very weird looking. Um, here's another very weird-looking toy. It's like, a cursed image. Um, I still think it's kind of cute, but um, I think this one is called a capsule builder or something. Their head comes, uh, with the body inside, and you have to open them up and assemble them. You can also put their heads on each other's bodies if you're into that. Um, yeah, so. Actually, I'm just gonna show you this real fast. We're in the room where my collection is. So, this is where all my stuff is. Uh, those are the builder toys from, um, McFarlane Toys. So I have all of those, there's a Big Donut back there, um, bunch of stuff, these are all the Funko Pops that exist for Steven Universe, and some backpack hangers, um, that's Funko's, what do you call it, uh, Pint Size Heroes, you can see the other two from the Micro Pozers. I can put these guys back here. Wheee. There you guys go. You know, gotta keep everything organized. Um, yeah, down there I have some sorta miscellaneous stuff. There's the series called Cartoon Network Titans. And I've got uh, all the Steveny ones. Which are mostly just Steven recolors. Uh, with the exception of Garnet, who is my favorite. And down here these wibbly wobbly guys. They're sort of Weebles. But they're called Rockerz. And I have all of those. And then over here I got Original Minis, Domez, and these capsule guys. And up here, all of my Mystery Minis from Funko. Hooray! Uh, let's see, camera back where it was, and um, I've also been doing a lot of uh, fan art and comics and stuff, so if you plan to see this show and you don't wanna get spoiled, just fast forward a little bit because I'm gonna show you one of my art pieces I did. Which is pretty cool. This is a re-draw of a comic cover that is originally by Grace Kraft. So this is my version, it's kinda nice, Amethyst Fusions. And uh, I like Garnet a lot, so I drew this one of them stretching. I don't know if you can see that. Yeah. And some waffles. I like to doodle. So that's some happy stuff. Uh, before I go into the ridiculous stuff. Uh, this is a letter, well a series of comments that I'm going to share with you. Uh, they're very discouraging, but the good news is most people aren't this bad, um, this comes from when I had a gig doing blogging for Psychology Today, which, I got that invitation shortly after my book was published and they asked, "Hey, do you wanna do some asexuality-related blogging for Psychology Today?" And I said sure. I ended up doing just two pieces for them and ended up feeling like I didn't have that much I was comfortable saying in that, uh, venue. And it was partly because of comments like this. So, I'm not gonna set this up anymore because it's already so long the way that it is. So for Letters to an Asexual Number 59, I will present here this, uh, conversation that went on in the comments of one of my articles that I wrote for Psychology Today, and I don't remember if I did it on the essay that I did about asexuality for the mental health practitioner or if I did it for "Asexuality Is Not a Diagnosis." I think those are the two titles. If you wanted to look those up or if you want me to uh, link you, I believe I can still do that. YouTube's been really weird with their rules changing around, but I think I can still link the articles in the comments, or rather, in the description of the video. So I received a comment from someone who just used initials, JS, and JS opened by saying "You are not qualified to discuss this with any authority. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. You're just a writer. This is a personal blog post and should not be here for critical examination. It is inappropriate and lowers tone. You're not a scientist, and clearly you never could be, since you advocate tossing out the experimental paradigm like a child throwing its toy from the pram because you suddenly dislike the way it appears. Your subjective experience or feelings are not a qualification, and the absence of something cannot logically be tantamount to a positive concept such as sexuality. Lack of libido is a medical symptom in hundreds of illnesses. Sexualities exist and they are all in the positive trajectory (toward an object of sexual sentiment). You seem to have a persecution complex and spend most of your time insulting the reader for daring to question your Tumblr-echoing opinion when you show a blatant disregard for the subject and practice of psychology. Psychology Today, you're a good publication, I expect better than this insult to our intelligence. Psychology is aiming to be a science here!" So I responded to that, and I said, "Very good example of unnecessary invalidation. You take potshots at my authority while claiming asexuality is 'low libido,' which is not what it is. This is why research is really important before you try to counter someone's point, but even if you don't like what I'm saying, the condescension and mocking make it very clear you're aiming for invalidation by intimidation." And I was fortunate enough to have some clued-up people in the comments with me. Um, and I don't know if they were just typical Psychology Today readers in every case, or if some of them may have followed me from my social media, I think a couple of them did. Um, but one person responded to JS, and said, "Just in case you missed it JS, not every single blogger on Psychology Today has a Ph.D, M.D., M.A. or other academic or 'scientific title' you seem to desire them to have. Some writers in PT have a Ph.D. or M.D. and choose to write about their personal experiences on various subjects. Asexuality is a sexual orientation that happens to still be in its infancy in terms of awareness, knowledge, and acceptance in the general population, not to mention the scientific community. Therefore, research is very scarce at the moment for asexuality. Julie Sondra Decker is brave enough to push knowledge and awareness out there so that maybe the scientific community will get interested in researching asexuality. Not all the references she links go to Tumblr...if you took the time to check them out. When you say 'Sexualities exist and they are all in the positive trajectory (toward an object of sexual sentiment),' can YOU scientifically back up that statement? If you feel more qualified than the author of this