You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
arthur_of_camelot 's review for:
Queer, 2nd Edition: The Ultimate LGBTQ Guide for Teens
by Marke Bieschke, Kathy Belge
overall very good and I do recommend it, but the beginning section that defines some of the more commonly-known queer identities has some misdefinitions:
it states that "Asexual and aromantic people do not experience sexual attraction" which is at least the correct definition for asexuality but has nothing to do with aromanticism. Then says that aromantic people don't want to have romantic relationships, which is especially frustrating not just for needlessly conflating asexuality and aromanticism, but that they at least (sort of) got the definition right for asexuality (no ATTRACTION) and then somehow couldn't figure out how to follow that exact same format to say "do not experience romantic attraction" and instead had to switch gears entirely to make it about behavior? like if you're going to conflate the two, you literally couldn't even just copy/paste the wording??
then when defining bisexuality, it sticks to attracted to both men and women, which is needlessly binarist considering they actually do include non-binary people and a decent definition for that right below
but the pansexual definition is the worst, with it explicitly stating that pansexuality (might be mildly paraphrased, due to quoting from memory) "recognizes genders beyond the binary" and makes it seem like their definition of bisexuality as "men and women" wasn't just thoughtlessly poor wording, but that bisexual people deliberately exclude non-binary (and implied possibly transgender) identities, while pansexuality is the like,, next step up? if you want to include the really ~*WEIRD*~ people, you gotta go with this extra special sexuality, was the tone imo
it's just really frustrating that is is specifically an "updated and revised" edition, and they STILL can't get basic fucking definitions correct *rolls eyes*
it states that "Asexual and aromantic people do not experience sexual attraction" which is at least the correct definition for asexuality but has nothing to do with aromanticism. Then says that aromantic people don't want to have romantic relationships, which is especially frustrating not just for needlessly conflating asexuality and aromanticism, but that they at least (sort of) got the definition right for asexuality (no ATTRACTION) and then somehow couldn't figure out how to follow that exact same format to say "do not experience romantic attraction" and instead had to switch gears entirely to make it about behavior? like if you're going to conflate the two, you literally couldn't even just copy/paste the wording??
then when defining bisexuality, it sticks to attracted to both men and women, which is needlessly binarist considering they actually do include non-binary people and a decent definition for that right below
but the pansexual definition is the worst, with it explicitly stating that pansexuality (might be mildly paraphrased, due to quoting from memory) "recognizes genders beyond the binary" and makes it seem like their definition of bisexuality as "men and women" wasn't just thoughtlessly poor wording, but that bisexual people deliberately exclude non-binary (and implied possibly transgender) identities, while pansexuality is the like,, next step up? if you want to include the really ~*WEIRD*~ people, you gotta go with this extra special sexuality, was the tone imo
it's just really frustrating that is is specifically an "updated and revised" edition, and they STILL can't get basic fucking definitions correct *rolls eyes*