Identity and labels.

[helenOfToy]

Over the last few months, I have been increasingly identifying as female, but I currently have no plans to undergo any medical procedures. Perhaps I will one day, but maybe not, but I've been thinking a lot about the links (or lack thereof) between gender identity and sexual orientation. I have found myself approached by a large number of straight identifying men, and that makes me wonder. What does 'straight' really mean? For that matter, what does 'gay' really mean?

If a straight man wanted to sleep with me, does that make them gay/bi because I have male genitalia? Likewise, if a gay man wanted to sleep with me, does that make them straight/bi because I identify as a woman?

I've heard many times, lesbian women objecting strongly to trans-women identifying as lesbian, but I've never heard gay men objecting to trans-men identifying as gay. So what is it really about? Is sexuality inextricably linked to genitalia? Or is it more to do with identity, or is the whole thing really just subjective? If it's subjective, then what purpose do the labels serve, and why object to their use? Why do we need them at all?

Personally it's pretty easy for me as I consider myself spio/pansexual, so the whole gay/straight/bi thing is pretty much irrelevant. As I am fond of saying, I'm more interested in what's between someone's ears than their legs.

I'm just curious to know what people think about this.

[Si****]

I agree that the label is irrelevant. If you find someone attractive, then what ever they class themselves as and what's between their legs becomes irrelevant. Putting oneself in a box only limits themselves to the joys of following their attractions. Isn't that more important than a label?

[Deleted Member]

I've given a lot of thought to some of these questions over the decades and don't have answers. I'm fond of men who like penises on their women, and am clear they are different in some ways from more conventionally straight men, but I have no clear answers about what it means about their orientations. My wife identifies as lesbian, but mildly prefers transwomen to females. My sexual orientation is close to pansexual, although when I'm in a kinky mood I tend to want the company of a man.

I see this as examples of the richness of human experience.

[Deleted Member]

1 hour ago, Liil said:

I've given a lot of thought to some of these questions over the decades and don't have answers. I'm fond of men who like penises on their women, and am clear they are different in some ways from more conventionally straight men, but I have no clear answers about what it means about their orientations. My wife identifies as lesbian, but mildly prefers transwomen to females. My sexual orientation is close to pansexual, although when I'm in a kinky mood I tend to want the company of a man.

I see this as examples of the richness of human experience.

Was just going to write Helen/Paul but this pretty much says it all. We change as does what we perceive ourselves and others to be. With that flexibility comes an ability to less label ourselves, place ourselves in any certain "box." I think that our own sanity and happiness is a key ingredient we should all accept a little more. Sometimes we cant say what we are but does it really matter if we are happy?

Edited August 26, 2020 by Deleted Member
Spelling

[Deleted Member]

Labels aren't universally bad. When I say I consider myself a sexual masochist, for example, it mostly conveys the right ideas. 

[Deleted Member]

Just now, Liil said:

Labels aren't universally bad. When I say I consider myself a sexual masochist, for example, it mostly conveys the right ideas. 

Of course not but we must be cautious not to label ourselves without a flexibility of what our "labels" can be

[Deleted Member]

I think we generally agree. I think the OP's questions are challenging and simply don't have easy answers. I respect hard questions that make me think.

[Fen]

This is a question whose answer depends on how you define terms. If you define straight as "attracted to the opposite biological sex," then it is gay for a man to be attracted to you. On the other hand, if you define straight as "attracted to the opposite gender," then it's not gay for a man to be attracted to you. In general, I consider gender identity > biological sex. Transphobes emphasize biology as a weapon to try and reject the existence of trans people. Additionally, the biological definition just doesn't make sense. You could have a trans woman who is indistinguishable from Beyonce. By the biological definition, that would mean thinking Beyonce is hot is gay.

 

Straight and gay men who like "au natural" trans girls are often more complicated cases. On the straight side, it can be as simple as being attracted to a woman and not having hangups about what she has in her pants. There's also a lot of fetishism, the root causes of which will vary a lot from person to person. I can speculate that some of the interest is from bi/gay men in denial, and some may have to do with an exercise in power by dominating a "man" while actually enjoying the company of a woman, but as a trans lesbian, I don't have too much insight into it.

 

A gay man is only going to be attracted to a trans woman if he views her body as male. I'm inclined to say that's disrespectful and potentially transphobic, but we have a whole spectrum of sissy/crossdresser/transvestites who identify as cis men, but dress as women." Crossdressing" was my introduction to my gender identity, and I don't blame anyone for not fully understanding the intricacies of a very complicated subject.