publication to write about asexuality, go ahead and write your own blog or book about asexuality...just be sure to back everything up with science so we don't take you for a hypocrite." And I responded to that person and said, "Thank you Tom, that is well said--and you bring to light a fact that some people don't realize about Psychology Today bloggers. They indeed are not all highly educated, nor are they all scientists (though I do have a minor in psychology). However, Psychology Today explicitly INVITED me to blog for them after my book was published. I didn't seek them out. They apparently wanted my voice and thought I would say something valuable. I try to do so. And yes, while some links do go to Tumblr, those are simply examples of the types of invalidation we get--so people who read this and have never had a problem with asexuality don't imagine we're making up the harassment we receive. I guess maybe it's the proto-scientist in me that enjoys showing evidence of my claims. There's not a huge amount of research on asexuality, true, but it's not absent--as you clearly know based on your response! But a book exists (predating mine), published by a scientist who has been involved in many of the studies on people like us, and I linked to it in the article. (Anthony Bogaert's book, Understanding Asexuality.) I also linked to a pretty good compilation of the extant research. But even though I made it clear that 'science' HAS investigated asexuality (and continues to do so), I still frequently deal with people who claim asexuality is something it's not (like 'low libido' or 'fear of sex' or 'hormone problems' or 'psychological dependence on being different'), and then they weaponize that misconception to yowl at me about how irresponsible my message is. Nice point on the 'positive trajectory' comment, too. We're a recognized sexual orientation, identified explicitly as NOT being a disorder in the DSM-5, and Bogaert has published numerous papers and a whole book about asexuality, with some of his content devoted to why asexuality constitutes a sexual orientation rather than a lack of one." And I list some of the other authors who have published on this as well. "I have read their studies and materials. They are asking interesting questions and gathering data. I have worked WITH them and supported what they have done. It's a far cry from the science-hating tantrum I'm being accused of when I'm literally saying nothing more than that sexual orientation isn't a scientific statement and the invalidation and harassment we receive for it is way, way too heated and aggressive to be driven by a 'pure' interest in science. Those who have that scientific curiosity in our experiences and our community have done responsible studies and published on them instead of trying to silence the people who are talking about it, but when I point out that that's what's happening, I'm accused of having a persecution complex by the same people screaming at the authorities to stop allowing me to have a voice." Ah, my mouth is gonna get very dry if I don't take a sip in between this. It's just water, don't get any ideas. Sometimes I wish I drank. So JS returns, and says, "You can't white knight one woman against another--but kudos for trying. You said: 'Asexuality is a sexual orientation' and ask me to back up a statement about the very paradigm of sexual orientation theory? The same paradigm everyone is using? .....Logical. A woman talking about herself to get attention or money isn't brave, and it certainly isn't scientific. It makes the rest of us who actually work in STEM look bad. Have fun with that benevolent sexism. Why would I waste my time writing an entire book about something which doesn't exist, except in the minds of people who spend their lives on microblogging sites discussing otherkin and headmates? They couldn't pay me enough to write on this site since it's been going downhill, I actually get paid for my research. You can't prove a negative, or is pointing out the logical fallacies from liberal arts majors grounds for 'abuse' too?" "It really seems like you're TRYING to prove my point," I said in response. "Hmm, so you have very strong opinions about asexuality not being real, very strong opinions about the self-evident 'truth' of your perspectives on sexual orientation, and very strong opinions on how disgusting it is when women talk about *their feelings*. Considering this entire piece is about people who use techniques like this to invalidate others while pretending it's science, I guess I should just thank you for proving that this attitude exists and providing an example of how nasty and petty it sounds. As we all know, your time is far too precious to read the research on the topic you're mocking (though it doesn't seem to be too precious to read blogs you believe are ~going downhill~ and then complain about that self-righteously), and when YOU are paid for something (your research), that justifies it and makes it worthwhile, while when I am paid for something (the books and articles I've sold on this topic), it's a travesty and indicative of my need for attention. And heck, linking to Tumblr for examples is obviously a sign that I support and believe anything any one of the millions of users might blog about there, and reducing its use to condescending comments about what you think goes on there definitely makes you look learn--learned. Though for the record, the book I mentioned, Understanding Asexuality, is by a man named Anthony Bogaert who does not appear to have stepped foot on Tumblr, and yet he seems to be an example of someone who 'believes in' asexuality and has 'wasted his time' writing a book about it. Your snotty invalidation attempts are poorly researched and betray a personal hatred of the topic and related beliefs about it, and we can all see what's really going on here. I would recommend some research to read by people who did not publish on Tumblr and are describing explicitly scientific research into asexuality, but I have already made it clear such things exist and you came back with 'why would I WASTE MY TIME engaging with something that doesn't exist?' so I'm not going to bother--I know you do not want to learn and you're more comfortable with your dogma. It's really gross that you are