sexual orientation labels?

[Eddi]

Yes, labels are labels and it is only people that matter...

But here's some food for thought:

Androphillia = attraction to men and masculinity
Gynophillia = attraction to women and femininity
Ambiphillia = attraction to both men and women and both masculinity and femininity

Source - Wikipedia

I think that at times these may be more useful than the homosexual vs. heterosexual distinction

Because I think they concern merely what you are into (or are not into), with no account given as to what you are (or are not)

So, for instance, a gay man and a straight women would both be androphiles

And a lesbian and a straight man would both be gynophiles

However: gay male culture is distinct from straight female culture and lesbian culture is distinct from straight man culture... obviously!

So perhaps homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is more useful?

Could "Androphillia amongst the male population" be another way of talking about male homosexuality???

Such a label takes account of the behaviour but not the identity, the self-image - but when might this be more desirable???

And how do trans-people fit into all this???

So many questions...

And I honestly have no idea

 

[PureX]

Fortunately, none of this really matters to anyone but ourselves.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think that at times these may be more useful than the homosexual vs. heterosexual distinction

When exactly are those times? When is the concept of "homosexual vs. heterosexual" every actually useful for that matter?

I'm a terrestrial, omnivorous, endothermic vertebrate, among literally hundreds of other labels, but few of them are ever really useful in any practical context in relation to me personally. I know you handwaved this condition at the start of your post, but if you take that just a small step further, the entirely problem largely stops being one at all.

 

[Eddi]

When exactly are those times? When is the concept of "homosexual vs. heterosexual" every actually useful for that matter?

I think they have their uses...

As labels

We need labels

At the very least having a system of labels prevents time and energy being wasted on trying to pursue a person who is not interested in you, due to your gender identity and their sexuality

At the very most it can prevent you having the crap kicked out of you - which can happen to gay men who approach a straight man

Gay panic defense - Wikipedia

Labels keep people safe and facilitate interaction

Once you've got to know someone better you can get to know the person who chose the label, and their story, the story behind them choosing such a designation

 

[HonestJoe]

At the very least having a system of labels prevents time and energy being wasted on trying to pursue a person who is not interested in you, due to your gender identity and their sexuality

But if you're talking about an individual, why not just find of if they're interested in you. There will be a long list of things that could prevent someone from being interested in a romantic relationship with someone else. You're not going to go step by step through testing each any every possible characteristic are you?

At the very most it can prevent you having the crap kicked out of you - which can happen to gay men who approach a straight person

Sadly, I don't see how the existence of nominal labels prevents that happening. If anything, if there wasn't such a strongly defined division between the labels of "straight" and "gay", that kind of scenario wouldn't be as triggering in the first place.

 

[Eddi]

But if you're talking about an individual, why not just find of if they're interested in you.

You're not going to go step by step through testing each any every possible characteristic are you?

Well of course not

Such labels are just an aid

A kind of filter perhaps?

I think they certainly make things much easier

If anything, if there wasn't such a strongly defined division between the labels of "straight" and "gay", that kind of scenario wouldn't be as triggering in the first place.

Maybe, maybe...

But on balance I don't think I really share your optimism here...

Also, I think it does a person good to be certain of their own sexual orientation and I believe that such labels can help this, and that they are therefore good

I think sexual orientation labels are helpful but only as aids

 

[Jainarayan]

Could "Androphillia amongst the male population" be another way of talking about male homosexuality???

Not necessarily. Straight men could be drawn to the company of other men just to share "guy stuff", for example.

I guess I could call myself an androphile as well as homosexual. There are things about men I am attracted to simply because of "guy stuff", and just loving everything about men without having a sexual attraction to them.

So I think there's overlap and shades of gray.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, labels are labels and it is only people that matter...

But here's some food for thought:

Androphillia = attraction to men and masculinity
Gynophillia = attraction to women and femininity
Ambiphillia = attraction to both men and women and both masculinity and femininity

Source - Wikipedia

I think that at times these may be more useful than the homosexual vs. heterosexual distinction

Because I think they concern merely what you are into (or are not into), with no account given as to what you are (or are not)

So, for instance, a gay man and a straight women would both be androphiles

And a lesbian and a straight man would both be gynophiles

However: gay male culture is distinct from straight female culture and lesbian culture is distinct from straight man culture... obviously!

So perhaps homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is more useful?

Could "Androphillia amongst the male population" be another way of talking about male homosexuality???

Such a label takes account of the behaviour but not the identity, the self-image - but when might this be more desirable???

And how do trans-people fit into all this???

So many questions...

And I honestly have no idea

I don't like all the confusion. Hetero/homo/bi/asexual refer to the attraction/non-attraction to the sex of the other person in relation to oneself. It doesn't say the nature of the attraction, how one is attracted, and theology on attraction. The only way I can think of where those words don't quite match are those who don't identify with a gender. Unless going by strict definition (how a person is biologically born-one's sex), it really is up to how the person feels. I mean I like gay woman rather than lesbian. They both mean the same thing, so.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think they certainly make things much easier

They certainly do not. It just complicates things and people get all anxious over it.

 

[Kooky]

Pretty much any study in the recent 3-4 decades seems to have found sexual orientation to be on a spectrum (or perhaps a continuum).

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, labels are labels and it is only people that matter...

But here's some food for thought:

Androphillia = attraction to men and masculinity
Gynophillia = attraction to women and femininity
Ambiphillia = attraction to both men and women and both masculinity and femininity

Source - Wikipedia

I think that at times these may be more useful than the homosexual vs. heterosexual distinction

Because I think they concern merely what you are into (or are not into), with no account given as to what you are (or are not)

So, for instance, a gay man and a straight women would both be androphiles

And a lesbian and a straight man would both be gynophiles

However: gay male culture is distinct from straight female culture and lesbian culture is distinct from straight man culture... obviously!

So perhaps homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is more useful?

Could "Androphillia amongst the male population" be another way of talking about male homosexuality???

Such a label takes account of the behaviour but not the identity, the self-image - but when might this be more desirable???

And how do trans-people fit into all this???

So many questions...

And I honestly have no idea

If only George Carlin was alive today.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Pretty much any study in the recent 3-4 decades seems to have found sexual orientation to be on a spectrum (or perhaps a continuum).

Pretty much the conversation I've been having with my 13 year old daughter recently.
Boxes are not super useful in describing reality, quite often.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Boxes are not super useful in describing reality, quite often.

You're telling me! I once boxed you in with "Australia", and due to some poor choices and poor record-keeping, you're now a country.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think some labels are fine, but there's such a thing as overlabeling too. I'm not sure where that line crosses exactly, though.