 

Cis women objecting to trans women calling themselves lesbians sounds really TERF-y to me. I'd be interested in hearing from someone with this viewpoint, but it seems like it's another way of saying "trans women aren't real women." I don't care if a woman isn't interested in dating me because I'm trans. I get that I'm not what everybody is looking for. Lesbian is just the clearest way of communicating who I am and what I like. I still get enough messages from men who didn't bother to read my profile, I don't need more seeing "gay" and thinking I mean from a biological definition. Back on topic, you don't really see objections to trans men since there is no male equivalent of a TERF. Women are a historically marginalized group, and groups like that often get very defensive about their culture/membership. TERFs see trans women as men trying to steal womanhood from them. Since men have never been marginalized, trans men are no threat. Also "gay" isn't actually a gendered term. Plenty of women who like women call themselves gay too.

 

On the subject of labels, you may wonder which definition is right. The answer is neither. In Ancient Greece, the philosophers had a bit of a competition to come up with the most concise definition possible of a (hu)man. Plato's definition was "featherless bipeds." Diogenes response was to pluck a chicken and run through Plato's academy, holding it up and shouting "behold, a man!" Language is a way of modeling the world around us. Definitions help us form useful categories, but they aren't absolute truths. They're just a way of projecting some order onto an inherently disorderly universe. As such, definitions are good so long as they're useful. Every branch of physical and social science with something to say on the matter has affirmed that trans men are men, and trans women are women. With all that in mind, the gender identity definition is more fair, more kind, and more useful. The only reason to use the biological definition is to exclude trans people.

[Deleted Member]

That's what makes the questions challenging is all the assumptions that change the questions. My long-time male lover told me he discovered he liked penises, but wasn't attracted to men. Ironically, it was his then-wife as Dom who first ordered him into sex with a transwomen at a New York sex club and dramatically changed his erotic map forever after.

In my late ***s, I almost came out as a feminine gay (bi) man, but I'm glad I didn't. I'm just as glad that I didn't, as started to believe I'd have to when I was in my 20s, pursue genital surgery in order to be a "real" woman and have a "normal" life. There are more options than that.

[Chastity_Pup_Gabbia]

I don't think labelling is that important now. I mean we were born in the beginning as two genders but as life goes on it's not the gender that defines us it's who we are as a person. So whether you're male, female, gender fluid/neutral or whatever as long as you are a decent accepting person and treat each other with respect and love no matter what that's all that matters. P.S. Helen you are what you want to be. A great person. 👍 😁

[Deleted Member]

The issue with labels is they are generalised,  you are defined as a set thing and lumps certain groups together. This site should allow you to define yourself like fetlife. Mine would be CD Doll as it is there, but I have to be trans or non binary in this place. 

Helen, We all go through this, that is the internal battle. I went through this quite young and in a time before the internet. And the conclusion that I came to was that both sides of me could exist and I could decide on how I feel on that day. I treat it as taking a break from myself. I have no desire to transition to female permanently, even though my thoughts have been there in the past. That is why I say it's a battle. You will find an answer in the end. Just try not to be too hard on yourself because that will just cause you stress ❤

[Deleted Member]

The issue with labels is they are generalised,  you are defined as a set thing and lumps certain groups together. This site should allow you to define yourself like fetlife. Mine would be CD Doll as it is there, but I have to be trans or non binary in this place. 

Helen, We all go through this, that is the internal battle. I went through this quite young and in a time before the internet. And the conclusion that I came to was that both sides of me could exist and I could decide on how I feel on that day. I treat it as taking a break from myself. I have no desire to transition to female permanently, even though my thoughts have been there in the past. That is why I say it's a battle. You will find an answer in the end. Just try not to be too hard on yourself because that will just cause you stress ❤

[Deleted Member]

Labels are convenient, though, and useful if employed while understanding their limitations. You can use labels to be concise, but elaborate where they are inadequate.

[Deleted Member]

Wednesday at 08:45 PM, Fen said:

This is a question whose answer depends on how you define terms. If you define straight as "attracted to the opposite biological sex," then it is gay for a man to be attracted to you. On the other hand, if you define straight as "attracted to the opposite gender," then it's not gay for a man to be attracted to you. In general, I consider gender identity > biological sex. Transphobes emphasize biology as a weapon to try and reject the existence of trans people. Additionally, the biological definition just doesn't make sense. You could have a trans woman who is indistinguishable from Beyonce. By the biological definition, that would mean thinking Beyonce is hot is gay.