trying to make--you're trying so hard to make yourself look like the one with credentials here, but you should at least respect yourself enough to know what you're talking about before you tell other people they aren't qualified to discuss a topic you freely admit you haven't touched (and you're too personally disgusted or hilariously prejudiced against to engage with the literature)." So I had another supportive commenter come in, named Citation. Thank you Citation. And Citation says, "Okay, I'm not a scientist quite yet. I'm studying astrophysics in college, so I'm getting there, but not quite there. But I've loved science all my life and I'm pretty sure that one of the tenets of science is that it doesn't dictate the way the world works, it only explains it. If you find evidence that goes against your previous ideas, you don't just insist that the evidence must be wrong--obviously, if evidence goes against a really well-established idea, you should make sure it's reliable, but if the evidence seems solid, you don't just discard the evidence, you rewrite the old theories. Science describes the world and does not determine it. Now, with something like sexual orientation, there's no way to externally validate people's orientation--you can't run a test on someone to be sure they're straight or gay or bisexual or asexual or anything else. You have to rely on what they say they are. This doesn't mean you're obligated to accept everything that everyone says on sexuality, of course, but see, tons of people report that asexuality describes them--ignoring all of these people's testimony is bad science. Before anyone says anything about how popular opinion doesn't make something right... of course it doesn't. The Sun doesn't orbit the Earth just because people used to think so. But this is something completely different. Sexuality cannot be attested to apart from people's self-reports, unlike the movements of bodies in the solar system. You can't determine sexuality from behavior (a gay man could marry a straight woman--but this has often happened, in fact), but even if you could, the fact that most asexuals refrain from sexual activity should provide evidence enough. Besides, actual research exists from people who study orientation for a living that verifies asexuality. I could probably find a lot of it if you wanted." And I replied and said, "Very well said, Citation. Thanks. (I already linked to research in the article and mentioned it twice in comments responding to JS, but I only got *NOPE DOESN'T EXIST WHY WASTE MY TIME* in response, so when you say 'I could probably find a lot of it if you wanted,' you might just want to assume that JS does not want.) The discussion you offered here is in line with why I actually frequently tell people that you can't prove a negative--as a way of SUPPORTING asexuality, not invalidating it. Sexual orientation is the word we use to refer to what people are experiencing as far as attraction goes. As you said, it's silly to assume that behavior is what defines someone as whatever sexuality they are, or else virgin heterosexual people wouldn't be straight until they became so through the act of intercourse, and asexual people who abstained from sex would always be processed as a blank space that is understood as 'not yet.' That's unscientific, as you said. Logically, if it is possible to be straight and to be gay and to be attracted to more than one gender, it should be possible to be attracted to none. Kinsey even identified the 'no attraction' population as not fitting into his scale back in the 50s. The people answering that they don't feel any of the options offered have been showing up in research with an appreciably large experimental group since we began doing such studies. It's ludicrous to ignore that small but consistent and significant percent and aggressively tell them they have a disorder or are talking about their feelings for attention. I think JS is coming from a prescriptive background--'science says X as far as I've ever known based on my admittedly limited exposure to it, so anything that challenges X is unscientific.' As you've so rightly mentioned, that's bad science. But I'm bracing myself for another scathing commentary about how my presence on Tumblr and my presumptuous tendency to talk about ~feelings~ while female undermines everything I've said and necessitates an appeal to authority to get rid of me." So JS is back, saying, "At the point where you start imagining conversations and replies, you should stop pretending to be objective and see a shrink. Calm down with the CAPS LOCK RAGE and ignorance of what a logical fallacy is. You're trying to goad me, everyone can see it, and it isn't gonna work, I'm a professional. There are many tests for sexual orientation, actually. Literally dozens, in that field. Hence I mentioned libido, because those objective measures can be better explained by medical ailments. Including endocrine--endrocine--" I can't talk today. "Including endocrine dysfunction. Occam's Razor. What I object to is the profiteering of people who want an excuse to write about personal issues under the veneer of science with no conception of the topic at hand. No ability to separate themselves, they take everything as a personal affront. That isn't science. This whole opinion is greater than evidence idea is demonstrably false. It's liberal arts critique, not even social science for standards. And it fuels the damaging notion that sexual orientation can be changed. On the subject of the paradigm, it's too political, and this muddies the waters considerably. That old canard that 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!' applies. As you can tell, I object to the slightest broad request for objectivity in a field being met with shrill cries of personalized abuse from somebody I've never met, who requires that offense to make a living and cherry-picks such feedback to fuel their own persecution complex. As a woman in science, I am ashamed an example of my own sex makes such excuses and plays victim, or damsel. A single comment shouldn't get this response from a sensible person on a real subject, only an insecure one with unsteady foundations. Self-report is too biased, again, self-interest and social desirability. That last is basic