Sexuality labels gone too far?

About the only nit I have with your argument is this piece. "Filler" isn't a great term, since there is a lot in common between you and a chimp that needs to be expressed somewhere in the DNA. Things like how different types of cells work, gestation, hair, skin, etc. The reason so much is the same, is that so much is the same. The junk DNA concept has been getting roundly debunked for a while now. While there is a lot of Noncoding DNA, it seems that it all still serves various purposes that took time for us to understand.

This piece of the OP is phrased as if it is a bad thing, but I don't think it actually is. Being gay is an experience that someone who is straight simply lacks. So without using a common frame of reference to explain it, if someone has never heard of that meaning of the word gay, they would be confused by you. I don't see these people's labels as anything different than that. They are trying to describe a certain life experience around their sexual attractions that you don't share. And it can be confusing, but that's okay.

To use a car analogy, the concept of an "SUV" is relatively new. If I drag someone from say, the 70s, and tell them about my new SUV, they will act confused. They may not even know I'm talking about a car at first, despite knowing what a car is. Without creating that shared mental concept, language does fail at its job quite spectacularly.

Now, can people latch onto an idea in a somewhat unhealthy way in order to comfort themselves, or avoid dealing with mental trauma, etc? Sure. But I don't think there's any reason to get too up in arms about this, but rather finding out about this different experience is a good way to learn more about human behavior at the very least. Especially when libido and arousal is one axis of sexuality that is currently not well understood, to my knowledge.

 

I think part of the reasons why they exist is because everyone assumes that specific sexualities only work in one way. Thus people avoid that label by finding a more detailed one.

 

When I first saw all this modern labels, I found some of them ridiculous. I hadn't heard of half of them, but not because I wasn't educated but because some of them only seem to be a thing in English speaking countries. They just don't exist in the German language!

I would be what some people call a heteroromantic bisexual and while I'm greatful that I found this term - because it made me realize that there's more to bisexuality then I thought and that sexual and romantic attraction don't have to go hand in hand - I would never come out to others as a heteroromantic bisexual. I'm bisexual. Period!

For me, the heteroromantic part is just...I'm not sure how to describe it. It's just part of my preferences. Like: I like guys with dark hair. Or: I like femmes. But I would never say: I'm a femme-amorous bisexual.

And some of the modern labels are just like that. They pretty much describe a hetero/gay/bi/trans person with a certain preference. There are some labels I get because they don't fall under any of the "main" labels. Asexual, for example. Or pansexual (which is NOT = bisexual, thank you very much!). But there are some I don't get like androsexuality. According to the definition "Androphilia is an attraction primarily toward men or masculine-inclined people.". Or sapiosexuality which "is a sexual orientation where the primary feature that one finds attractive is intelligence, rather than appearance or body." This is what I tried to explain earlier, I like feminine women but that doesn't make me a femmesexual! I have to admit that I even have trouble understanding the necessity of the label demisexual. I've noticed that some people here use that label and I'm really sorry. I kind of think of demisexuals as an ideal. This is what teachers tell us in sex ed, what you read in teen magazines. This is what I learned growing up: That you can't feel sexual attraction toward someone without being romantically attached.

I really don't wanna offend anyone. I'm glad that people are trying to find a label for a certain group of people because this is actually important for some. But I have to agree, somewhere on the way it just got really ridiculous.

Exactly! I don't think that it's just a special snowflake thing though yeah, some of it probably is. For a long time I felt the need to justify what I feel. That I'm still a bisexual for example, even though I prefer one gender for a romantic relationship. Many people don't know about the many faces of bisexuality, that it doesn't mean that you have to be equally interested in men and women (yes, I'm aware that bisexuality covers more than just those two genders but for me it's men and women). And I guess that labels like this are just one way to prove to others that we exist, there's more of us, these feelings I have are a thing!

 

My thoughts let's get rid of most labels and have this:
Androsexual- sole attraction to males (regardless of your gender)
Gynosexul- sole attraction to females (regardless of your gender)
Bisexual
Pansexual
Asexual
Any one got any other suggestions for changes to that list?

 

Well, here's the part of my argument that seemed to have been missed. Even terms we use today had altered meanings, or simply weren't even a concept at some point in the past. We develop language to describe concepts. Nouns/labels as metaphor. It will never pop out fully-formed and understood by all.

So, having folks trying to craft the language and share it means we are delving into these issues as a society. And we don't yet know what to make of it. It may be something, it may be nothing, but shutting it down before we have the chance to explore the idea because it isn't a metaphor we are aware of yet isn't really a good argument.

But the confusion to me is okay, because it is a sign that we are exploring more, and policing less. If there wasn't any confusion around new language, I'd be concerned.

So, some of this is an indictment of the behavior of individuals, rather than of the label itself.

Let me ask you this, what if you had zero libido? No sex drive at all? But you still were attracted to men in general. Would you be asexual? gay? asexual & gay? But does gay imply sex drive? Why or why not? How would you describe yourself to someone else?

Some of how this will play out is how language on the whole evolves throughout society, and not at the whims of the people introducing new language, or the people being asked to accept it. So for me, again, it's okay, even if it winds up being wrong.

Now again, there can always be other issues at play. I occasionally wind up in contact with an individual, whom if I remember correctly, has Asperger's. They also veer into "otherkin" territory. So it is genuinely difficult to get a good grasp on this person at times. However, it isn't exactly my business to start policing them on this either. It wouldn't do any good even if I did.

I'm also a bit curious what your beef is here. Are you concerned about how their behavior might reflect on you, inadvertently? Or are you concerned they are hurting themselves, and would rather they didn't? Something else?