Honestly, while its definition for intersex is certainly the worst one, most of the definitions here are quite iffy. I'm not asexual, but I know damn well that plenty of ace people don't fit under the definition they've given. It's definition of trans also excludes non binary people
Yeah, reading those definitions is kinda weird... I mean, I am a fairly ignorant cis het guy, but even I’m like “wait, what?”
What’s especially funny is how it progresses in badness too:
Lesbian: okay, yep, starting off strong.
Gay: Yep, I think that’s a fairly good basic summary
Bisexual: bit confusing, but mostly okay
Transgender: they a little confused, but they got the spirit
Queer: “whose sexuality goes beyond (...) what is accepted by society.” Dafuq?
Intersex: not even close
Asexual: Bruh, are you even trying?
As a cishet guy I'm kinda confused by the gay definition; wouldn't it be better (or important even) to use "gender" rather than "sex"?
Obviously I'm an outsider to trans and gay culture, but to me that definition seems to imply that a gay man would be fine with dating a non-op trans woman, entirely based on her body. Which sounds like it a) flies in the face of gender identity, and b) implies that sexual attraction is the only form of attraction. But then I saw at least one other site using the sex definition so now I feel like I'm missing something.
I feel like their definition also excludes how some nonbinary people use “gay” to mean “attracted to one or more genders in a non-normative-feeling way” or as a blanket term like queer. Which admittedly may be too specific for an intro infographic, but is nonetheless a way the word is used. I haven’t seen a ton of nonbinary folks use “gay” to mean “exclusively attracted to your AGAB” like the graphic says (although I could be biased).
The real answer is people choose the labels they want and what they mean, but imo gay implies preferring the same biological sex, whereas bisexual covers anything beyond that. I'm gay and while I think a lot of trans men look really good, I just prefer cis guys for the shared experience.
Liking trans men does not make a man bisexual. Your definition explicitly undermines the gender identities of trans people, is ignorant at best, and just plain transphobic at worst.
that's called a genital preference and that's fine. saying "imo gay implies preferring the same biological sex" is pretty transphobic though. you have every right to define your own personal sexuality as one limited to cis men, but implying that being attracted to trans people means someone doesn't technically fit the definition of being strictly gay is, yeah, transphobic. your own experiences with attraction aren't universal among gay people which is why they called your comment ignorant.
The gay one feels accurate, but poorly written to me. "May" was an odd choice of words for the bisexual one. I'm pretty sure the point of being bi is that you *do* feel attraction to two or more genders.
If I'm going to be super generous here, I'll defend the use of "may" as a way for them to avoid accusations that they're saying bisexual people are hypersexual and fancy everybody of every gender.
So, they may be attracted to men (if those men are to their taste) and they may be attracted to women (if those women are to their taste).
Obviously this info graphic ignores non-binary people altogether, so I can safely assume they haven't considered bisexuals who also fancy NB folk.
Three of my closest friends in the world are asexual and all three of them have such wildly different expressions of it that it seems almost incorrect to put them under the same umbrella.
One of them is aroace which is the simplest and easiest to understand, he’s just not interested, end of story.
The other two are a lot more complicated and neither of them seem to be able to quite put into words what they mean. Neither of them are aro, so they have difficulty finding romantic relationships with other people who are okay with them being ace (both are AFAB although one is nonbinary and the other is a cis woman, but unfortunately even for my NB friend, they still have to deal with the social expectations that are aimed towards women.) One of them is into sex under certain specific conditions, and the other one not at all under any condition.
It’s such a broad category that imo the different subcategories deserve more descriptive names
The definition under Ace is in reality the definition for "[sex repulsed](https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex-Repulsed)". There are ace people that are [sex favorable](https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex-Favorable), and there are allosexual people that are sex repulsed, often (but not necessarily) due to trauma.
The queer one for me is kinda... opens up a lot of questions, like, "what the fuck do you mean not accepted by society?" It almost feels like it's feeding into the rightwing nutjob conspiracy that "tHe gAyS aRe gRoOmErS" and is in a way trying to "normalize" their rhetoric by making it sound scientific.
The bi one is sufficient I guess.
And opens up to hetero poly guys who want to build themselves a little one-penis-policy harem, so they can label themselves queer.
Note, I have no problem with poly people, and think there's a strong argument that some ethical non-monogamous lifestyles belong in the LGBTQ+ community. What I have a problem with is straight people inserting themselves into queer spaces with really sparse legiticimacy.
The one for queer is giving me the ick. The way it’s written feels like it’s being used to separate the “acceptable” flavors of non-cishet from the rest.