 

Straight and gay men who like "au natural" trans girls are often more complicated cases. On the straight side, it can be as simple as being attracted to a woman and not having hangups about what she has in her pants. There's also a lot of fetishism, the root causes of which will vary a lot from person to person. I can speculate that some of the interest is from bi/gay men in denial, and some may have to do with an exercise in power by dominating a "man" while actually enjoying the company of a woman, but as a trans lesbian, I don't have too much insight into it.

 

A gay man is only going to be attracted to a trans woman if he views her body as male. I'm inclined to say that's disrespectful and potentially transphobic, but we have a whole spectrum of sissy/crossdresser/transvestites who identify as cis men, but dress as women." Crossdressing" was my introduction to my gender identity, and I don't blame anyone for not fully understanding the intricacies of a very complicated subject.

 

Cis women objecting to trans women calling themselves lesbians sounds really TERF-y to me. I'd be interested in hearing from someone with this viewpoint, but it seems like it's another way of saying "trans women aren't real women." I don't care if a woman isn't interested in dating me because I'm trans. I get that I'm not what everybody is looking for. Lesbian is just the clearest way of communicating who I am and what I like. I still get enough messages from men who didn't bother to read my profile, I don't need more seeing "gay" and thinking I mean from a biological definition. Back on topic, you don't really see objections to trans men since there is no male equivalent of a TERF. Women are a historically marginalized group, and groups like that often get very defensive about their culture/membership. TERFs see trans women as men trying to steal womanhood from them. Since men have never been marginalized, trans men are no threat. Also "gay" isn't actually a gendered term. Plenty of women who like women call themselves gay too.

 

On the subject of labels, you may wonder which definition is right. The answer is neither. In Ancient Greece, the philosophers had a bit of a competition to come up with the most concise definition possible of a (hu)man. Plato's definition was "featherless bipeds." Diogenes response was to pluck a chicken and run through Plato's academy, holding it up and shouting "behold, a man!" Language is a way of modeling the world around us. Definitions help us form useful categories, but they aren't absolute truths. They're just a way of projecting some order onto an inherently disorderly universe. As such, definitions are good so long as they're useful. Every branch of physical and social science with something to say on the matter has affirmed that trans men are men, and trans women are women. With all that in mind, the gender identity definition is more fair, more kind, and more useful. The only reason to use the biological definition is to exclude trans people.

Are you referring throughout to a biological definition for straight and gay? I got a little lost there (I think because the app doesn’t show some characters/symbols). I’m a little confused that you think using biological definitions is automatically transphobic when they’re what most people are (more) familiar with?

[Fen]

36 minutes ago, Curvykate said:

Are you referring throughout to a biological definition for straight and gay? I got a little lost there (I think because the app doesn’t show some characters/symbols). I’m a little confused that you think using biological definitions is automatically transphobic when they’re what most people are (more) familiar with?

I didn't say that using the biological definition is transphobic. I said that transphobes use biological definitions to deny that trans people exist. I get that a lot of people haven't thought about this, and when I'm asked "who I'm into" by friends, it comes up that they still wouldn't know who if I used the terms "straight" or "gay." Because of that confusion, USING the biological definition is not transphobic. BUT overall the biological definition is transphobic. Saying that a man who is attracted to trans women is gay is equivalent to saying that trans women are men, which is the foundation of transphobia. It would also mean that everyone who isn't ace is bi. I guarantee you any man who finds women attractive has at some point in his life seen a trans woman and thought "she's hot" without knowing what she has (or one time had) under her skirt.

 

The way most people learn the world does not include trans men and women. I don't blame them for this. It's the people whose response to trans people is "I don't believe you," and are unwilling to shift their worldview just a little bit who are transphobic.

[Deleted Member]

6 hours ago, Fen said:

I didn't say that using the biological definition is transphobic. I said that transphobes use biological definitions to deny that trans people exist. I get that a lot of people haven't thought about this, and when I'm asked "who I'm into" by friends, it comes up that they still wouldn't know who if I used the terms "straight" or "gay." Because of that confusion, USING the biological definition is not transphobic. BUT overall the biological definition is transphobic. Saying that a man who is attracted to trans women is gay is equivalent to saying that trans women are men, which is the foundation of transphobia. It would also mean that everyone who isn't ace is bi. I guarantee you any man who finds women attractive has at some point in his life seen a trans woman and thought "she's hot" without knowing what she has (or one time had) under her skirt.

 

The way most people learn the world does not include trans men and women. I don't blame them for this. It's the people whose response to trans people is "I don't believe you," and are unwilling to shift their worldview just a little bit who are transphobic.

Thank you for the clarification. I understand better. I did have to look up ace though!