Disputatio:Asexualitas

Lemma

The lemma is doubtful. I haven't found any Latin source on the internet not somehow linked to Wikipedia for asexualitas. What you can find seems to be either Hungarian or Indonesian. The closest one comes to Latin is a Czech medical online glossary which indicates asexualitas with a genitive -atis, but that is as close as it gets.

The most logical form (analogy with homophylophilia and diphylophilia) would be aphylophilia, but that's untraceable in the web. I've found one αφυλοφιλία, but even that is in scare quotes (here, p. 27) - merely proof that one more person on the planet has made the same analogy as I have.

On the other hand, asexualitas can indeed linguistically be justified a bit better than homosexualitas, because it can be logically derived from sexualitas with an alpha privative.

My suggestion would be to indicate both asexualitas and aphylophilia and to qualify both by a convertimus. Sigur (disputatio) 22:04, 28 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Or take a different tack altogether, as with, say, inopia libidinis (though that may have more the feel of a definition than of a lemma). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:44, 29 Martii 2019 (UTC)

I actually like that approach. But I think that we should still offer both asexualitas and aphylophilia. When understood as a lack of sexual orientation, asexualitas seems adequate, and if understood as a form of sexual orientation, aphylophilia seems best. So, what about this:

Asexualitas{{Convertimus}} sive inopia libidinis est si quis non ad sexualitatem adtrahitur vel est parvum vel absens studium vel desiderium usus sexualis.[footnotes] Asexualitatem interpretemur sicut absentiam propensionis sexualis aut quidem aliquem modum propensionis sexualis similiter ac heterophylophilia, homophylophilia atque diphylophilia, in quo casu analogice aphylophilia{{Convertimus}} dici potest.

I wouldn't even be against inversing the order and moving the page to inopia libidinis, but I would personally only do this if we hear more support for it. Sigur (disputatio) 20:22, 29 Martii 2019 (UTC)

It may be worth comparing wikt:en:anaphrodisia. There is a Wikipedia article about it in a few languages, e.g. fr:Anaphrodisie, but not in English. It's a well-formed Graecolatin scientific term, "aphrodisia" being the classical Greek word for sexual activity. I'm not sure how much overlap of meaning there is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:42, 29 Martii 2019 (UTC)

Tempting. But judging by the other Wiki articles, this is a medical term (for what is considered a medical condition), and both the Spanish and the Dutch article distinguish it from asexuality by the existence or not of distress caused to the person by it (and in Spanish, they say that that distinction is made in DSM-5). Sigur (disputatio) 20:52, 29 Martii 2019 (UTC)