shootthebandit said:
Spiridion said:
Im an advocate of sexuality being a sliding scale (its just so happens im at the vanilla hetreo end) but do we honestly need all these terms. You are either gay (or lesbian), straight or bi then you are part of a sliding scale of any of these. If we want people to stop being homophobic then make it easier for people to understand (after all hate stems from lack of understanding)
You use the term 'heteroflexible' this reminds me of the term 'flexitarian' used to describe vegitarians who get an occasional craving for meat (seriously not pun intended here) surely by definition this person is a meat eater but just a different scale of meat eater to the average person. Likewise a straight man who is flexible with his sexuality is by definition bi-sexual just having a stronger preference to one sex over the other. Like i said before about a sliding scale thats where this comes in. We dont need specific terms when they can be covered by an umbrella definition then specified. It just confuses people (including myself) thankful im not homophobic but i can see where peoples ignorances come from (i cant condone them but i can see where they come from)
Well, the heteroflexible bit was mainly a joke. I've never really heard anyone refer to it as their genuine orientation, but it is generally defined as someone who identifies as heterosexual but would be willing to explore a same-sex 0relationship of they met the "right" person.
Bisexuality differs from pansexuality (which is basically synonymous with omnisexuality) in that bi indicates sexual attraction to both men and women, but tends to gravitate towards primarily cisgender* people. Meanwhile, pan/onmi encompasses attraction to transgender, genderqueer**, and intersex folks.
Queer is primarily a blanket term than encompasses anyone who is not heterosexual or gender-binary, it's a decent catch-all for anyone who falls outside these things, but some people are uncomfortable identifying as such due to its historical usage as hate speech or its more current association with radical politics.
Basically, sexuality is a sliding scale, yes. However, gender identity, gender presentation, and even biological sex are also sliding scales. But if these things exist on a sliding scale, why should only two or three points on the scale "matter?" The "alphabet soup" accounts for this, as well as certain culturally-specific identities such as two-spirits. I understand what you're say, there are a lot of terms, they can be hard to keep track of, and they don't even apply to most people. Homophobic people might use all of our terms to justify themselves, citing it as a desire for "special treatment," but at the end of the day it's really just another excuse to hate something than makes them uncomfortable. And pretty much anyone that can't fit heteronormative*** ideals is going to make them uncomfortable. Intentional or not, essentially you're saying that someone's comfort with their self-identity is less important than other people's comfort with their self-identity. Granted, I think it would be great if people could just say they're with this person and everyone would be cool regardless of sex or gender, but currently our society is still very heteronormative, which is why all the terms kind of have to exist.
*Someone whose self-perception of gender matches their biological sex.
**Someone whose self-perception of gender falls outside of cisgender norms or who expresses their gender non-normatively, but is not necessarily transgender (they still can be). Basically the same thing queer is for sexuality, just for gender.
***Lifestyle norms that hold that people fall into complementary categories of gender which match their biological sex and which have natural roles in life and expresses their sexuality in specific ways. This assumes that heterosexuality is the norm, either by assuming people are straight until proven otherwise, or by directly stating that only heterosexuality is "correct."
