A piece of advice that I definitely ignored is I didn’t save my class essays and assignments. I have enough clutter in my living space as is because of my various hobbies from quitting to flint knapping so I didn’t feel the need to have a bunch of old class assignments laying around. There’s only two assignments that I regret not saving: an undergraduate essay about a peanut butter and jelly sandwich of all things that I wrote by the seat of my pants and because they just set the essays down on a table to collect I saw a bunch of C’s compared to my A as proof that, yes, I understood the assignment and the second assignment is a graduate book review essay that was extremely topical to current events and writing it helped contextualize a lot of things for me.
So, here’s the assignment I did keep and why: this was a graduate assignment and part of the requirements was we had to use recent academic sources. I would have written this just before the generative AI boom and professors were still trying to circumvent AI tools. Asking for newly published articles to be the sources was one way of doing that. The assignment was to research whether or not libraries were successful in meeting the needs of minority users groups. I knew immediately which group I wanted to focus on (without inadvertently outting myself to academia).
I think the reason this is the one assignment I kept is because I keep referring back to it for the sources on parallel information systems and information management burdens. Being asexual I already knew that I navigated systems that don’t see me as the default user, but doing the literature review really got me to begin thinking critically about that phenomenon and helped to contextualize it.
Two years later, I’m still thinking about it.
Title: Insights into Unique LGBTQIA+ Information Needs and Practices
Submitted for grading in Spring 2023
Abstract:
Overall when it comes to academic libraries meeting LGBTQIA+ and their diverse information needs, there is significant room for improvement and development. The LGBTQIA+ community is often referred to in tandem as a single unit by authoritative sources, such as government agencies, but a singular LGBTQIA+ community with a linear history does not exist. There is little research available regarding academic librarian perspectives regarding LGBTQIA+ information needs, but an exploratory study from 2020 when compared to patron feedback might suggest that academic librarians are overconfident in their ability to meet the diverse information needs of their LGBTQIA+ patrons. The existing literature regarding LGBTQIA+ health information primarily focuses on behavior and risk, but research from within the last three years that utilizes user-based data collection such as focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and other methods that allow for LGBTQIA+ participants to describe in-depth their own perspectives and experience, highlight LGBTQIA+ information needs, practices, and cultural nuances that have previously been overlooked by researchers.
Because of generative AI and current events, the general public is getting a small taste of the epistemic uncertainty that minority groups have been dealing with for a long, long time: “Who can we trust? What is real? How do we know?”
The ace community had to build its own credibility (and is still building it) largely in the absence of expert validation. It already has community practices for dealing with the dissonance of living with information systems that don’t see you as the default user. These practices include building “parallel information systems”: Discord servers, subreddits, mutual aid networks, in-person meetups, wikis, etc…. These spaces prioritize usability, resonance, and participation over institutional recognition. They emphasize collective sense-making using a grassroots or “bottom-up” model instead of “top-down”.
I’m not writing as an activist. I’m writing this post as someone with a library and information science background who loves to overanalyze how the ace community functions as a living information system. I’m absolutely delighted that there’s a technical term for this phenomenon: folk epistemology. Basically, wherever you see the word “community” in this context, you can replace it with “folk” and then that’s the academic term. What Siggy calls “moving beyond definitions to motivations” is, in LIS terms, a paradigm shift from “controlled vocabulary”(a nod top-down authority) to “folksonomy” (bottom-up authority) and from “institutional epistemology practices” to “folk epistemology practices”. In technical language, adding the “why” or contextual background is called adding “provenance“, i.e. “documenting how knowledge was created and why it matters”. As both an ace and an LIS person, I’m 100 percent behind this idea.
Not Siggy specifically, but based on some of the aphobia examples used, where I think some of the confusion creeps in is people conflating a glossary with a taxonomy. A glossary is a list of words with definitions. There’s no built-in hierarchy and no inherent assumption that one term contains or outranks another. A taxonomy, on the other hand, is hierarchical. It sorts things into levels and categories, i.e. “umbrella terms”. When people try to use a glossary of ace terms as if it were a taxonomy, there’s of a risk making false hierarchies. They assume one identity must include or exclude another, or that some terms are “subtypes” instead of overlapping or parallel. That’s not how the ace community vocabulary actually functions. We use folk categories, not branches on a single queer family tree. So, the perceived problems with definitions might come from trying to treat a glossary as a taxonomy when really what we have is a web of user-generated tags and vocabulary that reflect lived experiences, not an official classification system.
It’s part of the ace experience, and part of the wider queer experience, to realize that “expert systems” often misdescribe or erase our lived experiences altogether. So we built our own epistemic communities where trust is earned through empathy and accuracy to lived experiences instead of credentials. I like my credentials as an MILS graduate because I know the academic search terms like “folk epistemology” and “folksonomy.” I can say things like, “Overall, when it comes to academic libraries meeting LGBTQIA+ and their diverse information needs, there is significant room for improvement and development,” and I have a bibliography to back me up. But it’s my lived experience participating in the sense-making and meaning creation (literally talking to other asexuals) within the ace community that carries weight.
One incident on Twitter (of course) that lives rent-free in my head is when Canton Winer, an academic who studies the ace community, “corrected” a Palestinian ace in a quote-tweet about some “Asexuality 101” definition thing and collectively we were all NOT cool with it. It felt like a community violation; an institutional authority tried to override community authority. “Asexuality 101” is the external messaging, the simplified version that makes asexuality legible to outsiders, so it was was weird to see an outsider jump into “correct” it. I think “Asexuality 201” can only be learned through participation, through the ongoing collaborative sense-making that happens inside the community itself. “Asexuality 201” is about the messy middle of how real people use language to navigate contradictions, create context, and build understanding together. It’s not a next course or a higher level of expertise; it’s the point where the glossary turns into a living conversation.