psychology dating back to Freud's case studies, and would be laughed out of the average funding committee in this field. Would turkeys vote for Christmas?" So I responded to JS, and I said, Quote, "You should really go give attention to important things. Quote, 'There are too tests for sexual orientation!' [Mentions things that aren't sexual orientation and calls it science] Qote, 'You just want attention for your personal problems!' [Whines about how an article that explicitly isn't "about science" needs to be scientific] Quote, 'You have an opinion, not a fact!' [Falsely categorizes discussion of non-scientific invalidation of asexuality as lack of respect for objectivity] Quote, 'Your dangerous ideas suggest sexual orientation can be changed!' [Claims asexuality doesn't exist and it's clearly the same thing as a physical dysfunction there are little blue pills for that] Quote, 'You're playing the victim!' [Attacks my orientation and mocks it, makes laughably exaggerated commentary on what my presence on Tumblr reveals about the reality of my life, and literally weaponizes mental illness and diagnosis to shut me up] Quote, 'You respond to comments that invalidated and attacked and misrepresented your message, so clearly YOU have issues!' [Continues to respond multiple times to comments] Quote, 'You have no business writing about how sexual orientation isn't science and is literally the same--the name of how we describe our attraction experiences, because observable scientific processes are the only respectable way to approach the human experience!' [Implies that no REAL scientist would ever take this topic seriously even though every comment has made it clear the studies you refuse to read are part of how science understands asex--understands sexuality, and that it acknowledges asexuality and includes it in the DSM-5 as explicitly not a disorder]. But hey, it's clear from all this that I just need a shrink and have a persecution complex. Slash sarcasm. You've been a beautiful example of the type of unnecessary, personal-opinion-fueled, individual-prejudice-motivated, ignorant, and condescending type of comments we sometimes get from people who hilariously claim they're motivated by science, but the people who actually understood my article will see that my point stands and that you're an illustration of it." So JS responds. "Get help, hun. DSM isn't a bible. You clearly love being outraged to play damsel and continue to seek personal attention for self-obsessed writing about your psychiatric issues, which must have comorbid conditions judging by the transcript, what with an endless list of things you supposedly suffer from and how the world is against you for it (that's called a persecution complex in this field). Misquoting my replies to other people doesn't make you look good, it makes you look insane. On some level, you must understand this because you daren't link to me. People can see what I actually wrote and how you twist it to fit your deluded ideas of persecution and paranoia. You aren't that special, nobody objects to you personally because you simply aren't on their radar of those important enough to notice. You're hiding behind other (scientific) people I would much rather read by the sounds of it (maybe they chose you because you're free or some such) to push logically false arguments, trying to use fallacies as proof (mathematically impossible and hilarious) and crying victim when someone dares disagree and point out your error. You should be thanking me for taking time to correct you, if you were scientific (hence the word 'method'). You're trying to turn this into something it isn't, doubtless to profiteer later. Without asexuality, you wouldn't have a job, unless you count writing books about fairies (that is more your level of expertise). Your writing cannot stand alone and would never pass peer review scrutiny in a million years in an academic publication. As I initially stated to the editorial staff, not you, you insult and attack the readers' intelligence (as you continue to demonstrate and prove my point) with your anti-science approach (personal emotionality is greater than medical evidence from fields like endocrinology, which you predictably ignore), take everything personally when you're supposedly discussing the medical human body, plural, and berate skepticism in a field trying to shed liberal arts-level pandering to anecdote over evidence. In short, I didn't need to reply those three times in a row I ignored your tiring rage like a toddler throwing a tantrum in a supermarket, you prove your ignorance to any reader with a modicum of scientific training or logical sense. You cannot reason scientifically, it is something you must prove in your writing with balance and you have failed with egregious levels of bias. You don't even understand what a hypothesis is (n.b. scientific English differs from other forms) and keep using the redundant feminist theory term 'invalidation,' cluelessly ignorant of how stupid it makes you appear to the educated readership in psychology and hard disciplines like neuroscience. I actually pity you at this point. You must be one of those people who enjoy wallowing in their self-created misery. Sure, keep ranting. Very healthy. You're ranting about me (and misquoting, again) on social media like a teenage girl to generate attention. Mature. You're much older than me, act like it!" So I replied to JS. I said, "For a scientist, your dogmatism is incredible. Quote, 'DSM isn't a bible.' No, but it is created by psychologists, who base what to put in it on scientific investigation. I personally don't believe textbooks OR bibles 'prove' anything, but you're the one who's obsessed with authority (considering your first comment sought first and foremost to convince me I don't have any business writing anything in Psychology Today), so I figured you might respect it. Apparently even if scientists collectively agree on something--scientists in this field, whose work you still refuse to read while laughing at me for agreeing with them--you will reject it if it serves your own agenda. Let's make no mistake: you have a really unfortunate personal problem with asexuality, which you are irresponsibly trying to hide behind extreme desire to defend science from people