LGBTitp - Part Six

[Yora]

So... I recently came out to my friends as pansexual. In my circle of friends and local LGBT community, it's a somewhat well-known term, though not nearly as common as bisexual. I also know some people use the term differently than I do (to me, it simply means I'm potentially attracted to all gender expressions, including those that don't fit in the usual binary), and that to a lot of people (especially those outside the LGBT community) it's a relatively unheard of label.

Does anyone else use the term? How have you heard it defined?

Yes, very much the same here. Rather uncommon term, but in most situations bisexual works exactly the same.
I'm thinking about coming out to those people of whom I'm not sure they figured it out years ago. Not that I expect anyone of them to react more than mildly suprised, but I guess every openly out person helps to get people more used to having us around.

[llamamushroom]

Hi, everyone. I'm having a bit of trouble with this, but I guess I'll start with the question and explain the context. How do you ask a guy out?

Context: A good friend of mine (let's call him A) is suspected to be gay. Apparently, he came out to another friend (B). B told me, but I don't know if that was a breach of A's trust or something. So, how do I ask a guy out if I don't know whether or not I should know he's gay?

Thanks, guys. I have exactly no experience in these matters, so any advice you can offer would be appreciated.

[Beelzebub1111]

Hi, everyone. I'm having a bit of trouble with this, but I guess I'll start with the question and explain the context. How do you ask a guy out?

Context: A good friend of mine (let's call him A) is suspected to be gay. Apparently, he came out to another friend (B). B told me, but I don't know if that was a breach of A's trust or something. So, how do I ask a guy out if I don't know whether or not I should know he's gay?

Thanks, guys. I have exactly no experience in these matters, so any advice you can offer would be appreciated.

Well, if B is a good source of information and you really like A, you could just ask him on a date and make it seem like you've figured it out on your own. I'm not saying lie, but you don't want A to be mad at B for not being secretive or something.

Don't open up with anything like "Hey, I heard you were gay" or something like that. If you know he is there's no need to preface it. Just ask the dude out. If he withdraws, or claims to "not be that way", or if B was an unreliable source, then back out and say you're sorry, not "but B told me that you were"

[Faulty]

Hi, everyone. I'm having a bit of trouble with this, but I guess I'll start with the question and explain the context. How do you ask a guy out?

Context: A good friend of mine (let's call him A) is suspected to be gay. Apparently, he came out to another friend (B). B told me, but I don't know if that was a breach of A's trust or something. So, how do I ask a guy out if I don't know whether or not I should know he's gay?

Thanks, guys. I have exactly no experience in these matters, so any advice you can offer would be appreciated.

Invite him to see a musical. If he enjoys it, ask him out, and tell him that the reason you thought he was gay was because of his appreciation of show tunes.

No but really, you could always just ask him out and claim you were going out on a limb.

[Dogmantra]

Invite him to see a musical. If he enjoys it, ask him out, and tell him that the reason you thought he was gay was because of his appreciation of show tunes.

Hey I'm not gay and I enjoy show tunes...

Waaaaait.

[Delta]

So, how do I ask a guy out if I don't know whether or not I should know he's gay?

I'd just go for it and ask him out, if he asks you how you knew, you can still say you weren't completely sure but you like him enough to take the risk. Turn it into a compliment and you can get away with a lot of stuff

[The Neoclassic]

First off, thanks everyone! I agree that in practicality, pansexual is pretty much equivalent with bisexual. I don't object to bisexual; I just am more comfortable with pansexual at this time. Of course, no label is perfect- I still get jokes about, "Oh you're sexually attracted to everything? What about rocks?" or "Haha, you like pans!"

I haven't come out to my parents yet... Not sure when/if/how I will. On the one hand, I've been dating a male for over two years now and I think it would confuse my parents or seem like "Well, why do we need to know this?" On the other hand, it's bound to come up eventually, even if I stay with my current boyfriend since we're polyamorous (which is a whole 'nuther barrel o' worms).

Hi, everyone. I'm having a bit of trouble with this, but I guess I'll start with the question and explain the context. How do you ask a guy out?

Context: A good friend of mine (let's call him A) is suspected to be gay. Apparently, he came out to another friend (B). B told me, but I don't know if that was a breach of A's trust or something. So, how do I ask a guy out if I don't know whether or not I should know he's gay?

Thanks, guys. I have exactly no experience in these matters, so any advice you can offer would be appreciated.

Well, does he know you're gay? If he already does, probably couldn't hurt to be straightforward and say you're somewhat interested and would like to go on a date. I hope it works out for you!

