Cut for NERD STUFF. Continue reading
We now have a Spanish translation of RFAS’s info sheet for health professionals available for download! Check out our official bilingual announcement here!
Thanks again to CT for working so hard on this. :) More translations are also in the works!
My next task is to come up with a list of key words to provide a translation for, so that when people give local asexuality 101 presentations, they can also give people a way to access the Spanish-language ace community even if they can’t translate everything. If anyone has suggestions for words to put on this list, please let me know! (I realize that a lot of words we use in the anglophone ace community don’t really have any equivalent in other languages though, so they may be hard to translate.)
We’d love to be able to offer this in other languages as well, so if you’re interested in translating, please get in touch!
on RFAS’s “Asexuality & Mental Health” page (not linked because c’mon) that says PLEASE DO NOT LINK THIS PAGE DURING AN ARGUMENT and yet people are still doing it.
If you link to us in order to argue on tumblr about whether aces count as “oppressed enough” to be included in any LGBTQ spaces (or acephobia or anything else), you will cause a wave of hostile traffic to a website specifically set up to support ace survivors. If you reblog an argument that contains such a link, the effect is the same.
Our bandwidth is NOT FREE. And there is an emotional cost to survivors when you decide to use our stories to win political points.
Ace survivors are not rhetorical devices. Mentally ill aces are not “receipts of oppression.” We are not sad puppies or oppressed lamps, and we are not your ultimate trump card. We are people. We have agency. And we are right here. We’re part of your community. We see what you are doing.
If you are going to engage with detractors, or “Discoursers” or whatever they’re being called by the time you read this, you DO NOT have permission to pull someone else into your argument. If you want to use someone else’s story as an example, YOU NEED TO GET PERMISSION FIRST. That is how consent works. If you circulate someone’s story without asking, you are non-consensually exposing them to a serious risk of harassment. Even if no direct harassment occurs (or can occur, because the person may have shared anonymously), just being exposed to the argument, especially when those involved have shown a disregard for your consent and your safety, is INCREDIBLY triggering and anxiety-provoking.
And there is splash damage to other survivors and mentally ill aces, including those of us who volunteer at Resources for Ace Survivors to help fellow survivors. You tax our emotional resources, and make it so that we are less able to help each other, because we have less energy to engage. And you make other survivors & mentally ill aces witnessing the argument feel LESS SAFE sharing their stories.
These kinds of arguments may make survivors and mentally ill aces feel too unsafe to even participate in the community at all. I have personally already withdrawn from the ace community for a few years because I did not feel safe enough to keep participating!
So if you do this, or if you reblog someone else who has done this, you are directly contributing to further harm of ace survivors and mentally ill aces.
Please, please STOP.
And look, I realize that a lot of you doing this are young and have never thought about this before. I get that. I’m sure you didn’t intend to harm anyone. But that still doesn’t erase the fact that it does harm people.
And I’m exasperated, because gentle reminders haven’t had much of an effect. I don’t know what will reach people. Please feel free to circulate the full text of this post on tumblr, because I am not connected enough there to make a dent myself.
This is part four of a series of posts dedicated to breaking down components of resilience. The series is an elaboration on a post I made in 2015, continued now as part of the June 2016 Carnival of Aces on Resiliency. In part one of this series, I covered tenacity. In part two, I covered affect management and positive frameworks. In part three, I covered support network and discernment.
In this final post, I will cover creativity and adaptability. Compared to most of the other items, these two are fairly self-explanatory. Since I don’t have to focus on giving an overview, I’ll be focusing more on my own experiences this time. Warning: I will discuss parental abuse, including some major privacy violations, and invalidation/gaslighting. I allude to but do not mention other kinds of abuse, but mostly it’s just general trauma/recovery talk. Continue reading
This is part three of a series of posts dedicated to breaking down components of resilience. The series is an elaboration on a post I made in 2015, continued now as part of the June 2016 Carnival of Aces on Resiliency. In part one of this series, I covered tenacity. In part two, I covered affect management and positive frameworks.
In this post, I will talk about support networks and discernment. Please note that this post will discuss abuse, gaslighting, intersectional concerns such as racism, accessibility, and exclusion. These will be on an overview level, but some of the links may include upsetting details, so click through with caution.
This is part two of a series of posts dedicated to breaking down components of resilience. The series is an elaboration on a post I made in 2015, continued now as part of the June 2016 Carnival of Aces on Resiliency. In part one, I introduced the series and covered tenacity. In this post, I will cover affect management and positive frameworks. Continue reading
In June 2015, for the Carnival of Aces I hosted on mental health, I wrote about resilience. This year’s June Carnival of Aces is about Resiliency. I find it pretty awesome that discussion of mental health and wellness has not only not faded into the background, but that we’re officially returning to spotlight this topic one year later.
Note: This post briefly mentions transphobic bigotry, hate crimes, the mass murders in Orlando, using survivors as rhetorical devices, and abuse. These are mostly contained in a single paragraph (you’ll spot it), and I don’t go into detail.
In my post last year, I gave an overview of a working concept of resiliency passed on to my by my therapist. Because, while “ability to bounce back” is a good nutshell definition, it’s not very practical when it comes to actually attempting to build up your own resilience. For that, you need to break it down into smaller components—and then from there, into concrete steps you can take to work on strengthening yourself in those areas.
Personally, I like to think of it in terms of video games, but that can potentially be confusing because some games use “resilience” as a simple, single stat. It’s actually more like a meta-stat, like how in Diablo III, Toughness is a calculation of your combined Vitality & Life (HP), Armor, Resistances, and any passive damage reduction you have to estimate the average amount of damage the player would have to take in one hit to go from full health to zero. There are lots of variables that this doesn’t take into account, but it’s just there to give players a basic idea of where they’re at. Continue reading
I saw this on The Flash tonight and had to pause and go back to check that it was real. It was really dark so I upped the brightness and contrast so people could see it better. Sorry it’s so small, I unfortunately don’t have a larger screenshot of it. Pretty neat!
Because this survey (on “sexual and asexual relationship dynamics” from Ball State University) did not have any option to leave comments on the design of the survey and what the questions were supposed to mean at the end, I’m going to just leave my comments here. I started copying and pasting questions into Notepad somewhere in the middle of the survey, so these are only some of the issues I had with this survey. I surely have forgotten others. At the end, I will mention the way the survey handled consent, but I’m mostly not focusing on that.
I want to preface this by saying that I am really annoyed by MOST surveys, I just don’t typically have the time to comment on them like this, and when there is an option to share comments about the survey within the survey itself, there is usually no need to share those comments publicly. This survey is not even remotely exceptional or surprising. More discussion of asexuals’ responses to academic surveys can be found in a fairly recent Asexual Agenda question of the week. I hope that people who research asexuality consider these problems when designing surveys in the future. Honestly, these are mostly problems that testing with a focus group could have helped iron out. It is very frustrating that these issues don’t ever seem to be corrected before the surveys are sent out.