• AlataOrange@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    You’re not being trolled this is literally how the English language works: https://www.google.com/search?q=eject etymology &ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m

    So would you propose we just say autistic people and normal people? Doesn’t that seem kind of cruel and bothering?

    Should we also say asexual people and normal people, or aromantic people and normal people, trans people and normal people?

    Where do you draw the line?

    • flerp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      autistic/non-autistic, asexual/sexual, aromantic/romantic, trans/cis

      asexual and aromantic are already based on being the negative, adding another term to reverse that just makes a double negative

      • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
        I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.

      • AlataOrange@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m not going to argue with you on words that have already become accepted by the people whom they affect, or that most of the things you are saying are othering to the people affected and work to say that there is something wrong with them for being different / have been used to actively dehumanize marginalized groups.

        I will say you are on the wrong Lemmy if this is the fight you want to make.