[Faulty]

Doesn't pansexuality have to do with what genders you're attracted to as well? Like I'm romantically and sexually attracted to femmey/womanly--doesn't have to be super femme (I dig strong chicks, personality wise and on a level physically), but someone who identifies as a woman, y'know?--and androgynous and genderqueer women, and find some more feminine or cute looking guys attractive. I don't find super masculine or butch girls attractive though. Isn't pansexuality when you find ALL those genders attractive?

[The Neoclassic]

Doesn't pansexuality have to do with what genders you're attracted to as well?

Isn't pansexuality when you find ALL those genders attractive?

Umm, yeah, I think that's what I said in my first post.

to me, it simply means I'm potentially attracted to all gender expressions, including those that don't fit in the usual binary

I don't think it means you have to be equally and seriously romantically, sexually, and emotionally seriously attracted to all genders, just like some bisexual people may be more sexually interested in one gender but equally interested in romantic relationships with men and women. I don't think being pansexual means I have to be attracted to everyone, no matter what their physical appearance, though some people do seem to take it that way. For me it means I can potentially find all genders attractive, but not necessarily every single variation on every gender. So, I'm potentially attracted to women, men, and transgendered individuals, but I can still have preferences as far as hair length and body type- just gender expression in general and genitals aren't dealbreakers.

Does that make sense? I know this could quickly devolve into "What qualifies as a gender or as gender expression?" but that could easily get long, tiring, and off-track so I'll try to avoid it.

[Delta]

Well, to me, pansexual pretty much means "I don't let categories or labels like gender get in the way of who I am attracted to or not"

[Yora]

That pretty much summs it up. ^^

Doesn't pansexuality have to do with what genders you're attracted to as well? Like I'm romantically and sexually attracted to femmey/womanly--doesn't have to be super femme (I dig strong chicks, personality wise and on a level physically), but someone who identifies as a woman, y'know?--and androgynous and genderqueer women, and find some more feminine or cute looking guys attractive. I don't find super masculine or butch girls attractive though. Isn't pansexuality when you find ALL those genders attractive?

That be more like omnisexual. Every person is attractive to you.

I would say that pansexuals don't disqualify anyone from being a potential partner because of gender. For example, for a (strictly) heterosexual man, all man and transsexuals would not be considered as potential partners, and it doesn't matter what other qualities they have. Personalty and other things are completely irrelevant at that stage.
But I think pansexuals don't do this step. No gender is a disqualifying factor and they go straight to other things they might regard as attractive on a person.

[The Neoclassic]

Well, to me, pansexual pretty much means "I don't let categories or labels like gender get in the way of who I am attracted to or not"

Yeah. Though I think it's not necessarily the same thing as "I don't let any aspects of physical appearance get in the way of who I'm attracted to or not." I know some people define it that way, but I'm still "shallow" on some fronts I guess. Just not about gender.

[Ostien]

Doesn't pansexuality have to do with what genders you're attracted to as well? Like I'm romantically and sexually attracted to femmey/womanly--doesn't have to be super femme (I dig strong chicks, personality wise and on a level physically), but someone who identifies as a woman, y'know?--and androgynous and genderqueer women, and find some more feminine or cute looking guys attractive. I don't find super masculine or butch girls attractive though. Isn't pansexuality when you find ALL those genders attractive?

I use pansexual to describe myself because I cannot predict who I will be attracted to. And while it often falls in line with your list (I am attracted mostly to people who are on the feminine to androgynous/genderqueer spectrum, regardless of sex characteristics), this is not always the case. I have meet some really hot trans-masculine folks as well as identified men. Because I can't predict it there is always a possibility. I don't feel that one who identifies as pansexual has to find all expressions equally attractive, no more then someone who is bi has to find an equal amounts of men and women attractive.

Also, I guess I'm in the group that like pansexual because they feel bisexual excludes people who don't fit in the binary either via gender or sex. I'm a bit of a nitpicker

Well that's my two cents regarding pansexual.

EDIT:

So, I'm potentially attracted to women, men, and transgendered individuals, but I can still have preferences as far as hair length and body type- just gender expression in general and genitals aren't dealbreakers.

Suuuuuuure go ahead and say it much better then I did. jerk.

[Serpentine]

Where does it say bisexuality is about being attacted to only manly-men and womanly-women? It's just "not attracted overwhelmingly to one sex or the other". A bisexual can be attracted to all and anyo of those people - it's just preference, like a preference for hair colour or a sense of humour. "Pansexual" may be a more accurate substitute for "bisexual", but I don't see that mere interest in non-usual binary genders is unique to it. I mean, by that theory we need another term for heterosexuals for whom cis- and transexual status is irrelevant, or who have a preference for butch girls/effeminate men.