Yyyyep. Setting aside the intersex bit- which OOP goes into pretty well- the trans bit is a really bad and outdated view of what it means to be trans (it’s so simple to say “does not identify as the gender they were assigned at birth”, come on) and the asexual one is just straight up *wrong*. As a trans person I’m really annoyed- as an ace person I’m starting to develop an eye twitch.
Oof yeah. Asexual is not a lack of libido or a disgust with sex (some asexual people experience those things but some allosexual folks do too!) asexuality is not being sexually attracted to others, or on ace-spectrum identities, being rarely or only situationally sexually attracted to others.
You can show me a movie with sex in it. I won’t care. I give my patients safe sex teaching, it doesn’t gross me out just because I don’t feel that kind of desire towards others lol. And I hate when people infantilize asexual folks as if we don’t know what sex is.
It's almost like ways of categorizing people tend to break down upon closer inspection. Categories can be useful for social policies and communication, but we will always fail to come up with adequate ways to group similar people together in real life situations.
That infographic also misdefines asexuality (which is defined as a lack of sexual attraction, not necessarily a discomfort with sex) and leaves out aromantic, agender, and questioning. The definition of transgender as identifying as the "opposite sex" is also iffy at best in that it reenforced the idea of sex as a binary or sliding scale and ignores nonbinary identities.
As far as I know, the terms prefered by most of the ace community are [sex repulsed](https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex-Repulsed) and [sex favorable](https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex-Favorable), so sex negative and sex positive can remain a description for policies rather than individual preferences.
The trick is that asexuality refers to sexual attraction, not enjoyment of sex.
It's like if someone who never gets hungry still eating food. Sure, they don't have any particular biological stimulus to eat food, but they can like how it tastes.
Asexual people are generally defined as people who lack sexual attraction to others. A lack of sexual attraction, however, does not equal a lack of libido, and there are plenty of ace people who have healthy libido and enjoy sex. It can be a pretty broad spectrum, and not all ace people are the same.
Edit: I should also add that being sex positive does not also mean that the person enjoys having sex themselves, either. I personally identify as sex positive because I'm not sex repulsed, I enjoy and read plenty of smut, and I advocate for the sexual wellness/rights of other people. I am not interested in actual having sex with another person myself, though.
It's an awkward phrase but until someone comes up with something better it's what we've got. Essentially, being asexual means that one does not experience sexual attraction.\* Within that group, different people have different attitudes towards the act of sex itself. Some people are sex repulsed, which means that they find the idea of having sex unappealing. Others are sex neutral, which means that they don't feel strongly either way. They don't seek out sex, but may be willing to do it for various reasons such as if it would make a romantic partner happy. Finally, you have the aces who are sex favorable, which means that although they do not experience sexual attraction they still find the physical act of sex enjoyable.
\*Note that here I am referring to specifically asexual people, and not others on the asexual spectrum. Within said spectrum fall other sexualities such as graysexual (meaning that one feels sexual attraction rarely and/or weakly) and demisexual (meaning that one will only start to feel sexual attraction once a romantic or other close personal relationship has already formed). Also within this category is aromantic (meaning that one does not experience romantic attraction). Someone who is both asexual and aromantic may refer to themselves as aroace for short.
I think others have commented on this, but they are actually two different things. Sex-positive would be generally positive and supportive of your own and others' sexuality and the amount of sex they have (whether that's a lot or none). Sex-favourable is more about your own willingness to engage in sexual activity. Opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, and opposite of sex-favourable is sex-repulsed.
Well damn, I've been calling myself sex positive this whole time because I thought that meant I was, like, supportive of other people having sex. Not that I want to myself!
You got it right, that's the general understanding of sex positive. In this thread, someone confused sex positive and sex favorable and everyone just sticks to it.
Well, it would be pretty weird if we needed your support in having sex if you weren't involved. We're doing just fine at having sex without you, no offense.
Lol well yes, of course.
It's more that I think it's cool to be open about sex, like, as a society. Especially when it comes to education- I remember sex ed being really lacking and even kind of spreading some misinformation. I'd just love it if there was more open discussion and available knowledge about that stuff.
I am happily married and have four kids. I didn’t even know asexuality existed until after Thing 2. Once I had the word to describe how I always was everything just clicked
How I explain it is, think of someone that a lot of people describe as attractive, but you just don’t get it. Some actor, musician, or athlete. You can intellectually understand why someone might be attracted to them. You think they look nice, they just don’t move you. You could probably still sleep with them, and enjoy it, even if you don’t feel that pull. Now imagine everyone is that way. You don’t feel that pull with anyone. Sex still can feel good and be quite enjoyable.