So when Siggy talks about “moving beyond definitions to motivations”, what I hear is a call to move beyond taxonomic thinking. To recap: A glossary tells you what something means; a taxonomy tells you where it fits. But “motivations”, the providence, tells you why it matters. This is a bottom-up approach to sense-making and meaning construction. I’m not an activist, but seeing folk epistemology and collaborative sense-making makes my nerdy, ace heart very happy and ever since a screenshot of this reddit post came across my page, I have been of the opinion that an extensive reading requirement for community membership isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
For context someone shared THIS video on discord which is based on an OPINION piece written by a “British Historian” who spent SEVEN WEEKS in the U.S. according to HuffPost and said:
“Hysterical hyperbole? I would love to think so,” admitted Garton Ash. “But during seven weeks in the U.S. this summer, I was shaken every day by the speed and executive brutality of President Trump’s assault on what had seemed settled norms of U.S. democracy and by the desperate weakness of resistance to that assault.”
So, no Professor Ash, we don’t have “400 days” to “Save American Democracy”. This mess is U.S. Democracy. The U.S. has never actually been a shining beacon of “liberal democracy”. From day one the United States of America has been in conflict with itself and its identity.
I’m sorry if that ruined your vacation.
[Edit: Also if you’re getting emails, I am sooo sorry. The formatting was fighting me today]
The comments under the video are very critical because of the overall “misogynistic tone” of the video and several style errors in the video where images on screen didn’t match the voice over such as showing an image of woven shirts when the voice over talks about knit shirts. Some comments that stood out to me include:
@rhianwatkins6582: I’ve never seen someone marvel so much at the wonders of knitting while belittling it so much @annmc3878: A simple knitted sock said no knitter ever. @Marta-Aya: Dear team i am DISAPPOINTED!!! I appreciate your content and never exoected you to fall into “tasks traditionally performed by women (making clothes, food, medicines etc) are just a hobby…not like proper crafts like blacsmithing and carpentry @KnittingmommyArts: As someone who has been knitting for over forty-five years now, I’m kind of bummed at the amount of misinformation in this video… @rachelcrimm5763: As a knitter… I am really starting to question any and all videos I have seen from hank before. How many of them are this poorly researched, and I didnt realize it because I dont have that knowledge?…
Coming at this form a knowledge communication (because “epistemology” is a clunky word) stand point my question is “Are errors permissible in science communication?” In response to the backlash a producer pinned a comment and here are the highlights:
Hi SciShow viewers! My name is Jess! I’m one of SciShow’s producers and like a lot of you, (to our delight!), a knitter…Since we do have a couple knitters on the team (including the video’s script editor), we wanted to take the opportunity to talk through some of the gaps in the video that viewers have identified. This response comes to you in two parts: me as a knitter responding to the video’s mistakes and clarifying where I can, and me as a SciShow producer talking about expertise, trial, and error.
I could already tell this is going to be a ride.
Part the Second: expertise, trial, and error! To give an honest peek behind the curtain, this video was a trial in its own way for SciShow – we didn’t know how knitting as a topic would land with our audience or if the video would be seen by knitters who didn’t already watch SciShow. Turns out our first error was thinking we wouldn’t reach the audience of knitters who are also excited about science. We’re grateful for the people in that venn diagram who’ve given it a watch! The next error of this trial is the simplifying language throughout the video. In every video SciShow makes, we take scientific expertise and make it accessible to a general audience…The hobbyist knitter in me is grateful that knitting doesn’t have to be complex to be worthwhile. The SciComm producer in me knows that intuition, practice, trial, and error are exactly the way science happens, and it really can be as simple as that. Thank you so much to everyone for watching! -Jess
So in short, yes, according to SciShow errors are acceptable because their goal is to reach a “general audience” through “simplified language” and it’s been very interesting to watch the loss of audience trust in real time. If errors are permissible (which is different from “inevitable”) then from an audience perspective that stance brings the whole SciShow catalogue into question because then you have to wonder what other errors were believed/missed because the “general audience” isn’t going to be a subject expert.
What even is science communication? Well, science communication falls under the professional trade/field of journalism. Journalism is defined as “the process of gathering, evaluating, creating, and presenting news and information to the public through various media, including newspapers, television, and the internet.” Like most professional fields there are professional organizations that offer guidance and ethical standards. So, I’m going to take moment to look at the SPJ Code of Ethics and list out some possible violations.
SPJ Ethical standards and expectations:
Seek Truth and Report It Journalists are obliged to:
Verify information before releasing it.
Never deliberately distort facts or context.
Clearly identify sources and avoid careless errors.
2. Minimize Harm Ethics requires respect for the subjects being covered:
Show compassion for those affected by your reporting.
Avoid stereotyping and misrepresentation.
3. Act Independently Journalism ethics stresses:
Avoid conflicts of interest.
Serve the public, not institutional convenience.
4. Be Accountable and Transparent Journalists are expected to:
Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently.
Explain decisions and processes clearly to the public.
Weeeeell oopsie doopsie because I definitely noticed some possible ethics violations:
SciShow admitted that most of the team weren’t knitters and relied on internal review and thus they did not seek adequate expert consultation before publishing.
Using terms like “knots” may not have been malicious, but it crosses into careless error/preventable inaccuracy.
Framing knitting as trial-and-error and “intuition” diminishes the craft’s mathematical sophistication and cultural history. For knitters in the comments, this tone felt dismissive and like a soft stereotyping of a “domestic” art.
The pinned comment’s tone (for example, comparing errors to “dropped stitches”) risked minimizing legitimate critiques instead of taking practitioners seriously.
By framing the issue around their production process (“we work as a team… we didn’t know how it would land”), SciShow positioned the needs of their workflow above the audience’s right to accuracy. Which, Yikes.
The defense of “we wanted to make it accessible” reads less as accountability and more as justification, which undermines their own brand image.
While SciShow did acknowledge mistakes, the pinned comment blurred between apology and deflection.
They didn’t lay out clear corrections (“Here are the errors, here is the right information”), which is a standard journalistic duty.
They emphasized intent (“we weren’t trying to alienate anyone”) BUT intent does not substitute for accountability.