whose experiences you believe threaten it. You kept going after me on how I'm *just a writer*, but aren't you *just a person in some sort of undisclosed science whose biased views also aren't a bible*, and aren't you also *just a human*? You go on and on about how you're ever so important and ever so unable to waste time on this nonsense, but here you are, day after day, comment after comment, claiming MY continued responses here are indicative of mental illness. (Again, it's disgusting that anyone claiming to care about the sanctity of science would weaponize diagnosis, psychology, and mental illness in this way.) It's pretty clear that I have a reason to be invested in this topic. I don't know what you're pretending your excuse is, though. Your opinions are all the more vile because you're pretending they aren't opinions, but you couldn't even mask your personal disgust long enough to keep from ruining your 'logical' facade by making broad generalizations about Tumblr users and mocking me for my supposed association with an entire group of people you believe are self-evidently ridiculous. 'You clearly love being outraged to play damsel'--I know you keep bringing this up and that it appears to be your personal Issue right now, but damsel in this context does not make sense. I saw you try it above claiming that Tom could not 'white knight' against you because you're also a woman, so clearly anyone who disagrees with you is actually swooping in to save me instead of, you know, disagreeing with you. Quick distract --distract everyone by pretending this is about gender dynamics! And then you did it again and a third time, claiming this is all about me needing attention and crying about my victimhood . . . except that the only person, literally the only person here, who is attacking me over this is you. You don't merit outrage. Your comments are whiny and groundless and mildly incoherent, but they are not outrageous. They are actually exactly what I wrote about above--poorly reasoned, specious, and grounded in personal hatred of what you don't understand. I'm not crying persecution and screaming for rescue and pretending to be helpless just because I pointed out the biases, compulsory sexuality, and preconceived notions that people take--take for granted when approaching sexuality-related subjects in their lives. I'm the one actively taking the steps to stop these things from hurting more vulnerable people. It's pretty entertaining to see my actions portrayed as anything even remotely passive. Quote, 'Misquoting my replies to other people doesn't make you look good, it makes you look insane. On some level, you must understand this because you daren't link to me.' . . . I do not know what or where you think I should be linking you. I'm not 'misquoting' whatsoever, and I am discussing your words in the exact same place that you're putting those words, it's not obscured what you're really saying. (But I guess if you're that determined to believe I'm out to get you, go for it.) I'm sarcastically rephrasing what your comments sound like to me, and despite that you are appealing to the masses claiming they would all unanimously agree with you, everyone else in this thread disagrees with you too. So do my followers on Tumblr and the people who saw what you said on Twitter. Not a single person has come here to say 'hey, that scientist person, they're the one that has a point!' And it's easy to see why. 'You aren't that special, because nobody objects to you personally because you simply aren't on their radar of those important enough to notice. You're hiding behind other (scientific) people I would much rather read by the sounds of it (maybe they chose you 'cause you're free or some such)' Keep telling yourself that. I would actually appreciate it if you'd go read some of those folks, but I did not quote them because I was 'hiding behind' them. You'd already made it clear that I'm a woman talking about my feelings on a blog and that's not scientific (even though it was an entire article about how sexual orientation is not a description anyone proves through scientific inquiry or experimentation), so I did not recommend my own book to you (the first book on asexuality that was published by a mainstream publisher for layperson audiences), nor did I suggest the multiple other asexuality-related pieces I've sold or the interviews I've done. You appeal to authority over and over again, calling out this magazine to shut me down because you deserve better, but when I recommend a source you would theoretically trust if you were not biased (the DSM), you of course have reasons why that isn't enough either. As for not being on the radar enough for *anyone* to notice me, well, you do seem to be a fan of evidence, as well as a fan of authority, so maybe it will make a difference if I tell you exactly who has respected my work in this field enough to give it a platform (though it is, explicitly I say, not scientific work I am doing; I am DESCRIBING this community and my experience as part of it, and that is not a worthless thing). My book was excerpted in TIME Magazine. It was featured in the New York Times. I was interviewed in the Washington Post because of my work. The work--the book was given a starred review in Library Journal. I have been interviewed on the BBC twice, on international television twice, and have done guest lectures about asexuality at various events and places of higher learning, including University of Virginia, Creating Change in Atlanta, and Princeton University. I have had extensive interviews published in Marie Claire, Salon, the Daily Beast, and Huffington Post (plus more than a dozen smaller publications). I was quoted liberally (no, not mocked by the researchers) in an academic examination of asexuality that was published in the journal Contemporary Sexuality, and I was cited several times (again, not mockingly) in a law paper that was published in Stanford Law Review. I was in a documentary on this topic that has been rated on Netflix over 125,000 times (so who knows how many hundreds of thousands more have watched it without rating). And my book is now a finalist for the Lambda Award, the most prestigious book award in the LGBT world. But it doesn't really matter that I trotted all this out, because