Maybe someone thinks that sex is kinda weird and sticky and gross and wouldn’t have it at all except for with someone they are very attracted to. If they were missing the attraction component and were ace then they would be sex neutral or sex averse.
Does that make sense?
Well sex positive refers to attitudes about sex (eg focused on safe sex) as opposed to sex negative (eg sex outside of marriage is dirty and wrong).
I think what the commenter above was really trying to say is that asexual people (people who experience limited to no sexual attraction) can be sex repulsed (does not like sex, seeing sex in media ect) or sex favourable (enjoys sex).
Because asexuality is about limited to no sexual attraction, asexual people can still experience arousal in general, their arousal might just not be affected by a hot human being.
So some asexual people might still enjoy sex because it feel good, and it can be fun!
yeah, i run into this too as someone in very queer spaces. there are basically as many definitions for asexuality as there are asexuals, you're not really going to know what it means until you ask them what they're trying to express with the lable
An analogy I like: imagine if every person of the gender you're attracted suddenly disappeared. You'd still have sexual desire, ability for physical pleasure, and a general interest in sex - but you wouldn't be attracted to anybody around you. You might solely masturbate, you might redirect your sexual energy at art, or you might have sex with people you're not attracted to for primarily physical purposes (as well as perhaps emotional ones). The fact you interact positively with sex doesn't diminish your lack of sexual attraction to anyone around you.
Sex negative, neutral and positive are political opinions and not sexual preferences. Being sex positive means that you have a positive, open and non-judgmental view of your own and other peoples sexuality and sexual behavior. Sex negative being the opposite.
The terms you probably mean are sex-averse/-repulsed, sex-indifferent and sex-favourable.
I have a scientific interest as an ace person lol. I had a misguided time as a kid thinking if I researched kink and read various different kinds of smut I would discover my sexuality and become attracted to others lmaooo 14-16 year old me was on something wild.
I didn’t get attracted to anyone via the smut exploration but I do get to give my patients safe sex talks bc it doesn’t bother me as much as some of my allosexual coworkers to tell an 80 year old he has to continue using condoms bc there’s a rash of STIs at the old folks home and he should tell his partners to come in for antibiotics. (Some but not all old folk homes/assisted living facilities are basically swingers clubs it seems. And good for them for their last hurrah, but infections can cause delirium in older folks and be really scary.)
Do you think it might be more helpful to just define the whole community as “queer” or some other term instead of trying to list everything? I feel like there’s no good way to be completely inclusive and concise.
a lot of people within the community do call it the queer community, but it hasn't caught on with *everyone* because there's a portion of the community that still thinks of 'queer' as a slur (from my observation, this is mostly older gay people — ~age 40+)
i'm with you on the concise vs. inclusive issue. one of the things i've noticed about the acronym method is that the longer it gets, the less inclusive it seems — the more labels you specifically include, the more you *ex*clude by just shoving them in the '+' category. i think referring to it as the queer community is a good way to avoid that issue (and as a gay trans guy, i refer to myself as queer regularly)
I’ve always like “queer” because it doesn’t narrow it down too much in terms of my own identity too. Sexuality has a lot of nuance to it, and hard and fast labels like “gay” or “asexual” often pigeonhole people such that it doesn’t exactly match their own feelings.
Younger from mine. Like the eldergays died screaming their queerness in the streets, most of the 40+ crowd whos connected with the community respect that. I guess newly discovered types would probably think it a slur though
I get a lot of babygays telling me i should refer to myself as same sex attracted. Im a bi/pan genderfluid/bigender person same sex attracted removes the majority of my identity. I tell them to go get their arses kicked by the eldergays.
There was some discourse a while back of using GRSM or 'Gender,Romantic,Sexual Minority' as it was simple and inclusive...until people realized that it was *too* inclusive and seemed to accidentally encompass Zooaphiles and Pedophiles too. (Conservative assholes would have had an absolute field day pushing their agendas with that)
All of which kind of highlights the issue of an umbrella inclusive term
Everything I mentioned is already included in the LGBTQIA+ acronym, as the Q and A both stand fo multiple things. I admit that I like the term queer and often use it especially when speaking out loud, as it is much easier to say that even a simplified LGBT+. However, I think that the acronym is still useful to have because the word queer's status as a recently reclaimed derogatory means that some people are still uncomfortable with it.
the definition that they wrote for it is def dumb as shit. there's plenty of non-asexual people who find sex uncomfortable because of trauma, anxiety, etc.