[The Neoclassic]

Where does it say bisexuality is about being attacted to only manly-men and womanly-women? It's just "not attracted overwhelmingly to one sex or the other". A bisexual can be attracted to all and anyo of those people - it's just preference, like a preference for hair colour or a sense of humour. "Pansexual" may be a more accurate substitute for "bisexual", but I don't see that mere interest in non-usual binary genders is unique to it. I mean, by that theory we need another term for heterosexuals for whom cis- and transexual status is irrelevant, or who have a preference for butch girls/effeminate men.

I think you have quite a good point. I know that's not what bisexual necessarily means, but for me it retains that connotation (as I have known people who use it to mean "I'm attracted to masculine men and feminine women, and not really those in between"). I think it really is a matter of personal preference whether one uses "bisexual" or "pansexual." When in doubt, it's always best to actually discuss labels which people; they are good as starting points, but hardly accurate representations of the vast array of sexual orientations there are out there. One person's straight may be another person's heteroflexible; one person's bisexual may be another's heteroflexible. And queer, from how I've heard it used, can mean practically anything!

[Ostien]

Yeah it really is a semantic preference issue, I just cringe at the 'bi' in bisexual but that's just how I react and thus like pansexual as a term better.

[Delta]

Yeah it really is a semantic preference issue, I just cringe at the 'bi' in bisexual but that's just how I react and thus like pansexual as a term better.

I'd prefer pan as well, but then, I'm a pretty lazy person, so I go with what means less work for me

[Lix Lorn]

I'd personally go with Omni. Less limiting. (Smirk)
(Shot)

[Coidzor]

I'd personally go with Omni. Less limiting. (Smirk)
(Shot)

Yes, but omni- opens one up to... much more in the way of unfortunate implications. With pansexual, the worst that's usually done is people making jokes about you and fresh baked baguettes.

I think you have quite a good point. I know that's not what bisexual necessarily means, but for me it retains that connotation (as I have known people who use it to mean "I'm attracted to masculine men and feminine women, and not really those in between").

So, what, a woman's not heterosexual if she's attracted to feminine men? What is she then? What's a man if he's attracted to masculine women? What if he's attracted to women from masculine to androgynous to feminine?

Honestly. Do you see how much extra work you're putting into things if you let gender muddle things up?

It's like coming up with tags to denote one's willingness to sleep with MtF vs. FtM.

[Lix Lorn]

The 'unfortunate' implications were entirely intentional. I was (mostly) joking, thus the (shot). XD

[Lyesmith]

I don't think people get shot over unfortunate implications.

[The Neoclassic]

So, what, a woman's not heterosexual if she's attracted to feminine men? What is she then? What's a man if he's attracted to masculine women? What if he's attracted to women from masculine to androgynous to feminine?

I didn't say that. I just said what general connotation it has for me. And I was really thinking of very androgynous people who don't feel they fit into the binary gender categories rather than just, say, meterosexual dudes or women who have short hair and play sports. Again, this is getting into "Where is the line between a distinct gender identity and differing forms of gender expression?"

Honestly. Do you see how much extra work you're putting into things if you let gender muddle things up?

Huh? I thought me being pansexual meant I'm /not/ letting gender muddle things up. Honestly. It's hard not to when our primary sexual labels are entirely defined by which genders we are willing to sleep with or date. No one asks "What size are you attracted to? What hair color do you like?" It's always "Are you straight or gay?" It's unfortunate, and I wish it wasn't so much, but don't blame me for overanalyzing it when it really is such a big kerfuffle in society and people's interactions.

It's like coming up with tags to denote one's willingness to sleep with MtF vs. FtM.

Not really. A better question would be "If a woman is attracted to cisgendered men and trans men, are they straight, bisexual, pansexual, or heteroflexible?" And that yet again goes back to "Well, are trans men a different gender identity, or just a different sort of men, under the general umbrella of man that includes cisgendered men, trans men, genderqueer people who use masculine pronouns, etc?"

See why I think it's really not so simple when you start to think about it? I use the label I like, and I have opinions about other labels, but as long as people are clear, I recognize that everyone will interpret things a bit differently. People may label me bisexual, pansexual, queer, or heteroflexible from their view of my sexuality, but as long as they respect my preference and know why I use it, it's not a big deal.

