I don't have much to say about Octopus Discourse but I do want to point out that arts, humanities & social sciences do have a specialised vocabulary w/ specialised meanings. Words are polysemous (can have multiple meanings) & this is especially true of vocab in queer studies

In physics, we know that words like "power", "force" and "attraction" have definitions that are specific to the discipline as well as meanings used in everyday language. This is fine! However, it's usually more obvious when a physicist uses a discipline-specific meaning

People expect arts, humanities & social sciences to be understandable without having any background in it: that we somehow don't have complex theoretical frameworks and discipline-specific terminology

This is true of linguistics. Words like "text", "grammar" and indeed "word" become ever more slippery & have specialised meanings based on subfield. We don't even agree on how to define "word" - it's an important theoretical debate!

Non-linguists do have a definition of what a word is, and look at you funny when you say you've been trying to work out how to define one. It's why communicating what we do can be difficult - it looks like we overcomplicate (apparently) simple things

Queer studies has developed a way to talk about intimacy in its various forms, and, crucially, doesn't link intimacy to sexual acts. There's a vocabulary to talk about non-sexual eroticism. Both of these terms have discipline-specific meanings

The problem is when these discipline-specific meanings, born out of a shared community understanding, are encountered by those who have very different understandings of what these words mean and do see "eroticism" as inherently linked to sexual acts, pleasure & desire

I don't really have an answer to this other than a plea for people to recognise when they may be understanding and using words in different ways. Polysemy is complicated at the best of times without adding homophobia and accusations of bestiality and sexual assault into the mix