when people who say the things you've said demand evidence that anyone important cares and I give overwhelming examples of people in high places who do not think I'm a blubbering woman with a persecution complex and multiple mental health issues (you know, since that's something logical and truth-driven people routinely mock) . . . they always say it does not matter. Because it is never actually about who respects me, even though people in your shoes frequently do go on like this: Quote, 'Your writing cannot stand alone and would never pass peer review and scrutiny--peer review scrutiny in a million years in academic publication. . . . Huh. Good thing I am not and never have claimed to be submitting academic papers for publication, but I digress. My writing, however, does seem to be standing alone, as my book just by itself went into its second printing very soon after it came out and continues to sell reasonably well for a book on a niche subject and, I say again, has been designated as a finalist by the Lammy authorities. It is funny that you think your baseless comments about no one listening to me have any basis in reality, though. More bullying tactacs--tactics from a person who knows they are not coming from an evidence-based position, but are determined to claim that good old stump for logic and science. Quote, 'You're trying to turn this into something it isn't, doubtless to profiteer later. Without asexuality, you wouldn't have a job, unless you count writing books about fairies (that is more your level of expertise).' Writing about asexuality isn't my job, though I've made plenty of nice side money doing so. I've been employed for all of my adult life, so trying to rub my face in my failures is shockingly low as well as untrue. And the attempted insult about *writing books about fairies* is funny too. Who knew--who knew that also being a fantaly--fantasy novelist would be something a clueless person with a vendetta would attempt to spin as evidence of my being unfit to write other things? Ah, the straws people like you grasp at--anything to turn your blatant personal attacks into veiled condescension that you think works to subtly undermine my credentials. Quote, 'your anti-science approach (personal emotionality is greater than medical evidence from fields like endocrinology, which you predictably ignore), take everything personally when you're supposedly discussing the medical human body, plural, and berate skepticism in a field trying to shed liberal arts-level pandering to anecdote over evidence.' See, you're seeing what you want to see, not what I wrote. 'Personal emotionality' was not even on the radar, and it was not what I said--even though I and the other commenters pointed it out to you explicitly, you couldn't stop with your hatemongering for asexuality ('that doesn't exist!') long enough to understand that sexual orientation isn't an ~emotion~. It is a description of who you feel attracted to. And I don't think it's unscientific to say that when you name the feeling, it's actually supposed to be based on your feelings. If you believe that *endocrinology* and other biologically based fields are able to create tests that would be the sole arbiters of what sexual orientation is, you're not even listening to the basic thesis statement of this piece. Occam's Razor notwithstanding, sexual orientation is not determined by a biological reaction. Pretending otherwise is not 'scientific.' It is one-dimensional oversimplification. First of all, asexual people *have been tested in a lab* in one of the studies I mentioned above (which you again refuse to read because you're already sure that asexuality doesn't exist--very scientific of you--but it doesn't matter much because one of the people who administered the study was instrumental in getting the current DSM to recognize asexuality as not a sexual aversion disorder based on what she found through research on our community, and in your world that probably ruins her credibility). Their sexual response to stimuli was the same as the non-asexual people in the study. They identify as asexual because they don't find anyone sexually attractive. Not because their bodies or minds have a dysfunction (at least, not by definition). I'm assuming you did not even know that asexuality means people who don't find anyone sexually attractive, given how you won't stop harping on how biological reactions are what proves someone has a sexual orientation. But secondly, hey, let's go with your oversimplified black and white view and say that if someone has the ability to become aroused and you test them with various stimuli, you can definitively say what sexual orientation that person is. I guess if a man becomes aroused while watching a guy-on-guy film and yet insists he is not gay, there is no possible explanation for why he would get an erection except that he is lying. Same with sexual arousal that seems to come out of nowhere, or when someone gets aroused when they're nervous. We can just oversimplify and pretend sexual arousal is sexual attraction, that endocrine systems and stimuli and biological normals are all we need to examine, and that variations like asexuality are far more likely to be fairly rare diseases than to be a sexual orientation. And, if your example is any indication, the correct way to react to people whom we think have disorders, mental health problems, and diseases is to repeatedly urge them, with condescension, to 'get help,' offer them pity, compare them to children having tantrums and also to teenagers behaving inappropriately, gaslight them by asserting them--that their reality is wrong, post multiple strongly worded statements about how broken you think they are, and tell them they're immature. (The preoccupation with 'maturity' here is pretty typical with folks like you too. Anything you can desperately grasp at to weaponize. It generally doesn't work very well with people who aren't insecure about their maturity. I'm honestly surprised that you did not add on the usual accusation of my probable childhood abuse or suggest that no one loves me, 'explaining' my supposed need for validation. But none of you can hit all the bingo card squares by yourselves.) I think it is time for you to reply to my comment by reminding me how little of