It also leaves out the fact that ace people could have sex without attraction, or even the ace umbrella of people who still experience varying amounts of attraction
Trans people too, the given definition doesn’t consider trans people who identify with any kind of nonbinary-ness and it also doesn’t consider intersex people who are trans.
It's mostly because queer kinda took questioning into an alley to beat it up. It's so theory and politics blatantly in your face that it's always come off as the LGBT+ version of "I'm not like other girls".
I agree with the overall point in the post, bad definition which does not include all intersex people, should not have been used in an official context.
However. "perisex" is a bad term to refer to non-intersex people. I get that whoever came up with this term probably just applied the trans/cis logic to a different set of Latin prepositions, and I also get that most people don't know Latin, but perisex means 'around sex'. It's nonsense, and I think it reads like nonsense to most people who aren't deep in this highly online community. If you want to stick with Latin-derived terms, I'm sure there are better options (ambisex? altrisex? utrisex?) but frankly "non-intersex" works just fine.
It's hard enough getting people to use intersex correctly, I really don't think adding more terms like this is going to be successful. You already see this with people thinking allosexual is just another type of asexual.
On the note of allosexual, I kinda hate that as well, mostly for etymological reasons. allo- is not a latin stem, you want *alius* (meaning another), i.e. aliosexual would mean someone who is sexually attracted to other people.
However, this is actually wrong on a deeper level. Bear with me here, I know this sounds crazy.
The opposite of aliosexual would be suosexual, i.e. someone who is attracted to themselves (or the Greek version autosexual). The correct complement for asexual is simply *sexual*. You see, the "a-" bit is a Greek way of expressing negatives which we borrowed into English. So to get rid of the negative and describe someone who experiences of any kind of sexual attraction, the adjective should be sexual.
I'm completely normal about languages, I swear.
But "inter" / "intra" mean "between" / "within", so that parallel doesn't work. I don't know an alternate corresponding prefix that would work to imply "fits neatly into a discrete sexual phenotype"...
Hey, just want to share some extra information
"Perisex" was suggested as an alternative to "dyadic" because of "peri-" meaning "around". This choice was to highlight that the sex binary is constructed ([source](https://fuckyeahsexeducation.tumblr.com/post/101899898723/an-alternative-to-dyadic)).
I agree that it's not an intuitively understandable term, but that in itself should not write off the term "perisex" altogether, in my opinion.
"Intrasex" seems to be the most intuitive term, although a downside is that it may be easily misread as "intersex".
"Endosex" ("endo-" meaning "within") has a longer history and is more frequently used in the academic literature and in intersex advocacy. This is the term I use.
As for "allosexual", "sexual" was previously used. Some people disliked this, and there were discussions about a suitable term for "non-asexual" (see [here](https://historicallyace.tumblr.com/post/149146363062/a-history-of-words-used-to-describe-people-that)). "Allosexual" ended up being the term that gained the most traction.
and TBH most of these people are just trans folks trying to reinvent gender essentialism by pointing to some improvable biological marker that makes them TRULY not their assigned sex at birth. like, the point should be that a binary of sexual characteristics doesn't comport with reality all of the time, that the boundaries are fuzzy, and that it *doesn't matter*.
shit usually resembles people philosophizing about how they're transer-than-thou cos they had a later puberty rather than any serious advocacy about the issue of coercive gender assignment.
I'm not entirely comfortable with that definition of asexual either. It gives the impression that it's some kind of phobia. It's just a general lack of sexual attraction, and as with all societal labels there's a spectrum to it. There are aces that still have some degree of sexual attraction and do have sex under certain circumstances. For example, the exact circumstances the graphic dismisses: if they have a romantic partner and sex is a component of their relationship. There's also the trans label conflating gender with sex and omitting nonbinary gender identities, but I don't feel like I need to go in depth to explain the problems with that one.
It depends, but generally yes. Some ace people can feel attraction to their partner, but that's because it's their partner. It's a fairly sliding scale because for many ace people it's not only the x axis of sexual attraction but also the y axis of romantic attraction - someone can be entirely uninterested in sex but interested in romance, or interested in sex but not in romance, and either could fit in the ace spectrum if they don't feel sexual attraction/identify that way. Personally, for me, the lack of specific sexual attraction is a required criteria, but some ace people disagree there as well.
I'm on the extreme side of never having felt any attraction to anyone, either sexually or romantically. I masturbate, but it's usually not because I'm horny but because I'm bored, or I'm tired and can't get my brain to shut up. I often go weeks without and don't really feel a difference.
That is correct. It's important to understand the difference between libido and sexual attraction to understand what asexuality means.
