But doesn't that make traps inherently ***, because once you realise their true identity, it becomes ***. Therefore in an all-knowing reality, traps are ***.
well, no this is inherently a problem with labels because sexuality is a spectrum instead of an absolute. Defining homosexuality as a person's sexual interest towards one's own sex, we could assume a person that's *** to be attracted to a broad spectrum of their sex. Sure there'll be preferences making some traits more preferable than others to people. But nah these people may not actually be "attracted to their own sex". If a trap isn't revealed to be a guy, then people assume that person is a female because of their feminine traits. Once that person is figured out, some may be turned and others will be okay. Yet, there are people that are okay with it that do not find any attraction to men whatsoever. So what is driving their arousal? I argue that we could see people as attracted to femininity as opposed to "attracted to women", and people have varying reactions upon realizing a person is a trap because of everybody's own social construct of what masculinity and femininity is
While femininity is what inherently attracts "straight" men, I'd say for me the cut is if she/he has a ****** or not. Being attracted to someone with a *****, in my opinion, is what makes someone ***. Doesn't matter how feminine or how masculine the person with a ***** is, if you're attracted to him and his *****, you're ***.
as i said, thinking with labels is detrimental to a spectral system of sexuality. But if you wanna think in categories, there is still a flaw in the way you're thinking. There are more than 2 sexes you know; at the extremes are male and female but in between is intersex, with people that are born with varying combinations of their sex organs and hormones. So for a person with both organs, what would you consider somebody attracted to them? Your definitions of straight and *** fall off here (going off the definition being attracted to someone with a ***** is *** and the implied opposite of being attracted to somebody with a ****** is straight). What about somebody born without any distinct sexual organs? Is somebody attracted to them considered nothing? I brought up people that are intersex because although they are uncommon, they do give insight into how the mind acts when the binary is broken. There's a social aspect in sexuality and to just dismiss somebody's complex attractions and orientations based on one organ is foolish
There are 3 sexes, male, female, and those in between. If they have both and you're attracted to that, then you're bisexual. There isn't a spectrum. If they don't have either, then your relationship doesn't fall into straight, ***, or bisexual. Your relationship isn't based on sex, therefore your relationship cannot be defined as such, and in the end it doesn't apply to you. The reasons labels exist is to display complex ideas and objects as simply as possible. There is nothing wrong with using labels. Labelling someone by what they are, even if they dislike it, is not wrong either.
the usage of labels aids in simplicity, yeah, but then you are simplifying the complicated subject. Also, you can broadly define intersex as an umbrella term but you cannot consider it a category on the same scale as male or female because, again, biological systems vary greatly. To say somebody that is attracted to a person that is intersex is bisexual is silly; as I said earlier, they may find attraction in this person but finds no attraction in males. Also, to say a relationship with somebody without any sexual organs isn't based on sex isn't true, unless you were strictly talking about sex in biological makeup; but even then, sexual relationships are defined by sexual interactions, are they not? So why would this relationship be excluded from a definition? What is it considered when that couple engages in sex?
Intersex is an abnormality and while it may have more variations, it isn't on the same level of significance as male and female and therefore allows it to be moved under the umbrella term. There is nothing silly about labelling someone as bisexual when they are clearly attracted to both organ types. Just because they're only attracted to them when they're together doesn't change anything. They're still bisexual. Sexuality is completely defined by the type of sex performed. It doesn't have to do with other characteristics. Only the genitalia. If you can't have sex, because of an absence of said sex organ, and you perfer this type of relationship, then you don't have a Sexuality, but a sort of anti-sexuality.
1) you're trying to invalidate other peoples' lives with that statement 2) sexuality isn't linked specifically/directly to the organ itself 3) you can have sex without sexual organs
i'd continue the argument but idk that number 3 makes me think you're just playing devil's advocate for everything so it is d r o p p e d
I'll admit that I do like to play devil's advocate, but the majority of my statements were my true opinions, but I like debating these topics, as long as they don't become heated to the point that it becomes something less than a debate.
#2. Yes it is. Why do you think transsexual people are called transsexual?They go from having one set of sex organs to the next. Why are heterosexuals called heterosexuals? Because they're into the sex organs that are analogous to their own. Why are homosexuals called homosexuals? Because they're into the same set of sexual organs as their own. Ex: If you're a heterosexual guy and you're into a woman but then that woman tells you she was really a dude that got a surgery, then you're not gonna be interested cause really what they have is a butchered up ****. Why are bisexual people called bisexual? Because they're into both dicks and cunts. #3. No, you can't. You can probably do a rimjob or **** on some nipples. (if you define that as sex then sure why not) But intercourse most commonly referred to as just "sex" is not possible without a ***** and or ******. This includes fellatio and cunnilingus.