[Edit:] Out of all the responses that came out of the knitting and wider fiber arts community, Evie’s was my favorite. She created a new channel and posted a long form reimagining of the SciShow video that addressed a lot of the concerns and criticisms. My favorite part, however, was the editorial at the end reminding the audience that now is not the time for lazy science. US politics is very anti-science right now so to misrepresent scientific information to a general audience because you, as a science communicator, failed to do your due diligence is harmful to the scientific ecosystem that relies on the good news will of federal funding. Evie points out that the pinned comment from the producer made the mistake of telling the audience how to feel which is the complete opposite of an apology and I’m very glad that Evie explained it so eloquently because I think I hinted at in my post but didn’t adequately address it.
[edit:] In case you missed it here are two other SciShow controversies from recent memory:
I’ve had this blog for ten years and I literally cringe when I go back and look at my older posts, but I don’t plan on deleting them because it highlights something important: Doing your best with the language you have. Ten years ago I didn’t have the language I have right now to talk about the invisible strings behind my feelings, sense of self, or human interactions. Specifically I didn’t have words like heteronormativity, compulsory sexuality, compulsory gender, amatonormativity, ableism, etc… I didn’t know what “ableism” was until one of my posts was slapped with a content warning in a Carnival of Aces round up. I was like, “What’s ableism? That sounds bad.” It’s not a great feeling to be called out for something you didn’t know existed because then you feel all “slimy” about it. It helped that the host could tell that I was coming from a place of ignorance rather than malice. I also would have rather been informed directly instead of finding out through the round-up post, but apparently the host judged the offence was minor enough that a content warning was sufficient rather than redoing the post. There’s a saying that circling leftist indi media right now that goes, “Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good.” The quote is uncited, of course, but it eloquently highlights that as individuals we need to have room to grow.
I consider this a funny story, but I was “misgendered” recently. Someone apparently said I was “gendervoid” and it has been a very long time since I looked up specific microlabels so I pop over to https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Gendervoid and, oops, noooo thank you. What makes this post different from my other posts on gender is I’m now confident in the language I use regarding gender. My older posts (except for the most recent ones) are very wishywashy. I look at them and get the sense that back then I was stumbling around in a dark room and haven’t gotten a feel for the furniture yet. Now I can bump into a piece of cultural furniture and be like, “oh, this feels like compulsory gender”. The part of the wiki article that squicked me out was, “A common way to describe this gender is the ‘bowl and soup method’. Those who have a gender may have soup in their pot with contents that makes up their gender, whilst those who are gendervoid may feel there is no soup in the pot, as in there is nothing where their gender should be.” Is this incident egregious enough to write an angry to the wiki volunteers demanding they change it? No, of course not. I would probably just slap a content warning on it and call it a day. A lot of people probably do resonate with the idea that they “should“have a gender and don’t have the language to describe “compulsory gender” and it’s wider implications.
Now for the part that I’m dreading. It’s time to pop over to https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Agender. Right off the bat we have, “Agender is a gender identity…” and on the Gender section of the wiki says, “Gender identity is a personal choice and cannot be dictated by others.” and on the Gender identity section it is says, “Gender identity is a person’s internal sense of their own gender“. Back to the agender definition which in its entirety is, “Agender is a gender identity generally defined as in which one lacks a gender or has very little experience of a gender. It can be seen either as a non-binarygender identity or as a statement of not having a gender identity.“
Well, this is awkward. I just did a whole post slamming somebody for calling out (badly) how the term “asexual” is the umbrella term for both people who experience zero sexual attraction and graysexuality so for clarity’s sake I definitely don’t have an issue with “Agender” being the umbrella term for both no gender and fluid or flux with partial or nebulous gender identies that chose “no gender” as their rallying point or vector. It’s just the wiki entry is screaming compulsory gender to me. For this reason, I have for a long time felt disconnected from “community language”, that is terms that are coined by and for the community by its members, and leaning more towards “gender detached” which was coined by a sociologist.
Feminist scholars have written for decades about the radical potential, if not the necessity, of ungendering for resisting gender inequality. Yet much of this work has been theoretical, and other scholars have questioned whether ungendering is even possible. Drawing on interviews with 30 asexual individuals, the author presents empirical findings that lend support to the plausibility of ungendering. On the basis of these findings, the author introduces the concept of gender detachment, which refers to individually held notions that gender is irrelevant, unimportant, pointless, and/or overall not a helpful framework for understanding and defining the self. The author argues that the difficulty of navigating these feelings highlights gender, and not merely the gender binary, as a compulsory system of categorization. The author also argues that this finding highlights the need to theorize around compulsory gender. The author concludes by discussing gender detachment’s connections to and differences from the concepts of degendering, ungendering, undoing gender, redoing gender, nonbinary identification, and gender vertigo. The author also considers gender detachment’s potential for radical resistance to gender (and the inequality gender produces) and the potential complications in realizing that potential.
Winer, C. (2025). Does Everyone Have a Gender? Compulsory Gender, Gender Detachment, and Asexuality. Socius, 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231251339382 (Original work published 2025)
All that is much more my vibe, than the wiki article about “agender”, specifically the part about gender being unhelpful or even repressive in my understanding of and describing my sense of “self”. It makes me feel sad that it took this long and it took an outsider, an academic, to coin the language that I needed. However, I was also very happy to see the topic come up repeatedly. N. L. Klopper wrote, “On the Discomfort of Inhabiting Gender and Sexuality” for the AZE journal and references me and Ace Film Reviews as points on the spectrum (everything is a spectrum) of gender detachment. I think the topic is beginning to circulate and as the discourse circulates through the community we’ll be able to hopefully reconcile the complexity of gender, polish up some of the more questionable definitions, and bring more awareness to compulsory gender.