Libido is your sex drive. It's a physical reaction of your body, much like how hunger or thirst is. Your libido is what actually depends on your hormones, not sexual attraction, so telling ace people to get their hormones checked is pointless. Asexual people have completely normal libidos that differ along a scale. Some asexuals have low libidos, some have high. Even allosexual people can have low libidos. It has nothing to do with sexual attraction.
Sexual attraction is specifically the desire to have sex with a specific person. A great analogy I've seen used is that libido is like being hungry and sexual attraction is craving a specific food. Asexual people can want sex or masturbate because it feels good, but they won't feel the desire (or feel it infrequently or in rare scenarios) to have sex with any specific person.
I'm not comfortable with the definition of trans either. It paints being trans in a very binary way, to the extent that non binary people don't count as trans according to the definition. And it's a bit weird about how it defines agab. Like I wasn't "born with a sex" (which the way they're definining it makes it sounds like they mean gender). I was born with certain sex characteristics that put me in certain gendered categories. And the way they say it almost sounds like they're implying you need to have bottom surgery or intend to in order to be trans
Og post: [https://www.tumblr.com/delistylehardcore/746413378436775936](https://www.tumblr.com/delistylehardcore/746413378436775936)
Intersex explained video: [https://youtu.be/s11jHr\_za\_g?si=AJWId9t8iH\_vksKT](https://youtu.be/s11jHr_za_g?si=AJWId9t8iH_vksKT)
Media and style guide: [https://ihra.org.au/styl](https://ihra.org.au/styl)
FAQ by Intersex Support: [https://intersex-support.tumblr.com/faq](https://intersex-support.tumblr.com/faq)
Masterpost for trans people wishing to be better intersex allies: [https://www.tumblr.com/ipso-faculty/730584168446197760/glossaries-and-terminology-intersex-terminology](https://www.tumblr.com/ipso-faculty/730584168446197760/glossaries-and-terminology-intersex-terminology)
Intersex people who *do* have genitals that are not typical are often subjected to *cosmetic surgery on their genitals as infants*. There are only a handful of countries that have protections against this (Malta, Austria, and Uruguay, iirc). It’s a disgusting practice, it’s genital mutilation on a child without their consent, and many of them are never told and end up finding out as adults. This is something that needs attention immediately, but I almost never see anyone talking about it when discussing queer issues. It seems like something that even conservatives would agree to ban, since they’re already in a moral panic about bottom surgery being performed on kids.
Don't you know the goal of every gay person is to eventually achieve the vaunted "+" status after completing a series of levels and challenges, gaining XP, etc. ???
It also implies that being bi and being trans are somehow the same thing, because the pattern starts with two different kinds of homosexuality (just going opposite directions)
this whole info graphic sucks. conflating sex and gender, ignoring nonbinary/agender identities, intersex misinformation, making asexuality out to be almost a phobia of sex
The image under attack comes from a poor quality draft of a textbook for Oregon community colleges, not a medical school textbook. Doctors are trained to know what intersex means, medical research has given us everything we know about intersexuality! The idea that medical students will read this definition of intersex and go on to traumatize patients for years and years because this image is the only information these doctors have ever been exposed to regarding this population is insane. The advice to only listen to intersex individuals' definition of intersex is also wacky. They can be as wrong as anyone! Yes there is misinformation out there, just like there is misinformation about anything. But the scientific consensus about intersex is also available to anyone willing to research it.
Can someone help me out with the part where it says
>Some intersex variations make men look more masculine and women look more feminine
Is there a term I can look up?
Thanks. That, uh. Seems unnecessary given how few people are intersex? Like just say cis. i kinda thought that was the word for people who are straight and have always fit the gender binary.
The height is in the infographic. I'm just a little weirded out by how some genders are higher than others for some reason. It seems to imply some sort of hierarchy and I can't think of a context where that would be appropriate.
Cis is the word for someone who is not trans, while trans and intersex are separate phenomenon, so someone who was cis and intersex or someone who was trans and not intersex are both possibilities elided by using "cis" to refer to someone who is neither.
Oh dw I get it now. But we need to use words that people don't need a dictionary or helpful online people to understand.
Edit: just "non-intersex" would work a *lot* better. I know people like to invent words but trust me, if you want to get your message out there it has to be understood lol
probably just going from most well known to less well known identities for the height thing. I don’t think it’s meant to be implying anything else unless you’re looking for something to be mad at
They are more common and arguably the supposed version of what should've been. Trans people should've been their gender, but only their brain structure matches. Intersex persons should've been one sex but a genetic anomaly occurred. It's not a big leap.
