Now that transgenderism has become more mainstream, I propose a new vocabulary to describe sexual orientation which would be based on biological sex.
Gynosexual: Sexually attracted only to people with biologically female bodies (XX)
Phallosexual: Sexually attracted only to people with biologically male bodies (XY)
Intersexual: Sexually attracted only to people with intersex bodies (XXY, XO, etc)
In addition, I propose the terms ‘male-born’, ‘female-born’, and ‘intersex-born’ to precede the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’, and ‘non-binary’. For example…I am a male-born non-binary. Caitlyn Jenner would be a male-born woman. Pidgeon Pagonis would be an intersex-born non-binary. And so on and so on and so forth.
This would also apply to subgroups; viz.: a lesbian is a gynosexual female-born woman. Please note, I neither have nor claim to have any authority to speak for the lesbian sisterhood. From what I’ve read from lesbian activists, their sisterhood is VERY resistant to male-born women calling themselves lesbians, and are VERY vocal that the male-born have NO place in the lesbian community. Again, I have no authority over lesbians; I’m just passing along what many of their activists have placed on the public record.
In principle, I agree. That said, words mean things. We use words to describe who and what we are. Nothing wrong with it, as long as we don’t get any superiority complexes about it.
I think it’s a somewhat pointless attempt to re-marginalise transgender and intersex people, using new fancy language if I’m honest. Clunky fancy language at that, and I don’t see how it has any benefits over current language. Aside from making some transphobic lesbian activists feel better of course, which I don’t consider to be much of a benefit.
Aside from anything else, your categories are wrong; ‘intersex’ does not mean ‘XXO or XXY’. Some people with XY genotypes and androgen insensitivity can be born with bodies indistinguishable from women with XX chromosomes. Some women only discover they’re not XX, and are in fact XY when they go for infertility treatment, some that don’t want kids presumably never discover they’re not XX at all. But according to your definition, they’re male…
Likewise some XXY individuals may never find out they’re not XY. I don’t think we need a special category for people attracted to men with smaller testicles.
I see no reason for such terms to exist. It’s like trying to invent new labels for mixed race people when we should be moving away from all of that. Just use the term “person” and move on.
And there are a whole bunch of other intersex conditions not related to the sex determination chromosomes.
Also ‘XXO’ is nonsensical. The O is used when an expected chromosome is missing. In humans, where the standard is XX/XY, there’s no expected third chromosome to be missing.
And, yeah…this is ill thought out at best, transphobic at worst. And bi/panphobic, too, since it’s presented as a trinary, not a spectrum.
While a shift toward describing who you’re attracted to detached from your own identity would be much less confusing for some people (mostly agender, fluid, or other nonbinary persons waves), the presented/identified gender would be much more sensible than their genetic sex… Those who will only feel attraction to people they believe to be cisgender (or I suppose intersex enbies) would just have more restrictive preferences within their masc/fem/enbie/whatever mix thereof attraction.
The benefits are being able to set boundaries. Some people insist that their sex partners be of one biological sex or another. This is their absolute right. To call people names or pressure them to change their boundaries is called ‘rape culture’. That is something no decent person will tolerate. Insofar as male-born women and female-born men are concerned, there is a big difference between sex and gender. Yanno; sex is what’s between your legs and gender is what’s between your ears. So, a person with a male body (XY) who identifies as a woman is indeed a male-born woman. This is no more ‘transphobic’ than the trans*/cis dichotomy.
The cases you cited are so rare, they can be handled best on a case-by-case, no precedent basis. True, there are some male-bodied people who look female. Yet, they are still male.
From what I’ve read about intersex people, my non-authoritative understanding is that many of them want their intersex condition to be recognized as a third sex. However, I have no authority on intersex issues.
I’m gonna go off and get some stuff done here. I’ll check on this thread later this evening, to see what others came up with. I’ll also reply to the other posts here when time permits.
So your aim is to develop terminology for trans people to categorize themselves, so that they can identify themselves to you, so that you don’t accidentally have sex with someone who’s in the wrong category, because that would be like raping you?
I’m really hoping you don’t mean that, but it seems to be what you’re saying.
I’m saying that people have the right to set boundaries and to know what they’re getting into. If someone wants their sex partners to be soandso-born suchandsuch, they have the right to do this, and to communicate that.
It’s called ‘full disclosure’, and it works very well.
So you’ve done this a number of times? Told a potential sex partner you only want to have sex with partners who are _____ and were born ________? I’m a heterosexual cis-gender woman, but if a guy I was considering having sex with said this to me, I’d wonder, “How did he get so paranoid about it?” as I ran out the door.
I would have made it clear that I’m looking for a female-born woman; anyone who doesn’t fit that description need not apply. So your situation would never come up in my case.
People are absolutely allowed to choose whatever adult consenting sex partners they choose. No one here is going to argue about that. That does not give said people the right to demand that everyone else publicly labels themselves for their convenience.
The problem you’re apparently worried about is that people may be attracted to people they don’t want to be attracted to. Who they also don’t want to have a proper conversation with before attempting to screw, apparently. Just a 10 second label exchange.
Seems like it would be easier for the OP to just ask his sex partners if they are trans or not rather than trying to re-engineer the English language. I hope the idea isn’t that we’re supposed to wear these new labels around our necks or something.
Re all the new terminology in the OP - how exhausting!
Sure, I’m a heterosexual who for the past half century has only been attracted to men, so I think it highly unlikely I’ll wake up tomorrow and find myself in a consensual sexual relationship with a woman, or even a transman, but if I found that I was having those feelings for someone in those two categories I wouldn’t have a meltdown over it. I’d be surprised (and so would every else who has known me the past five decades) but so what?
I just don’t see all that minute labelling to be useful.
I see. You said this has proven effective. Is that because you assume that anyone who says, “Eh, never mind” is in some other category? Because I have to tell you, II’m not the only woman who’d be weirded out by someone who was so anxious that I might NOT be a hetero woman who was born with girl parts that he felt it necessary to clarify (but would apparently take my word for it) early on. It’s not like this is a common problem, given that only .6% of the adult US population is transgender.