Gender is such an interesting topic in the asexual community because we know from community surveys that trans and nonbinary identities are overrepresented in the community compared to the general population and that men are underrepresented in the ace community compared to the general population. These dynamics force us to question everything we “know” about gender and question gender norms and expectations. If you missed it Nepali Aspecs did a panel on masculinity in a South Asian context for the Aces Never Sleep 24hr Live Stream. The panelists address the context of masculinity including religious background, cultural norms, and family bonds. I’ve touched on it before about how “toxic masculinity” is a facet of compulsory gender, but it’s definitely not my area of expertise. The panelists touch on the social expectation that men be the proactive ones in matters of sex and romance as well as how a lot of the “harmful” or “negative” perceptions about masculinity seem to be the complete opposite of living a happy Ace Life. I’m currently typing up a transcript of panel that I’ll post to hopefully make the panel and discussion more accessible. I only have the first fifteen minutes transcribed and I’m definitely not a sonographer, but I think community events like the IAD livestream and publications like the AZE journal are important platforms for a diversity of voices to be featured within the community. The ace community is often mistaken as a monolith by acephobes rather than recognized a global community and counter movement to oppressive forces like compulsory sexuality, compulsory gender, and amatonormativity as well as sharing significant overlap with disability justice, trans rights, and the wider queer liberation/LGBTQIA+ movements.
There’s a lot of “Asexuality 101”, but there’s very little in the way of “Ace Life 201: So, You’re Asexual. Now What?” which is a very significant gap in the literature/onboarding process if you ask me. So, yeah, a lot of my early posts are cringe worthy, buuuut I’m okay with that. Having a place to dump my thoughts was clearly helpful in the long run because I’m still at it and plan to keep it up for a long time.
Ha haha, I forgot that this was sitting in my drafts. I meant to do this months ago, but it has been a VERY long cold and flu season and I’ve been dealing with burnout. BUT here are the time stamps and recap for the IAD live stream.
Part one:
Introduction and Tech support chat: In the early hours of the stream we meet the architects of the stream and the tech support team. S talks a little bit about the history of the stream and several goals moving forward including more diversity in panels no in English, putting faces to the global ace community and networking, asking for artists to self promote and share, and S goes over the scheduled panels.
Next IAD is on a Monday so there likely won’t be a 24 hour livestream next year UNLESS they get more volunteers. If you’re interested in keeping the momentum going next year and have technical knowledge (or are willing to acquire the technical before April of next year) reach out to the IAD team and let them know you want to volunteer.
Ace History Panel: In the panel they talk about the intentional erasure of asexuals and aromantic from Queer History and how U.S. influence in particular created major waves in erasing asexuals.
Spotlight On Nepal: A great segment on the birth of an Ace group and a brief history of their activism. I think it’s well worth the watch because they have some great ideas like “Pre-Pride” events which allows aces to network and make friends with the wider queer community before pride events because pride can be scary new new members. One of the panelists shared ace themed zines, which is such a great idea regardless of your skill level. The panel also talks about an amazing physical art exhibition the emphasized “We’re not just here to educate, we’re here to exist”. I love all the work that Nepal Aspecs do, I’ve seen them on Twitter, and I want everyone to watch their panel.
Part Two:
Discovering Asexuality While Living Abroad: Nia and Vesper share their stories about asexual journey while living outside the US while navigating visas, relationships, and reconciling identies. Vesper recounts, “I came out to my partner. The relationship imploded and then I had a month to leave.” Nia shares how she was able to come out to her therapist in Italy and had a positive experience. Both talk about the complexity of being “out” as a “foreigner”.
Spotlight on Singapore: The audio quality was a little rough, but they were delightful all the same and talk about their in-person meet-ups and collaborations with other groups from near-by countries.
Free chat and General Q&A: I also agree that jellyfish are a cute symbol we should adopt! I love jellyfish! As well as name drops of Ace Creators you should follow.
Nepali Acespecs: Discuss Queer Masculinity in a South Asian context. The Audio is a little iffy, but it’s a fascinating topic. Two Hour Panel.
Over half way done!
Part 4:
Rete Lettera A and Nepali Aspecs: Talk about the aromantic spectrum and how it’s treated often as an after thought and the complications of ace and aro activism.
SoulACE Day: Featuring Gentle Giant Ace, LiCi, TheAsexualGoddess, and QueerAsCat as they talk about organizing Soul Ace Day and growing the event going forward.
Last, but certainly not least, Huyen of Asexual in Vietnam talks future research projects and collaborations with ace groups across Asia.
I wanted to give a very belated “Thank you” to the IAD team for bringing the global community together for another successful stream. I always get the warm and fuzzies when I see aces across the world. Not everyone is going to have time to sit through a 24 hour live stream which is why I wanted to summarize the panels and grab the time stamps. There were some great panels this year, please check them out.
Linguistics is the branch of science that studies and describes language; its parts, its purpose, and its origins. The only reason I didn’t major in Linguistics was because the only jobs in the field are research and teaching which were rough occupations to be in 20 years ago never mind now after current events because nobody cares about linguistics. The only time you see linguistics in the media spotlight is when economists can’t stay in their lane. Hence my beef with economists. So, while not my “actual field”, which is Library/Information Science, linguistics is a topic near and dear to my heart that I know a lot about and try to keep up with, not out of labor but out of love for the subject. The very first thing you learn in linguistics, the TL:DR is language is arbitrary.
(Pauses for skin biopsy procedure)
Where was I? Oh right. “Language is arbitrary”, as in there’s not innate internal logic that one can learn to know without context what a word “means”. Meaning is constructed through shared context. My go-to example is the word “nice”. The English language borrows very heavily from French because of a history I don’t have time to get into right now, but because of some “stylistic shenanigans” a lot of the French pronunciations were re-Latinized in modern English. The Latin root for “nice” is from nescire meaning ‘not know’. In modern English “nice” has a positive connotation because we collectively agree and use it that way unless we’re being sarcastic. A more puritanical view or the “words have meaning” view would be it doesn’t matter how we actually use “nice” in practice because it “means ignorant”. I need everyone to understand how ridiculous that argument is. “Meaning” is arbitrary, it’s the context that matters.
(This won’t be a long post because the lidocaine is wearing off)
Screenshot of comment section: “How is that a crazy thing to say? …Words have meaning~~~”
[The ~ symbol has meaning if you want to be nitpicky about it and yet the context suggests an alternative meaning.]