[742]

you people spend a lot of time defining labels, but when you simplify a complex idea down to a single word (even a really long one) it loses something; either truth or specificness, sometimes both. so stop trying to distill your sexuality or political views or general idealogy into one word. why does everyone do this? sorry, just tired of lurking at those discussions on nearly every topic almost everywhere i go and saying nothing.
i hope that wasnt too incoherent.

[Lix Lorn]

I see your point, but people like to define themselves in ways they can understand.

[Danne]

Hi, everyone. I'm having a bit of trouble with this, but I guess I'll start with the question and explain the context. How do you ask a guy out?

Context: A good friend of mine (let's call him A) is suspected to be gay. Apparently, he came out to another friend (B). B told me, but I don't know if that was a breach of A's trust or something. So, how do I ask a guy out if I don't know whether or not I should know he's gay?

Thanks, guys. I have exactly no experience in these matters, so any advice you can offer would be appreciated.

I imagine you ask him out the same way that you would anyone else. I mean, there's a lot of situations in which the asker isn't certain if the ask-ee (is so a word ) is gay, but just goes out on a limb. It's not like most people walk around with labels on their foreheads, after all; people take risks all the time. Just go for it! There's no need to preface the question with, "So, I heard you were gay...?" A simple, "Wanna go out?" or whatever your style is should work.

And good luck.

Invite him to see a musical. If he enjoys it, ask him out, and tell him that the reason you thought he was gay was because of his appreciation of show tunes.

Plenty of straight fellows like musicals. And there are gay guys who don't.

Regarding the pan vs. bi definition debate -- egads, you people are making my head spin! All these different terms and definitions!

Personally, I fall into the "attracted to any sex/gender combination" category. I'd hate to limit myself, after all. If someone were to ask, I'd probably say "bi," if only because it's a term that more people are familiar with, but it feels sort of weird to label it when part of the point is about not having limitations. Honestly, it's the person I want to date, not their genitals. Which isn't to say that sex and physical intimacy aren't important, I've never understood what someone's plumbing has to do with anything.

*looks back over post* That's...a lot of smilies...

[Coidzor]

wall o' text and quotes

Spoiler

Show

I didn't say that. I just said what general connotation it has for me.

Except you said it in such a way as to make it sound like a working definition you and those around you operated under.

And I was really thinking of very androgynous people who don't feel they fit into the binary gender categories rather than just, say, meterosexual dudes or women who have short hair and play sports.

If they're truly androgynous then they're actually intersexed and fall outside of the binary sexes. If they fall within the binary sexes but have a genderqueer/**** self-identity they still count as whatever naughty bits they have. If they're trans, well, they're trans and fall into that morass of questions.

Again, this is getting into "Where is the line between a distinct gender identity and differing forms of gender expression?"

Partially due to your word choice leaving it as more of a "any person whose gender does not conform to the stereotypical extremes of the gender-roles of their sex cannot be desired by a bisexual," than the earlier alternative of "pansexuals leave the door open to intersexed, trans, and other individuals whose gender and sex are in conflict or outside of the sex-binary"

And it also goes into the question of "where and how gender should enter into the terminology of sexuality." As otherwise we get situations like this one where the multiple ways gender can be taken to mean can lead to some very different interpretations.

Areas in which I believe there is still some level of confusion and misunderstanding.

Spoiler

Show

Huh? I thought me being pansexual meant I'm /not/ letting gender muddle things up.

You're letting gender muddle up definitions of sexuality in general by what you were saying is what I meant. By introducing them into the mix with the idea, "Bisexuals only want the extreme forms of sex-gender agreement," you set up the precedent to come up with new sexuality labels to describe those who desire the opposite sex but same gender configuration and so on unless you can explain why bisexuality is special in getting the only limitation based on gender-sex schema. Sexuality is about what naughty-bits you'll interface with, after all. Homosexuals that are men won't want to bone a woman who is masculinely gendered.

Now that I've read your reply fully, I don't think that's what you meant to be saying. Something about the implied idea of calling trans individuals "Manly girls" or "Girly men" in contrast to the stated "manly men" and "girly girls" for cis individuals just seems to rub me the wrong way and... seems like a less than ideal way to have put it if that's what you were going for.

Honestly. It's hard not to when our primary sexual labels are entirely defined by which genders we are willing to sleep with or date.

You're the one who introduced the gender-requirement to our sexual selection schema for the purposes of this conversation. As far as I've always understood it, our primary sexual labels are about what plumbing one will interface with.

