sexual orientation

[Kiran]

: )

[Shadow Dragon]

For the sake of simplicity, you should probably just tell people that you are bi. Which isn't far from the truth because it sounds like you could have a relationship with either sex.

[Ryles]

It sounds like you're androphillic (attracted to men) and, if nothing else, not sexually interested in women even if you'd want to date them.

Explaining that to other people, unless you want to explain your gender, is a bit awkward though. You could say you're bi if you want.

[RilianXI]

I think you might answer, "It depends what you're looking for."

I use androphilic and didn't think it meant "likes to have sex with men". I mean, I'm also a linguiphile but I don't like to have sex with languages.

[vampyre_smiles]

In the asexual community, there are terms for people who have a romantic attraction to certain genders. But since the usual hetero-/homo-/bi- set is based at least partially on your own gender (usually binary as well), I'll use andro- and gyno- for this. You are sexually attracted to males, so androphilic, but romantically attracted to females, so gynoromantic. At least from your description. As for how to explain to others, you may have to tell people what you told us...

EDIT: Or maybe androsexual gynoromantic?

[Espikai]

If you want a technical label, I would agree with vampyre_smiles, although in practice I don't think anyone would have a clue what it means. Complex stuff like that is actually more common than people think, though. The part of my gender that's more masculine tends to like men more often and sometimes women, the feminine part is usually pretty aromantic but sometimes likes women, and the neutral part is mostly aromantic. This is extremely screwy to explain, but since I'm also asexual I just usually say I'm ace or I'm queer and let people figure the other stuff on their own.

I mean, I'm also a linguiphile but I don't like to have sex with languages.

As a linguaphile myself, that made me LOL.

[Rai]

i would have sex with a female-bodied person, but not with a male-bodied person. I don't know why, but for some reason male genetalia freaks me out. But I'd date people of any gender. I just tell people I'm queer. It's true and vague and I don't have to explain everything.

[AlexTheSane]

I'm similar. I'm attracted to men physically and emotionally, but occasionally I am also attracted to women emotionally, and the physical attraction may be a bit fluid. I identify as "queer" as well, because I don't really want to give a dissertation whenever someone asks my orientation and calling myself "gay" feels odd for both gender and attraction reasons.

I mean, I'm also a linguiphile but I don't like to have sex with languages.

As a linguaphile myself, that made me LOL.

Mmmm... check out the verb morphology on that one. I'd like to decline ITS case system.

Also- insert "A Fish Called Wanda" reference here.

[ninurta]

I thought I was straight, but then I figured out it wasn't that simple. It doesn't matter if you are or aren't gay, but if you like women and are biologically male, then its impossible to be gay, you are either pan or bi, nothing wrong with not being like everyone else. That just means you are like us, better with out extra-binary features!

[phx_rising]

Personally I'm all for getting rid of such labels. They hurt people. They confuse people and they seperate us un-necisarrily. I do understand that this isn't really practical because others INSIST on labels...but there's my two cents for what it's worth.

[Allosaurus2]

Eh. Labels can be useful. It's a lot easier to be able to quickly let everyone know what your preferences are than to have to try to explain it in full every time. Labels get misused and we don't have near the set that we need, but that's an issue with society more than with labels.

[RilianXI]

Eh. Labels can be useful. It's a lot easier to be able to quickly let everyone know what your preferences are than to have to try to explain it in full every time.

I think it's more helpful to just address each thing as it comes up. If you give a label, the label may not fit perfectly and people will believe false things about you, which could have unwanted consequences.

[adfhfbrwrew12]

Yeah, I have a friend that thinks all gender pronouns and labels of sexuality should be rid of but I frankly find that to be nonsense. It's amazingly good for clarifying.

[RilianXI]

Yeah, I have a friend that thinks all gender pronouns and labels of sexuality should be rid of but I frankly find that to be nonsense. It's amazingly good for clarifying.

... what good purpose do gender pronouns serve?

[adfhfbrwrew12]

... what good purpose do gender pronouns serve?

Clarifying many thoughts when put to word.

After all, I doubt any of us would really be transgendered if "she" was 100% equivalent to "he" in every way or vice versa. They are seperate thoughts and entities and should not be described with the same word. That is why, say, a transman would get offended if called a "she"- because he is not a "she" at all. But if you remove these words, there's no clear way to dictate the difference. The easiest way for me to dictate my gender, usually, is that I'm not a he nor a she- both but neither. This usually works very well. To my knowledge there is not a single language that doesn't have gendered pronouns or words that describe a speaker or target subject's gender.

Remove such things and you lead to a rather garbled mess in an already murky world of thoughts.