Screenshot of comment section: “I’ve removed myself from this community anyways. Words have no meaning.”
This is why when you actually read my previous post in its entirety you see where I specifically say Tippy’s erratic posts are what’s actually interesting, not Tippy’s argument. Tippy’s argument frankly isn’t that interesting. There’s too much mixed messaging in the various posts and videos to be even remotely productive about the topic. Based on these three comments alone I have to ask, does Tippy actually care about the topic??? Because that’s not what it looks like.
If there’s a topic I’m passionate about I research it. I picked Library/Information Science as my field because it gave me the professional skills needed to research any topic including my current interest topic: social epistemology. That’s why I didn’t “debunk” Tippy’s argument and instead focused on how Tippy was interacting with my epistemic network, i.e, the ace community.
At the beginning of my previous post I mentioned that I was reading some academic papers. The one in particular that I was referring too was Epistemic networks and the social nature of public engagement with sciencewhich is open source so I highly recommend it. The section I want to highlight for now is this:
Research consistently shows that prior experience, identity, and many layers of context shape how people engage with science (Irwin & Wynne, 1996; Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009; Zummo et al., 2021). Like the surfer, both of these readers will react to new informational challenges according to their particular goals and experiences. If we look only at what they do while they are reading and interpreting the article, we risk misinterpreting their thoughts and actions. Our educational interventions may be poorly suited to the challenges they face.
In theoretical terms, public engagement with science has dimensionality (it plays out over time) and directionality (it is guided by human intent). It is not a point but a vector. In practice, this means that it is difficult to understand how people make sense of information without knowing what led them to it and how they see it in their unique context. Despite this, educational responses to misinformation and disinformation typically focus on the brief moments when people encounter it and formulate their initial reactions. Such responses assume that the context is noise that can and should be filtered out.
We believe that educational responses to mis- and disinformation are useful but incomplete and that it is essential for science education researchers and practitioners to understand mis- and disinformation as part of public engagement with science.
The word “asexual” also exists on spectrums of dimensionality and directionality and for a lot of us in the community that’s living memory, that’s baggage. In my last post I had zero interest in “debunking” Tippy’s argument because it has no substance. It’s a weak argument that is asking the ace community, which has years and years of baggage surrounding the words we use, to change it up suddenly on what seems to be a whim and then Tippy gets visibly upset when the law of inertia kicks in and the community says “no thank you.”
Overgeneralization of Community Dynamics: Tippy claims that greysexuals “outnumber” and are “way louder” than “black stripe asexuals”, leading to the latter “feeling marginalized”. However, no evidence (like community surveys or data) is provided to support this assertion. This weakens the argument by relying on anecdotal perception rather than verifiable trends, potentially exaggerating the issue or misrepresenting the community’s composition. I, myself, am an asexual who feels ZERO sexual attraction at any time and I have never “felt marginalized” by sex-talk in the community because behavior =/= orientation. (Y’all are not ready to talk about the pervasiveness of gender in society and the lack of genderless sanctuaries)
Presumption of a Singular Community Origin: Tippy suggests that “black stripe asexuals” “originally started” the asexual community and are now being overrun. This assumes a monolithic founding group and overlooks the diverse, evolving nature of the asexual community’s history. Asexuality as an identity has been shaped by varied voices over time, including those who might align with greysexuality, so claiming exclusive ownership of the term “asexual” is historically questionable.
Binary Framing of Asexuality vs. Greysexuality: The argument encourages a discrete divide between those who never experience sexual attraction (asexuals) and those who do, even minimally (greysexuals). This oversimplifies the spectrum of asexuality, ignoring the fluidity and nuance in how individuals experience attraction including non-sexual and non-romantic forms attraction. Some folks may identify as asexual despite rare or context-specific attraction, and forcing a rigid distinction risks alienating those who find “asexual” a better fit for their lived experience.
Dismissal of Umbrella Term Utility: Tippy advocates replacing “asexual” with “greysexual” as the umbrella term, but this ignores the practical role of “asexual” as a broad, inclusive label that has already gained recognition. “Asexual” is widely understood in mainstream discourse, whereas “greysexual” is less familiar and might confuse or exclude people exploring their identity. The proposal doesn’t address how this shift would impact visibility or accessibility for the broader ace spectrum.
Alienation Through Rhetoric: While Tippy claims their intent isn’t to invalidate greysexuality, the tone and framing (e.g., greysexuals “overrunning” the community) can and has come across as exclusionary or accusatory. This risks undermining the goal of fostering constructive dialogue, as it may alienate greysexuals and their allies, escalating tensions rather than resolving them. The backlash mentioned (e.g., accusations of being an “ace supremacist”) suggests this approach has already polarized some community members.
Lack of Engagement with Counterarguments: Tippy acknowledges the backlash but dismisses it as greysexuals and their supporters “losing the plot” without addressing specific critiques (e.g., comparisons to oppression or supremacism). This weakens the argument by failing to engage with opposing views, which could have clarified misunderstandings or strengthened their case through reasoned rebuttals.
Unclear Practical Implementation: The suggestion to redefine “asexual” and “greysexual” doesn’t account for how such a change would be adopted across diverse, decentralized communities (online and offline). Without a clear plan for consensus-building or addressing resistance, the proposal feels more like a personal stance than a feasible community-wide solution.
Tippy’s argument highlights a real and ongoing tensions about terminology and representation, it’s weak due to lack of evidence, oversimplification of complex identities, and a confrontational approach that risks further division. A more robust argument would include current data on community dynamics, acknowledge the spectrum’s fluidity, and propose inclusive ways to address “black stripe asexual” marginalization without invalidating others’ identities.
The “Asexual community” is not and has never been a single, unified cohesive group with a linear history. [/edit]
This year marks ten years since I discovered asexuality. I have 25 years worth of baggage that I brought with me into the community and fortunately I had a really good onboarding experience. Now I have 10 years of ace baggage on top of all that. Tippy’s argument isn’t “crazy”; it’s worse. It’s an uninteresting a molehill to die on. Word’s don’t have “meaning”, they have baggage. The least you could do is make it worth unpacking.
