So here’s the facts:
52% of AVENites polled said that we should change the definition of asexuality to ‘does not experience sexual attraction and/or has no desire for partnered sex’.
In another poll, 47% of AVENites said the definition should be ’does not experience sexual attraction and/or has no desire for partnered sex’, while 49% preferred the old definition.
In a third poll, there was a 50/50 split between those who don’t mind and those who disagree with changing the definition to ‘the lack of an inherent inclination to engage in sexual relations’.
The third thread is particularly interesting- ‘rewording the definition of asexuality to increase clarity.’ It’s a wonderful euphemism- minor policy change, got to consider the PR angle…
More at the link.
SlightlyMetaphysical, who is the author of this piece, and I were discussing this yesterday: if this definition change does happen on AVEN, what does that mean for visibility efforts off-site? This is a definition that both of us think is potentially alienating for a lot of the community, and both of us have serious concerns about seeing it become more common (as opposed to the current definition). For one thing, it alienates definitions of asexuality from definitions of other sexual orientations, and for another thing it is less clear to me than the current most common definition.
If it was simply a matter of AVEN’s forums, I’d say to hell with it, but AVEN does continue to do a lot of visibility and outsourcing work. SlightlyMetaphysical suggests another static resource containing community organization information but not a forum, possibly something along the lines of what the excellent Asexuality Archive has produced, if this definition change goes through for AVEN’s static material and visibility work as well as its forums. Honestly, I don’t have the resources to do that right now—I’m posting this largely because he doesn’t have a tumblr account. I do share a lot of his worries about this definition change if it spreads beyond AVEN’s forums.