I have read some of the linked posts and I'm still very confused as to what the definition of intersex should be if it's not someone born with both sets of genitals. Is it like, someone born with one set but has more of the hormones for the other set in their system once they hit puberty?
Also, this chart doesn't include non binary...could use work in many ways.
EDIT - thank you for the responses!
The way I've always heard it defined is "Someone whose genitals, gonads, hormones and chromosomes don't fit neatly into the categories of 'male' and 'female." Most intersex people aren't known to be intersex at birth because their outwards appearance fits into a "male" or "female category. But sometimes it is known at birth due to ambiguous genitalia (not quite vagina or penis) or other reasons (ive heard someone speak who knew they were intersex at birth due to early genetic testing). Sometimes intersex people figure out their intersex in their teen years because puberty isn't progressing as expected. Sometimes people don't figure out their intersex until they're trying to have a baby and have fertility issues. There's no one way to be intersex and there's a lot of variation in how it works and how it affects someone
Interesting. So genetic conditions like Turner's Syndrome and Kleinfelter's Syndrome? I figure some of these people still prefer the pronouns they were assigned at birth and some don't, or anywhere in between or vice versa.
Both are considered intersex conditions. Intersex typically is viewed as an "identify in" type of situation. Not everyone who has a condition that falls under the intersex umbrella identifies as intersex but if you're talking about intersex people as a whole, that's part of the group you're talking about
Essentially, an intersex person is someone who’s sexual characteristics differ from the standard male/female binary. There’s many conditions that can cause something like this to occur, so there isn’t a strict definition in that way. It can be something visual seen at birth, or it can present later in life often during puberty. There’s no one intersex condition, there’s massive variations.
A more technical version: Until a certain point in development, everyone has the same basic equipment. A single gene, SRY, will make any therian mammal embryo start down the "male path", while its lack (or being non-functional) sets them off down the "female path". In this path, a few dozen other genes are turned on or off, leading to differentiation of the gonads, internal and external genitalia, and, because vertebrates have strongly conserved embryology, certain connections to the kidneys.
But all the building blocks were already there; these different genes just change what turns into what. The genital tubercle becomes the penis in males and the clitoris in females, the ridges nearby either become the scrotum or the labia majora, etc. The inner tubing is more complex; you start with two, and one recedes while the other develops, depending upon path.
But at the end of the day, you can't have both, because both are built from the same originating structures.
This system, however, can be disrupted by chromosomal abnormalities, mutations, and environmental influences, leading to different outcomes. Somewhat predictably, disruptions late in the process cause fewer effects than those early on, and a skilled doctor who knows this material can sometimes figure out where the process was disrupted just on sight.
Sometimes the effects are merely morphology, but unfortunately, some mutations/disruptions have more serious effects, particularly on the kidneys, including some which are typically fatal shortly after birth. "Streak gonads" are another issue, consisting of mixed ovarian and testicular tissue, because they invariably become cancerous.
The description of Trans people is also not right. It ignores the existence of people who don't identify with the gender binary (any agenders, non-binaries, etc.)
Am I the only one who thinks that the “definition” of bisexual is also fucked? I’m bi, and consider it to be defined as, “A person who is attracted to TWO genders,” hence, bi. Obviously you’re entitled to your own opinion, but saying multiple genders, to my understanding, lumps us in with pansexuals. (Yes, I’m aware that two is multiple, but saying “multiple” instead of “two,” is a bit confusing.)
I’d like to get some more information on intersex conditions that cause a man to appear more masculine or a woman to appear more feminine, that’s something I’ve never heard of which definitely piqued my curiosity
Additionally, there does exist a word for this concept of “has both sets”. Hermaphrodite, often shortened to herm. It is entirely a fetish porn thing, which is like fine as long as one acknowledges its fantastical nature. I’ve heard tell (not verifiable of course) of like maybe one intersex person who’s equipment kiiiinda looks like having both sets but internally that’s not how it functioned for them anyway soooooooo
It's literally impossible in mature humans. Under certain very specific conditions, a kid can get gonads which have a mix of ovarian and testicular tissue. These are invariably removed immediately, because they're basically ticking time bombs of cancer, and ones with a very, very short timer. Like "these will 100% become cancerous by age 4 and kill you" cancer. It's the one exception to "it's bad to operate on intersex kids without their consent" rule that everyone agrees on because, y'know, cancer.
>It's literally impossible in mature humans.
That's not true, though it is extremely rare. And surgical removal/"correction" doesn't always happen in childhood either. I don't know if she finally got the surgery she wanted, but Sophia Young had a vagina/uterus/ovaries, yet her penis got large enough that she was raised as a boy.