[RilianXI]

... what good purpose do gender pronouns serve?

Clarifying many thoughts when put to word.

After all, I doubt any of us would really be transgendered if "she" was 100% equivalent to "he" in every way or vice versa. They are seperate thoughts and entities and should not be described with the same word. That is why, say, a transman would get offended if called a "she"- because he is not a "she" at all. But if you remove these words, there's no clear way to dictate the difference. The easiest way for me to dictate my gender, usually, is that I'm not a he nor a she- both but neither. This usually works very well. To my knowledge there is not a single language that doesn't have gendered pronouns or words that describe a speaker or target subject's gender.

Remove such things and you lead to a rather garbled mess in an already murky world of thoughts.

I would still be transgendered even if the pronouns were the same. I don't want the gender role that is assigned to me, and most importantly I don't like my sex organs.

We only have one word for 3rd person plural, they. It wouldn't make any communication harder. It wouldn't even stop gender roles from existing because we'd still have gendered nouns like "man" and "woman".

We also have the word "person". Are you saying we should have "personer" and "personette" because men and women are separate entities and should never be refered to with the same word?

I hate sexism. And just to be clear I'm calling you sexist.

[adfhfbrwrew12]

I really don't care what you think of me.

But I must say that I think such statements are rather uncalled for based on my preference for the existence of pronouns. I did not imply that we wouldn't be transgendered if pronouns didn't exist- I just said it's easier, in my opinion, to explain my condition. My condition has nothing to do with gender roles.

I also didn't say they should never be referred to by the same word. Just that there must be some clarification somewhere. You jumping to this "personette" conclusion is a bit projective and trying to read too much into things I didn't say.

That's like saying that I'm racist because I think black and white people aren't 100% the same, which is true- I never implied one is better than the other, because I don't believe this. All people are equal. But there are physical differences between races, such as propensity to get diseases easier or the be more resistant to a disease, or simple superficial differences in appearance. You should not judge someone based on these things, and I don't. But they do exist. One stating that all and believing races are equal does not change the fact that white people get cystic fibrosis more than any other race, but I do not believe white people are any more inferior or superior for this.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it shall do.

I'm also not saying you have to be bound to existing pronouns. I respect peoples' choices in the pronouns they want to use, if any. But I'm saying I personally find it unwise to get rid of pronouns entirely in favour of a singular pronoun.

[Ryles]

We only have one word for 3rd person plural, they. It wouldn't make any communication harder. It wouldn't even stop gender roles from existing because we'd still have gendered nouns like "man" and "woman".

Actually, it would. Our current pronoun situation pisses me off- it's too convoluted. You don't know who 'her' refers to if there's more than two women involved, and and making everyone 'they'w ould only compound it.

I'd really like it if pronouns went based on name rather than gender like someone suggested. And if 'thou' got reinstated. We need a freaking difference between singular and plural 'you'! *rants*


Also, I think that Zainin was more implying that if we didn't have gender roles and all genders were truly equal in society- we would have fewer people who need to transition or identify as anything else. Some transpeople only/primarily have social dysphoria and transition because it's the only way to be treated as they want. There are also people who are already non-op even if they wisht hey could be treated as who they are.

If everyone could choose the role they wanted without transitioning- then anyone who has mild bodily dysphoria wouldn't need to transition and we'd have fewer transgendered people in that sense. I don't htink Zainin was implying that this would erase bodily dysphoria- but if the two genders were truly equal then there'd be no pressure to transition to be treated as the man/woman you are. And I do think it's wrong to make people feel like they have to transition to be seen as who they are, just as wrong as denying transition to people who need it.

[RilianXI]

Also, I think that Zainin was more implying that if we didn't have gender roles and all genders were truly equal in society- we would have fewer people who need to transition or identify as anything else. Some transpeople only/primarily have social dysphoria and transition because it's the only way to be treated as they want. There are also people who are already non-op even if they wisht hey could be treated as who they are.

Zainin wasn't talking about taking away sexism, Z was talking about taking away gender pronouns.
And Z was saying that we should keep sexism in our language. That it's somehow justified.
That makes Z just as sexist as the assholes a hundred years ago who wanted female authors to be called authoresses.

[RilianXI]

That's like saying that I'm racist because I think black and white people aren't 100% the same,

No, that isn't the analogy I would have made if I had decided to bring up race. I will now.
It's like in A Person Paper on Purity in Language, using whe and ble as pro-nouns for white and black people, and using the word "authoroon" for black authors.

If you will recall, whis words were: "One small step for a white, a giant step for whitekind." This noble sentiment is anything but racist; it is simply a celebration of a glorious moment in the history of White.