No one asks "What size are you attracted to? What hair color do you like?" It's always "Are you straight or gay?" It's unfortunate, and I wish it wasn't so much, but don't blame me for overanalyzing it when it really is such a big kerfuffle in society and people's interactions.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Because things like hair color are flexible things rather than (as far as we understand) hardcoded. Also, people who discriminate based on hair color are known as bigots, whereas it's perfectly acceptable(well, in societies that don't kill non-heteros anyway) to not want to sleep with someone who has naughty-bits that are not within one's set of acceptable naughty bits. If you want to make sexuality based on exact build and hair color and skin tone and other things, you're going to have to put a lot of work into the number of terms that have to be known.

The naughty-bits being so central to it because, well, let's face it, sex is what sexuality is about. It's not about love or emotional attachments.

As it is, sexualities are broad labels that allow for individual tastes rather than having to utterly and totally encapsulate the sexual identity of a person. And I, personally, would much rather know that someone is, say, gay, rather than only attracted to clowns of the same sex who have black hair and black skin.

As for the size thing and the hair color thing, those sorts of things are asked but just not considered as necessary. Well, aside from the iconic "No Fatties" rule. Though, that's of course, more of a social convention/compact anyway.

A better question would be "If a woman is attracted to cisgendered men and trans men, are they straight, bisexual, pansexual, or heteroflexible?" And that yet again goes back to "Well, are trans men a different gender identity, or just a different sort of men, under the general umbrella of man that includes cisgendered men, trans men, genderqueer people who use masculine pronouns, etc?"

A good question, to be sure, depends on what kind of configuration of naughty bits the types of transmen she's attracted to have, IIRC there's ones which are basically hormones only(like that one person who claims to be the first man to have ever given birth) and ones which have the surgical alteration to get something functional. Prior to surgery, they still have the naughty bits of their birth sex, after all, though, with some alterations (certain things change both shrinking and growing, IIRC).

The fact that we still have to call them transmen or transwomen is enough to say that they do not count fully, or at least they don't if one can tell. Metaphysical issues ensue from the latter. Hopefully we'll have the capability someday to do away with the necessity of the label.

I use the label I like, and I have opinions about other labels, but as long as people are clear, I recognize that everyone will interpret things a bit differently. People may label me bisexual, pansexual, queer, or heteroflexible from their view of my sexuality, but as long as they respect my preference and know why I use it, it's not a big deal.

It is definitely possible to argue that the mere fact that others can interpret what you are as a different label than the one you use as evidence that people are not being clear, indeed, that the language is not clear.

As of now, you've mentioned what I've found to be the only difference that I can understand, the Trans-Question. Being as how I have little experience with the subject, I would be loathe to try to wrangle the language in regards to that. Which is part of why I imagine it's never really been dealt with enough to come to my attention or the attention of others I've interacted with.

I am not exactly sure if I agree with the idea that bisexuals cannot be attracted to trans individuals, but I will agree that pansexual makes that particular segment more clear.

[The Neoclassic]

@Coidzor: OK, I'm not going to respond point-by-point because that was crazylong but feel free to bring it up if you feel I missed something.

First of all, yes, that is the connotation "bisexual" has to me and my friends. That is not saying bisexuals can't be attracted to trans people. I would never claim that. I simply think "pansexual" sounds more inclusive and it has more open connotations to me. There is a difference between saying "That is how the term feels to me" and "This is how everyone must use it." I am doing the former, but either you think I'm doing the latter or else you think I shouldn't have those connotations even given that I own that that is simply how I use the term and not how everyone must use it. I think I have the right to associate "binary gender" with "bisexual" since it even has "bi" in the name. That is its suggestion- that one can be attracted to two genders, even when people don't use it that way now.

And no, intersex =/= "truly androgynous." If I dress in a way where you can't tell my gender from glancing at me, that doesn't make me intersex. For example, compare their wikipedia definitions; someone can identify as one but not the other.

I'm quite aware of what makes a trans man or a trans woman. Some of them do object to being lumped into a binary gender system. Others don't. I apologize if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying you know what their gender identity is and that genitals are what matter in terms of what makes someone straight or gay. That may be by your definition, but there is no consensus on that.

Also, you pretty much say that I'm racist because I find certain hair colors sexier than others? If you know of labels used on dating websites that define other aspects of sexual orientation as clearly as straight/bi/gay are used, please let me know. I have yet to see it- gender seems to be at the top of the list for importance.

you people spend a lot of time defining labels, but when you simplify a complex idea down to a single word (even a really long one) it loses something; either truth or specificness, sometimes both. so stop trying to distill your sexuality or political views or general idealogy into one word.

