I look at it this way. The origin of the word sex was referring to gender, it's from the latin word sexus. The origin of the word has to do with gender, it was only used later in a scientific context to refer to the fusion of gametes. The scientific applications of the word are secondary to it's use as an adjective to describe gender, or sexual acts. This is a situation where the science is secondary. The scientific use of the word sexual is secondary. The scientific use of the world bisexual, which is used in botany, is secondary to it's use a a description of orientation. The same is true of homosexual. Therefore, the use of the word asexual is firstly to describe something relating to gender or orientation, the scientific application is secondary

If anything, the scientific word, is the wrong word. *Mic. Drops*

I mean, if y'all changed the word then aromantic would probs have to change too. Then again, anti-social is another word widely accepted when actually the word that better fits the description people pair to it is asocial. Also cool we talking about asexuals, I think I'm in that catagory, not sure but might be.

@calvinoot
One thing to remember about asexuality is that being asexual means different things to different asexual people. It's more of a blanket term with more specific things under it. You might fit into one of those or none of those or not into asexuality at all and that's ok too. A few examples of things under the asexual blanket are demisexual and greyasexual

There's also being demisexual. Less sexual drive than most people, but not a complete lack. The way I see it, these are useful descriptors. Some people get mad at the amount of labels we have. I don't mind it. Asexuality is a spectrum.

So why can we not have science have "asexual"... and then if you feel the need to make up any more descriptors you are free to do so? When it comes to biology, "asexual" is VERY specific.

because the average person isnt going to have a need for the scientific term. Bob, the car mechanic does not need to know that x creature reproduces asexually. He might however need to know that his date on saturday is an asexual individual. both terms are entrenched. If anything needs to change its both as neither are the original term. Asexual meaning "not associated with sex or sexuality" is the oldest use for the term. Asexual for a persons sexual orientation is the closest of the two to the original meaning.

I thought demisexual was the weird thing where "you only feel attraction after you have become friends" which honestly sounds like a preference in dating rather than a sexuality, but having less sexual drive makes more sense. I'm not really for all the labels we are making, I get why some people feel the need to be in one because it can be very useful for some peeps, but if I never plan on dating, having kids, gettin' married or doing the do then I'm pretty sure I don't need a label on me.

Had to split my message because of the can't click glitch. >:( Also greyasexual sounds like the funniest label I have ever heard. I'm only gonna say I'm asexual or aromantic if someone starts flirtin' with me, and since that hasn't happened in all my life I'm pretty safe. ????

the aliens bout to take it in the butt when I finish the tunnels going back into 51.

Oh hell yeah that's soon owe in bruv

I seem to have somehow started a weird argument. Sorry guys.

You got any sources for that claim?

@draughdeath no need to apologize, people ways post stupid things online. You’re all good congrats on being Gay! We’re a much more fun group :)

Maybe do so actual research on what you are speaking on rather than talking out your ass then.
@guest_ have at him

@gayassshit we literally just went over how, biologically, asexual reproduction is a very real thing.
This:
Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism, and inherit the genes of that parent only; it does not involve the fusion of gametes, and almost never changes the number of chromosomes.

It occurs in single-celled organisms. At no point did I claim a fucking human can just clone themselves and split into two.

I am so sorry @draughdeathoerlor ! Never wanted this conflict to start! Please still be proud of your acomplishment! Let's just put this weird-ass debate to rest...

@bethorien, Don't bring Guest into this. If you and Funk and GayAss would like to have this conversation then you can start your own thread and continue it there. This is @draughdeathoerlor chat, he didn't want any debates to start. We all know sexuality is a touchy topic online so again, if you would like to continue this, I suggest you do it in your own thread. I'm not trying to come off as rude so please don't take it that way, I just don't like seeing unnecessary conflict overshadowing someone's accomplishment.

I don't see why we'd need two separate words. All we would need is context. Humans can't asexually reproduce, and things that can asexually reproduce usually can't have sexual orientations.
@gayassshit, no one ever said people can split in two and asexually reproduce. Asexuals can feel sexual arousal but don't want to have sex with anyone. It's also not a mental illness, one needs to be distressed by it for that to be so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoactive_sexual_desire_disorder
Here's some information about it. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499.2015.1015713?journalCode=hjsr20#preview
And yeah, this has totally derailed the original post. Kinda sad about the discourse surrounding asexuality.