(And that’s enough for today because I need to be laying down and resting actually)
[Edit: A rather important dynamic that I didn’t explore because of the time crunch and my extreame lack of expertise was that the only reason I knew about “black stripe” discourse is because I maintain an epistemic network of Black Aces including Gentle Giant Ace, Yasmine Benoit, TheAsexualGoddess, Tyger Songbird, Justin, just to name the big names. I 100% believe that Tippy is justified in feeling marginalized and talked over by the ace community (including me) because we know from community surveys that the Ace community is over represented by white voices. That’s never been a secret and I don’t have the answers on how to reconcile that. I think that’s probably the more *urgent topic* that needs to be cycled through, not umbrella term discourse or some other molehill.]
I had actual plans today. I have a couple of academic articles that need to revisit for a side project that I’m working on, but social media had other plans:
[Screen shot of Instagram comment section]
That’s right folks, this nonsense again. The problem with aging within the community is the “infighting” issues are cyclical. We really need to do better with the onboarding process, but regardless here we are and I might as well talk about it.
Firstly, I find the “vegan” comparison especially annoying because “vegans who eat meat” is a phase I’ve seen commonly used by acephobes, so maybe don’t borrow their playbook? Please?
Secondly, I find it very interesting that this individual accepts the complexity of being attracted to multiple genders, but balks at the idea of complexity under the “ace” label. Very interesting indeed. That’s what caught my attention in this whole mess.
For the record and just so we’re all on the same page, what is the egregious faux pas that this individual is committing that warrants being “called out“? Policing other people’s identity in a community that is defined by self-identification and, in my opinion, treating definitions as “settled case law” (as I like to put it) rather than rallying points. It’s the “absolute language” that’s adding fuel to the fire.
Why is this giving me “Gold Star” flashbacks? Because I’m reading these posts as a response to fear. I had to go digging into some 2010s forums to refresh my memory, but way back when a “Gold Star” asexual was understood as a “perfect” or “pure” asexual that is immune to all of the common criticism and doubts that acephobes throw at us:
There’s still so much questioning about whether asexuality is valid. Doubters really want to explain asexuality away by saying that someone isn’t asexual, they’re just shy, or haven’t found the right person, or maybe it’s because of childhood trauma, or repression, or whatnot. Basically every ace person that I know has questioned whether they’re “really” ace, which can be exhausting and drain energy that could be better used elsewhere.
Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s good to ask questions and explore and of course there’s nothing wrong with deciding that you’re not ace. But it’s telling that people really want aces to question until they discover they’re allo, whereas allos are not really encouraged to question whether they’re ace. It’s a double standard, because it’s okay to be allo but many people think it’s not okay to be ace. Instead of exploration being a valuable and good thing that you do to understand yourself, aces feel like we have to keep questioning ourselves because we might be deluded.
Allos aren’t the only people who gatekeep either. Because aces are doubted by others, which is painful, it can be tempting to become gatekeepers ourselves. Especially in the early years of the community, there was talk about how people couldn’t be truly ace if they were disabled or if they were victims of sexual trauma, because that would “delegitimize” asexuality.
To my mind, that view is wrong. Very few people are gold-star aces, and we shouldn’t focus on that anyway. The purpose of the ace community is to be accepting and inclusive and help people find each other and share resources. Playing into ace respectability politics will make us turn on each other and exclude those who must be included and it doesn’t help us help each other and organize to change society. The way I see it, you can be ace for whatever reason and that’s fine, and it’s also fine if later you decide you’re not ace. (In general, I think it’s good to think of sexualities as fluid.) I think it’s important that aces fight compulsory sexuality and make it clear that you can have a happy life if you’re asexual, no matter why you’re asexual or for how long—and none of that relies on someone being a gold-star ace.
Clearly not a new topic of conversation, so what do I want to add to the conversation? I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce the side project I’m working on which I’m calling “knowledge communication“.
A short while back Hank Green, a well establish and well known science communicator, did an interview for BBC radio talking about how most people online “have no idea what they’re doing” as in they have no media training or ethics training and are oddly seen as more credible for it. It just so happens that I have both media AND ethics training from both my education and work history. What I’m putting forward is an idea for a parallel movement to the science communication field that takes a more human-centered approach to how people acquire knowledge compared to the science communication approach of translating scientific information for non-expert audiences, explaining findings, building public trust in science, and correcting misinformation/debunking..
So, no, I won’t be “debunking” callme.tippy. I want to look at tippy’s epistemic posture.
“Epistemology” is the branch of philosophy that deals with how we know what we know and why we know it and tragically it just doesn’t roll off the tongue like “science” does, hence why I’m calling it “knowledge communication”. When I think of “posture” as a metaphor I’m thinking about it from a ballroom dance perspective. The opposite of “posture” is “collapse”. Ideally when dealing with complexity, contradiction, and confusion we want to maintain epistemic posture and avoid epistemic collapse.
Thank you callme.tippy for being today’s case study on epistemic posture versus collapse.
I have identified four focus areas within knowledge communication; Epistemic Courage, Curiosity, Self-awareness, and Human-connection.
Courage in a knowledge communication context refers to resisting the urge to- –preform certainty –lash out or –disengage when faced with confusion, contradiction, or uncomfortable truths.
Without epistemic courage, curiosity shuts down and complexity feels like a threat. From tippy specifically we’re seeing preformed certainty around community definitions, tippy is lashing out against other community members when they present contradictions, and while tippy seems to accept complexity with regards to being attracted to multiple genders on the Instagram slides- the whole incident appears to be about not accepting complexity specifically under the “ace” label. Which, again, I find very interesting.
Curiosity in knowledge communication is about asking “real” questions -not rhetorical questions, not trap questions, not performative questions- but questions that are meant to make room for the unknown. Curiosity keeps people in a “posture of growth”. It’s how we build new knowledge instead of just defending old beliefs.
