Lesser-known gender identities/sexualities, and all others

So it gets annoying to keep repeating the same stuff over and over but, in the interest of ensuring that people reading the thread get accurate information:

-- Among the tens of thousands of studies that have looked at human sexual behavior, nearly all of the attributes described in the various unrecognized identities have been addressed.

-- Many, perhaps most, are highly correlated with psychological issues and are more properly categorized on that spectrum. This is true of many of the described attributes (though they vary depending on who you ask... the whole problem with these labels) including the "demi" "grey", "lithro", and various others.

-- Others in that category are described in the literature as normal variations within the greater (bi, homo, hetero) identities.

You can't prove a negative. However, when you have looked at virtually every attribute of human sexuality over tens of thousands of studies, and the very attributes that are being described as belonging to special labels have already been discussed and categorized within existing labels, it's hard to make a case, based on the research that's there, that these things warrant special or unique identification. We don't call someone "blond-o-sexual" because they are only attracted to blonds, though there are plenty of people who *are* only attracted to blonds. Basically, the same thing applies here.

All of that said, everyone is still absolutely free to, and welcomed to, label themselves using absolutely any label, be it gray- demi- or whatever your heart may desire that is helpful to you.

Just don't expect that there's much of any acceptance of those labels, or that anyone other than a tiny group of people categorize them as anything other than normal variances on already existing labels, or that anyone outside of these tiny groups will have any idea what you're talking about. If none of that bothers you... then nobody I know of has any argument.

 

Hey everyone,

After some internal discussion, we have decided to close this thread.

As we have said here multiple times, everyone is welcome on EC and everyone is absolutely free to label themselves with any label.

However, for the sake of good scientific information, we need to point out that many labels aren't recognized by science, and that there isn't any study or proof about them. We need to do that not on the intention of offending or invalidating anyone, but because these labels may confuse people who are questioning.

Unfortunately, the thread became too heated, so it is best to end this discussion here.