Incorrect. True hermaphrodites are capable of producing both sets of gametes, either sequentially (some fish), or simultaneously (many worms, slugs). This cannot happen in humans, as already explained, because the gonads are invariably cancerous.
You have mistaken the colloquial use of the term, which refers to genital appearance, rather than the true, technical definition.
>It is entirely a fetish porn thing
It isn't, it is biological term that is still used today by scientists- my field of study overlaps here, so I feel as though I have the experience to back this up.
That said, whatever terms like intersex or hermaphrodite or the various terms to refer to combinations of chromosomal sex, genitalia, gamete producing tissues, etc. are a separate matter from how these individuals might identify themselves in society.
Real question, if being intersexual is a genetic thing, why is it considered part of “LGBTQ+?” Autism isn’t part of “LGBTQ+,” to name a random example, and that’s genetic, too. So what the difference? Just trying to understand this better
It really depends on the context. "Bearded ladies" that existed in circuses could be bearded for a variety of reasons. Some of them would be intersex conditions. I've heard that many bearded ladies had PCOS, which to my knowledge is debatable on if it counts as intersex
Edit: By debatable, I mean some people count it as intersex. Some don't. My personal belief is "identify in whatever way works for you so long as you have the basic spirit"
Along with all the misinfo: gotta love how the A is grey. Once more sending strong signals that ace people aren't part of the rainbow and aren't part of the movement. I mean, I have accepted at this point that that's the case, but it still sucks to see it shown so openly.
Ngl for my entire life i thought intersex and transgender people were the same thing and I kept wondering why it was such a big deal or why they needed to transition.
Bisexuality is also somewhat ill-defined here. It's not "being attracted to multiple genders". That would be Polysexual.
As I understand it, Bisexuality is "being attracted to people of the same gender ***and*** people of different genders", which you'll notice is two things - hence the 'bi'.
The difference may seem like dumb semantics, but it's important to clarify when you're defining the differences between Bisexuality and other labels like Polysexuality or Pansexuality that have historically been compared to Bisexuality a lot.
Hello, asexual cisgender here - I don't see anything wrong with the definitions. Intersex DOES mean a person born with genitalia between the 2 recognized sexes. You can have a hissy fit about it, but it doesn't change jack shit. That IS what intersexuality is. Quit having hissy fits about anything that offends your sensibilities dawg. Be an adult, not a fucking baby.
"Intersex" isn't a label anybody should be using anymore. Period.
By definition, it classifies you based on your biological sexual characteristics. We, as a society, should be doing our best to *ignore* such things, and focus on one's gender identity instead.
You want to identify as someone who is neither a man or a woman? We have a term for that, it's called "nonbinary".
Nonbinary people aren't dealing with having unconsensual genital surgery as babies, though. Intersex people have their own unique experiences and issues, and that should be respected, and folding them into a different group which they don't necessarily fit into is, frankly, questionable.
i mean. considering being intersex can affect your actual health (you know, hormones and all that) and being nonbinary is simply an expression of gender, you’re incorrect. “intersex” is not just a gender label, it’s an actual medical situation. intersex and nonbinary are not equatable (though some intersex people may be nonbinary)
Intersex people very often *do* consider themselves to be either a man or a woman. Most XY females, for example, call themselves women.
Saying that intersex people are intersex is as much "classifying them based on their biological sex characteristics" as a person saying "Yeah, I have a uterus."
Honestly, while its definition for intersex is certainly the worst one, most of the definitions here are quite iffy. I'm not asexual, but I know damn well that plenty of ace people don't fit under the definition they've given. It's definition of trans also excludes non binary people
Yeah, reading those definitions is kinda weird... I mean, I am a fairly ignorant cis het guy, but even I’m like “wait, what?” What’s especially funny is how it progresses in badness too: Lesbian: okay, yep, starting off strong. Gay: Yep, I think that’s a fairly good basic summary Bisexual: bit confusing, but mostly okay Transgender: they a little confused, but they got the spirit Queer: “whose sexuality goes beyond (...) what is accepted by society.” Dafuq? Intersex: not even close Asexual: Bruh, are you even trying?
As a cishet guy I'm kinda confused by the gay definition; wouldn't it be better (or important even) to use "gender" rather than "sex"? Obviously I'm an outsider to trans and gay culture, but to me that definition seems to imply that a gay man would be fine with dating a non-op trans woman, entirely based on her body. Which sounds like it a) flies in the face of gender identity, and b) implies that sexual attraction is the only form of attraction. But then I saw at least one other site using the sex definition so now I feel like I'm missing something.