Tippy specifically doesn’t appear to be creating space for new knowledge and instead appears to be doubling down on old, cyclical beliefs. A good habit to get into is to do epistemic check-ins with the community because there are enough of us who remember tumblr in the 2010s and can tell you this is not a new idea.
Self-Awareness is being able to pause and do internal diagnostics. Not everyone is able and willing all the time to engage with knowledge. Sometimes we let our emotions speak first. Sometimes we have physical and emotional needs that aren’t being met and that’s going to inform how receptive we are to complexity, contradiction, or uncomfortable information. Self-awareness is asking:
“Am I defending the truth or just trying not to feel like I’m wrong?“
“Is this about the information or about my identity?“
“What narrative am I telling myself?“
This focus area address some of the limits of science communication which include the tendency to default to the “deficit model” (i.e. assumes ignorance as the default state of the audience rather than as agentic curators of their own knowledge), tends to emphasize content over context, and the failure to address why people resist facts (e.g. identity, emotional state, power dynamics). I think it is safe to presume that tippy is drawing on past experiences, intersecting identity, and other invisible factors that we, the audience, don’t have the immediate context for. At a glance I don’t see any indicators that would make me believe that Tippy has received media or ethics training, which Hank Green pointed out is the norm, but we can still ask for accountability regarding specific agentic choices.
Last, but most certainly not least, Human-connection. This is actually my favorite focus area because it balances two concepts- 1) We learn better together. I have deep respect for my favorite science communicators because they highlight this so well. Be Smart (Previously It’s Okay To Be Smart) is one of my favorites because the videos aways begin with “Hey, smart people” and end with “Stay curious”. It’s so simple but it hits me right in the feels. 2) Co-created meaning, which is the process of arriving at shared understanding through active, mutual participation. It’s not one person delivering truth to another, but rather it’s two or more people constructing clarity together. Co-created meaning doesn’t require both people to agree; it only requires that both people show up and work through it together. Meaning that is is co-created is more resilient.
After reviewing the posts and the videos it seems that Tippy’s thesis is that “asexual” and “ace” shouldn’t be the umbrella terms.
Time is a circle. This isn’t new discourse within the community. The pushback really shouldn’t be a surprise if you know your community history.
What also shouldn’t be surprising is the reasoning behind locking down “asexual” and “ace” into singular definitions; to be more legible to other people and specifically people outside of the community.
In the video responses Tippy references “making sense” and “avoiding confusion” multiple times. Tippy recognizes that other people outside of the community balk and epistemically collapse when faced with complexity and the suggestion to shift around the community terminology is a reaction to that.
However! That’s not co-creating meaning. In response to backlash Tippy reminds us that the “block button is free” and actually cites the backlash as validation and a reason to double down rather than taking the opportunity to mutually participate in meaning creation with other asexuals.
That’s giving into epistemic collapse.
From a knowledge communication standpoint, that’s not the ideal outcome. We don’t want that. We want people to have the courage not to collapse when faced with complexity, we want people to stay curious, we want people to have the tools to self-regulate and have self-awareness, and most critically in the age of A.I. we want to maintain human-connections.
Thank you again Tippy for being today’s case study. Unfortunately it’s a bit like the old meme “warning! novel under construction. bystanders will be written in!” except it’s my theoretical, philosophy driven side project. That being said, I have some academicarticles I need to get back to.
Happy Pride everybody! Have courage and stay curious!
The other day I work, I’ll admit I was a little bored because we’re finally into the summer season and things have slowed down significantly. Customers are shocked that they can just walk up to the counter without standing in line for 10-15 minutes, which tells me that it was a long cold and flu season for everyone. Since I actually had the luxury of being bored, I was bummed out about the “quick and dirty” XAI plant outside of Memphis.
The story of the XAI plant in Memphis is one of instant gratification for a billionaire who saw that he was behind in the A.I. sector and decided “quick and dirty” was the fix instead of doing it right the first time. This is the problem with having billionaires in charge of infrastructure projects; they don’t have to be creative. They’ve never had the urgency to do something on a shoestring budget. Instead for billionaires money is like magic– “shazaam! I get what I want.” They don’t have to think about projects from a logistics stand point. They’re like, “What do I need logistics for? I have money.” Meanwhile, those of us at the lower echelons of society are constantly thinking about logistics because when you have less you have to be able to do more with it.
So, with that in mind I turned to newly hired 19-year-old technician and I said, “You weren’t even born yet, so let me tell you a story-“
When I was a kid, I remember the major environmental disaster that was talked about at the time and that I, even as a kid, knew about was the giant hole in the ozone layer. I’m a natural redhead and very pale so my parents were very concerned about skin cancer. When we went to the beach all of us wore full body suits. Now, we don’t. These days sunscreen is enough. What changed? Well, the whole world got together and agreed to fix the issue and the hole is healing.
The whole point of this ramble is I, on a personal level, needed to think about a victory. The hole in the ozone layer is expected to close by 2066 which is within my life time. That is a victory. And when I looked more into the story and I found out that Ronald Regan and Margret Thatcher were formidable figures behind the decisive action because Regan had survived skin cancer and Thatcher was a chemist. I was like, “These two hoodlums? The infamous figures are tied to, not the cause of necessarily, but certainly correlated with a lot of modern social and policy issues we’re currently dealing with?” That’s just one of those quirks in history, I guess. Those guys? Those guys got together and they figured it out? That’s so amazing.
And before the hole in the ozone we had acid rain. These were ecological victories and we can celebrate and learn from them. In both of these examples it took time and there was push back from corporations and lobbyists that had to be overcome. We are currently living in a climate crisis and just like with the acid rain and the ozone hole, think of it like a global group project.
I don’t know about you all, but 36 sounds downright doable for targeted public pressure. Originally news outlets were saying that only 100 companies were responsible for 71% of global emissions, but then I followed the citation trail and, oops, link rot struck again. Something else worth noting that it’s the Red states that are going green (they just don’t want you to know about it). Republicans do NOT care about climate change. Instead they care about “Reducing energy costs”, “Get energy from sources that never run out” and “Increase America’s energy independence”. This is what I’m talking about when I call climate change a “global group project”.