When in doubt, it's always best to actually discuss labels which people; they are good as starting points, but hardly accurate representations of the vast array of sexual orientations there are out there.

I stand by labels being good starting-off points. I think I've been fairly flexible and reasonable in saying "This is what they mean to me- it means something different to different people."

[Nameless]

*pop*

I thought that Pansexuality meant you were “gender blind” or “sex blind”. Meaning you don’t consider a persons sex or gender and aren’t attracted to those aspects of a person, while bisexuals do take those things into considerations. That’s not saying that all bisexuals prefer one sex to the other or don’t like transexuals, but just take it into considerations and are attracted to a persons sex/gender as much as the person him/her self.

*poof*

[CrimsonAngel]

So many words I never heard of! I'm scared to look them up...

[Coidzor]

So many words I never heard of! I'm scared to look them up...

What? Trans? Chromosome? Gender?

Now if you were complaining about the frightening power of Words, Words, Words, Words. Well, then I'd understand better.

Also, Words, Words, Words, Words:

Spoiler

Show

I am doing the former, but either you think I'm doing the latter or else you think I shouldn't have those connotations even given that I own that that is simply how I use the term and not how everyone must use it. I think I have the right to associate "binary gender" with "bisexual" since it even has "bi" in the name. That is its suggestion- that one can be attracted to two genders, even when people don't use it that way now.

Alright, I understand and respect why you don't like the term now. I apologize for misinterpreting your explanation of your stance and reasoning behind it.

I do dispute that it is not about gender but about sex due to being a sexuality.

And no, intersex =/= "truly androgynous." If I dress in a way where you can't tell my gender from glancing at me, that doesn't make me intersex. For example, compare their wikipedia definitions; someone can identify as one but not the other.

Indeed. It makes such a person count as whatever the observer can determine the individual to be, which takes into account the cues and ways of self-labeling that the individual uses. It does seem to be a rather sure way of making sure that one is usually the one to have to approach potential partners to make overtures, if one can effectively appear as neither sex.

Once an observer/potential sexual partner gets them naked, things change due to, well, being able to see what their sex is because whatever genitalia are down there should become apparent. In such a case, the observer's settings would call for a reanalysis of the situation if the observer's understanding of what the individual was did not jive with what was found in the individual's underwear.

I'm quite aware of what makes a trans man or a trans woman. Some of them do object to being lumped into a binary gender system. Others don't. I apologize if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying you know what their gender identity is and that genitals are what matter in terms of what makes someone straight or gay. That may be by your definition, but there is no consensus on that.

And you were seeming to say that you were operating with the most basic form of transman/transwoman = gender-sex disagreement of the diametrically opposed variety. By calling them transmen or transwomen, you're calling them individuals born into one birth sex who feel they have a/the gender-identity of the opposite sex from what they were born as. Hence the assumption of the person attracted to them having perfect knowledge of the situation and the assumption that the gender-identity of the trans individual was locked for the purposes of our discussion.

At least, that's what everyone else has said in past incarnations of the question in this thread seems to support. Though if I'm operating under an erroneous conclusion, I need to know.

And yes, genitalia are what matters in terms of making people heterosexual or homosexual. Like it or not, that's what it boils down to with the current definitions being based upon physical sex. Sure, there's those who want to go off of chromosomes more, but that requires more testing than simple visual confirmation.

If it were based on gender, then homosexual men would have sex with women with male-gender or even just women whose gender is more close to the masculine "side." This is not accepted as something that should happen under normal circumstances and honesty. In fact, most would say that the man was not actually homosexual in such a case.

Also, you pretty much say that I'm racist because I find certain hair colors sexier than others? I have yet to see it- gender seems to be at the top of the list for importance.

You personally? No. However, going from a preference to a hardcoded deal-breaking-thing (y'know, that thing that makes straight males ****ed if they find they've been fooled into developing feelings for a convincing cross-dressing male? Or makes it so gay guys don't want to sleep with women. That sort of thing.) for hair color is one step away from going from a preference to a hardcoded thing for skin tone.

Having a sexuality based on one hair color above all others would not be a preference for that hair color, it would mean only being capable of sexual arousal by/desire for those with that hair color.

And what they're really asking for is sex, not gender. Unless they're asking for both.

I stand by labels being good starting-off points. I think I've been fairly flexible and reasonable in saying "This is what they mean to me- it means something different to different people."

Agreed.