your time I deserve as you give it to me anyway." Yes, of course JS replied. Here's JS's response. "Scintillating self-indulgence. Rants are commonly shorter than that, but . . . in my clinical experience. I will be kind, although you do not deserve it given your attempts at distortion. If I were practically advising a colleague on what to tell a patient it would be simply this: You need to list your comorbid conditions (history of depression, anxiety, emotional instability, self-harm) as a disclaimer above an article. That is the format and practice in this field. Obscuring such a torrid history is an ethical conflict and can--will--tarnish your work when it inevitably comes out later on in your career, as this is all you have in life and must protect it (commenting on something intimate from a veneer of objectivity and taking feedback on the broader scientific topic personally to fuel the PR for the next piece of work, typical SJW con). We can all see what you're doing, please never delete any of these comments as I wish them to remain online for posterity. Indeed, let as many people as possible see what I have written here. If you in fact truly believe what you say you do, you cannot be frightened they would think poorly of you? I call your bluff. Full quotes to avoid 'confusion'. If you haven't already been tested for Thought Disorder, as I expect is the case, you should request as much from your mental health practitioner. It would greatly assist your therapy and I believe would make you a more contented version of yourself, reducing this sense of injustice and insecurity that your life, slash, the world isn't all you wish it to be. Unless you argue with the psychiatric tests themselves and whomever dispenses yours, in which case nothing can be done for you. Denial of psychiatry as a practice and its authority over the patient (invalidation, as you would have it) is another common theme in cases like yours. Quote, 'sexual orientation is not determined by a biological reaction'--Oh. You're one of those people, what a waste of time this has been. Had you put that in the first line, nobody would have bothered to read the second. Have fun with homeopathy, since you spit on science, logic and the medical model with it. I hope the fairy book you're working on sells, children won't have the basis to question you (as dissent distresses you) so you won't need to try the ad hominem attacks in the pursuit of sympathy for your choices of omission. Perhaps I should've kept it beneath two syllables, owing to your issue with technical language. -- PT editors, I (among others) would be greatly interested in reading on this topic from the supposedly cutting-edge researchers on this topic, the pure data and rigorous methodology, not as a book plug or personal branding exercise, but as a purely logical case for exemption of 'asexuality' from the medical model as symptom, given what is known from neuroscientific studies on computationally measurable physiological arousal and mistaken conflation of self-reported desire with that objective data. Email me in a hundred years, heehee, when you find that hard proof for a negative." And my reply was this. "Thanks, Internet doctor. I'm so glad that you figured out how to diagnose me over the Internet, assigned me a history of abuse and self-harm, and condescendingly recommended that others should be warned about me before reading my work. I'm also super glad that you are so kind as to address me with sweet nicknames like 'hun' as you continue to claim I have mental illnesses, because that's not at all infantilizing. It's also adorable and kind of you to indicate that I reject science and believe in homeopathic remedies if I rightly point out to you that you can't take measurements of someone's arousal and make conclusions about what sort of people they're attracted to. This is clearly very good science. As we all know, if someone is sexually aroused, horny, turned on, or any other colloquial word we might use for it, it is because of what they are looking at, and genital arousal is identical to sexual orientation. It's lovely to know that straight sex makes gay cis men straight (because if they were able to get it up, obviously they were attracted to the woman), and that if a teenage boy gets an erection for any reason, it is because he is sexually attracted to someone who is near him that we can objectively make conclusions about, simplifying everything we can personally see in his environment. It is good to know that this is how sexuality works, and that those who believe otherwise are therefore rejecting science and objectivity outright, hate medical science, and believe in whatever other things any drive-by 'scientist' wants to assign them. I am glad to know also that 'fairy books' mean children's stories to you, and that you are so knowledgeable about the world of adult fantasy novels, that you have so solidly nailed my evil desires to brainwash children through stories because they cannot fight. This is illuminating. And it is wonderful to know that you are so incredibly sure that no research exists on asexuality that you believe Psychology Today is reading your comments and despairing at their inability to show you any science, at which point they will regret asking me to blog for them. Despite that I have told you specifics about asexuality research in every single comment I have made and linked explicitly to it in the article before this discussion began, you demonstrated a truly amazing ability to deny its existence and mockingly ask where the research is, and it's actually on a level I see very rarely outside of trolls. Those who are reading this comment besides JS may be interested in whether such a thing as physiological research on asexuality has ever been done, though I know JS isn't personally actually interested in it because of having judiciously avoided clicking on any links or following any explicitly named researchers' documentation--as we all know, when we say we're incredibly curious about a topic, we grinningly confront someone we think can't provide it, and sit back and wait for it to be given to us instead of looking around for what is easily found on the Internet. The answer is: yes, there has been such a study! The one I mentioned several times, actually. Its