Getting people to work on a group project is always a pain in the ass. That’s why they make you do it in school. The final result of the project is not the point; the point is to get people to understand how hard it is to work with other people…and if that’s not the point they’re teaching it wrong because everybody knows group projects suck.
Circling it back to logistics. Oil companies are energy companies. It’s the same guys who are pumping out the fossil fuels that are building wind and solar farms…and sometimes they’re even in the same location, because apparently oil drills and wind farms are stackable. It all comes back to logistics. It’s a laborious process to get fossil fuel, and it’s becoming more economically feasible to build renewable energy structures, which is why it’s so freaking annoying that Elon Musk is using gas generators instead of building a solar farm. Why? Why were you in such a hurry that you couldn’t set up solar panels???
I think about logistics apparently more than most people do, because that’s my issue with the current “authoritarian regime”. With every new headline I’m like, “how much does that realistically cost?” The news will have headlines like “they’re building mass surveillance!” That sounds expensive.
I recently, on the recommendation of the YouTube algorithm, started rewatching Captain America: Winter Soldier because OSP was like, “actually, no, this was a good movie.” I didn’t remember liking it when I saw it in theaters, but I was like “sure, I’ll rewatch it,” and OH. Oh, ho ho, I was not expecting that to hit differently. I think it’s called “Project Insight,” where they spy on people and eliminate threats. Then Hydra takes over and they’re like, “we’re going to eliminate threats to Hydra,” and the entire time I’m watching I’m thinking, “This sounds expensive.” They can just do it because of movie magic or whatever, but in real life? That sounds very expensive. Somebody just, please, run the numbers for me.
There was a recent headline that the Trump administration is going to rename all the Navy ships named after gay people, Black people, and women, but realistically, how much is that going to cost? The same people crying about budgets for public goods will spend millions to erase progressive names. Nothing in the military is free, and they jack up those prices because of lowest bidder contracts.
I guess all I’m asking is: please, think about the logistics.
Another big name in the news right now is Peter Thiel and Palantir Technologies. It’s another billionaire project, so I have some questions. Tell me. The. Logistics.
Happy Pride! We interrupt this post with a special news bulletin: Please Support the AZE Journal! AZE is an independent platform publishing ace, aro, and agender writers and artists. You can support the journal’s continuation by becoming a patron at patreon.com/azejournal. Now back to our irregularly scheduled stream of consciousness.
If by some weird algorithm shenanigans you haven’t heard, a senator from Utah introduced a bill nicknamed the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act” aka “The Porn Ban” and it would probably be hilarious if someone managed to leak his internet search history because let’s be real:
My own, unscientific—and, in fact, brazenly biased—sense is that Republicans get tangled in the web of conventional morality more often than Democrats. I haven’t even mentioned all the right-wing family-values preachers with wide stances on the Appalachian Trail in recent years. Or some of the men who were so vociferous in their condemnation of Bill Clinton—such as Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who at the time was conducting an extramarital affair with a woman on the Hill, later to become his third wife, and Senator David Vitter, whose phone number was found in the records of the fabled “D.C. Madam,” Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and who admitted that he had sinned. Or the current governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley, a former church deacon and Sunday-school teacher who (thanks to what the press calls “lusty audiotapes”) is believed to have had an affair with his married top aide (a charge they both deny), and who now faces impeachment. Or the raft of potboilers by Republican writers—from Newt Gingrich (“Suddenly the pouting sex kitten gave way to Diana the Huntress”) and Lynne Cheney to Scooter Libby and Bill O’Reilly—that could themselves be turned into lusty audiotapes.
So, what they’re actually proposing is just banning obscene materials for the 99%. I must refer you to the 18th and 21st Amendments because the LAST TIME we tried to ban recreational materials it went terribly. But by understanding what happened under prohibition we can guesstimate what’s going to happen under a federal porn ban. Namely the Politicians and elites will be among the worst violators while the rest of us get thrown into for profit prisons and learn the hard way that the 13th Amendment had exceptions. Politicians (and their kids) will still get access to obscene materials though VPNs, loopholes, and privilege while enforcement will likely fall hardest on the poor, marginalized, and digitally dependent. Obscenity laws aren’t really about “protecting kids” or “community standards.” These politicians are writing laws while they themselves never intend to live under them. These laws are really about control over bodies, identities, and speech. These laws are about the power to decide who gets access to pleasure, autonomy, and knowledge.
New bills are often go viral they are introduced, which is only the first stage of the process, and then they often get forgotten about as the news cycle refreshes. Right now the bill has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Write and call and then get five friends to write and call so it’s on the record that this bill is a really stupid idea. Support organizations with small and sustainable donations.
Remember, Prohibition didn’t end because the courts saved us. It ended because enough people refused to obey.
But I still love me a good legal argument, so I would also like to point out that the Christian Bible would also be considered “obscene” by the new definition.
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act includes content that depicts:
Sexual acts
Nudity
Incest
Rape
Violence or sadomasochism
Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors
Selective enforcement of “obscenity” reveals the real goal of targeting modern sexual expression that challenges “conservative values” (e.g. queer identity, porn, sex education, autonomy). If these laws were applied neutrally, it could spark 1st Amendment lawsuits over religious freedom, 14th Amendment challenges for unequal application, and judicial chaos that would threaten the author’s own ideological institutions. Which is why the obscenity laws won’t be applied neutrally. The religious right isn’t aiming for fairness; They’re aiming for moral exception status.
![Instagram Comment section Screenshot: [redacted] the ace spectrum isn't a line, like any other spectrum it's a colour wheel of different identies just like any other spectrum. to it's anything but is Ace Supremacy, and the fact you're denying that makes you an Asexual Supremacist. Disgusting! Callme.tippy: lmao an asexual supremist. I like that one, it has a nice ring to it. kissy face.](https://acubedblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/img_7918-1.png?w=473)
A³ 