title is 'Physiological and Subjective Sexual Arousal in Self-Identified Asexual Women.' It can be accessed here." And I linked. "It does not, however, 'prove a negative,' which is an unscientific concept. Asexual people (including me, IN this comment thread) readily admit that it is impossible to prove a negative, but since the past and the present are the best predictors for the future when it comes to one's sexual orientation (and it is what everyone else bases it on without hooking themselves up to machines to prove it), the only thing asexual people are asserting when they say they're asexual is that they feel a certain way and 'asexual' is the name for that feeling. It makes no absolute claims about what attraction experiences they might have in the future, or about what their bodies do, or what their behavior might be now or in the future. It's pretty amazing how often people insist it must be a vow or a dogmatic statement, but yeah, people who feel threatened by the idea of a person who's perfectly happy without feeling like other people are sexy tend to ask a lot of invasive and accusatory questions. They're even willing to assign asexual people an entire crop of illnesses instead of examining why they are so invested in stopping us from calling ourselves a word we think describes us most accurately. (It's also very common to have absolutely no clue what asexual people are claiming asexuality is, as in the case of this entire adorable conversation.) The abstract for the study I mentioned above goes as follows, for those who refuse to click links and assume nothing of value can be in them: Quote: 'Asexuality can be defined as a lifelong lack of sexual attraction. Empirical research on asexuality reveals significantly lower self-reported sexual desire and arousal and lower rates of sexual activity; however, the speculation that there may also be an impaired psychophysiological sexual arousal response has never been tested. The aim of this study was to compare genital (vaginal pulse amplitude; VPA) and subjective sexual arousal in asexual and non-asexual women. Thirty-eight women between the ages of 19 and 55 years old (10 heterosexual, 10 bisexual, 11 homosexual, and 7 asexual) viewed neutral and erotic audiovisual stimuli while VPA and self-reported sexual arousal and affect were measured. There were no significant group differences in the increased VPA and sex--and self-reported sexual arousal response to the erotic film between the groups. Asexuals showed significantly less positive affect, sensuality-sexual attraction, and self-reported autonomic arousal to the erotic film compared to the other groups; however, there were no group differences in negative affect or anxiety. Genital-subjective sexual arousal concordance was significantly positive for the asexual women and non-significant for the other three groups, suggesting higher levels of interoceptive awareness among asexuals. Taken together, the findings suggest normal subjective and physiological sexual arousal capacity in asexual women and challenge the view that asexuality should be characterized as a sexual dysfunction.' Many other papers of various sorts--some social, some biological, some academic--are listed at another website whose existence is frequently ignored by so-called scientists who refuse to look at the research while they scream about how no one's really done any research." And I linked to the existing research. "And remember, all the kids who I will one day warp with my fairy stories: if you ever meet a person who you think is severely mentally ill and has a host of personal problems, the very best thing you can do is gaslight them, tell them how sick they are while clucking about how pitiful they are, write paragraphs about how much of a failure their life currently is and how terrifyingly awful it will be in the future as well to the point that they should just give up hope, and call them childish nicknames--it will relax them and make them feel that you are speaking to them out of concern for their well-being and desire for them to get better. If you actually just prefer to disrespect psychology and mentally ill people to use the entire discipline-slash-individual sufferers as a big pawn in the game to silence a woman talking on the Internet, you should definitely only do that to people when you're sure they're not ill or abused. Because doing that if you truly believe they're hurting is pretty horrifyingly cruel behavior, and you certainly wouldn't want to be one of those! But when trolling, it's perfectly acceptable, because you know it won't hurt them and you believe it makes you look very smart." That is where that conversation ended. And um, I no longer accept comments on my Psychology Today articles because of people like that. Um, I've also been writing fewer, um, mainstream articles about the topic, um. Part of it is just that after my book came out, uh, I had said a lot of stuff, and then I got more chances to be interviewed and say a lot more stuff, and I've said almost all of the basic and, you know, 201-level stuff, it's like, I've, uh, gone into a lot of detail about this and um, it seems like, uh, now the information is out there for people who actually wanna know about it, and um, the only people left who don't really know anything about this, that are discovering it for the first time, like, they're either simply ignorant or willfully ignorant, and you know, they can have access to the information if they want it, so um, I haven't been creating as much new content because it just isn't necessary. Um, the old content mostly covers the bases. That said, there's all kinds of great conversations going on as conceptions of gender and sexuality and identity in general, kind of expands, and you know, um, I like being a part of that, I like watching that, but um, I've contributed less in the mainstream media just because uh, you so often need a 101 perspective on it to even get started, and I've just said it enough times. So um, that's where I'm gonna end this one. And um, thanks for watching my stuff all these years, and uh, continuing to turn in if you still think I have something interesting to say. Um, and uh, I hope I'll see you guys back for the next video. On Letters to an Asexual Number 60. Bye!