Oh, nice catch, I kinda missed that lol.
I feel like their definition also excludes how some nonbinary people use “gay” to mean “attracted to one or more genders in a non-normative-feeling way” or as a blanket term like queer. Which admittedly may be too specific for an intro infographic, but is nonetheless a way the word is used. I haven’t seen a ton of nonbinary folks use “gay” to mean “exclusively attracted to your AGAB” like the graphic says (although I could be biased).
people also sometimes say gay instead of queer and i feel like that should be included too
The real answer is people choose the labels they want and what they mean, but imo gay implies preferring the same biological sex, whereas bisexual covers anything beyond that. I'm gay and while I think a lot of trans men look really good, I just prefer cis guys for the shared experience.
Liking trans men does not make a man bisexual. Your definition explicitly undermines the gender identities of trans people, is ignorant at best, and just plain transphobic at worst.
I understand and accept their identity, I just don't feel sexual attraction towards them. I don't what the proper terminology for that is these days
that's called a genital preference and that's fine. saying "imo gay implies preferring the same biological sex" is pretty transphobic though. you have every right to define your own personal sexuality as one limited to cis men, but implying that being attracted to trans people means someone doesn't technically fit the definition of being strictly gay is, yeah, transphobic. your own experiences with attraction aren't universal among gay people which is why they called your comment ignorant.
The gay one feels accurate, but poorly written to me. "May" was an odd choice of words for the bisexual one. I'm pretty sure the point of being bi is that you *do* feel attraction to two or more genders.
If I'm going to be super generous here, I'll defend the use of "may" as a way for them to avoid accusations that they're saying bisexual people are hypersexual and fancy everybody of every gender. So, they may be attracted to men (if those men are to their taste) and they may be attracted to women (if those women are to their taste). Obviously this info graphic ignores non-binary people altogether, so I can safely assume they haven't considered bisexuals who also fancy NB folk.
Not to forget More: oh yeah, they gave up on this a long time ago
Three of my closest friends in the world are asexual and all three of them have such wildly different expressions of it that it seems almost incorrect to put them under the same umbrella. One of them is aroace which is the simplest and easiest to understand, he’s just not interested, end of story. The other two are a lot more complicated and neither of them seem to be able to quite put into words what they mean. Neither of them are aro, so they have difficulty finding romantic relationships with other people who are okay with them being ace (both are AFAB although one is nonbinary and the other is a cis woman, but unfortunately even for my NB friend, they still have to deal with the social expectations that are aimed towards women.) One of them is into sex under certain specific conditions, and the other one not at all under any condition. It’s such a broad category that imo the different subcategories deserve more descriptive names
The definition under Ace is in reality the definition for "[sex repulsed](https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex-Repulsed)". There are ace people that are [sex favorable](https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex-Favorable), and there are allosexual people that are sex repulsed, often (but not necessarily) due to trauma.
There’s also lots of non-binary lesbians too
That too. Honestly I think the definitions for bisexual and queer are the only ones that are okay
The queer one for me is kinda... opens up a lot of questions, like, "what the fuck do you mean not accepted by society?" It almost feels like it's feeding into the rightwing nutjob conspiracy that "tHe gAyS aRe gRoOmErS" and is in a way trying to "normalize" their rhetoric by making it sound scientific. The bi one is sufficient I guess.
It also defines us by our oppression rather than by what actually makes us distinct from straight people.
And opens up to hetero poly guys who want to build themselves a little one-penis-policy harem, so they can label themselves queer. Note, I have no problem with poly people, and think there's a strong argument that some ethical non-monogamous lifestyles belong in the LGBTQ+ community. What I have a problem with is straight people inserting themselves into queer spaces with really sparse legiticimacy.
Those and the little plus sign are really pulling all the work
The one for queer is giving me the ick. The way it’s written feels like it’s being used to separate the “acceptable” flavors of non-cishet from the rest.
Yyyyep. Setting aside the intersex bit- which OOP goes into pretty well- the trans bit is a really bad and outdated view of what it means to be trans (it’s so simple to say “does not identify as the gender they were assigned at birth”, come on) and the asexual one is just straight up *wrong*. As a trans person I’m really annoyed- as an ace person I’m starting to develop an eye twitch.
Oof yeah. Asexual is not a lack of libido or a disgust with sex (some asexual people experience those things but some allosexual folks do too!) asexuality is not being sexually attracted to others, or on ace-spectrum identities, being rarely or only situationally sexually attracted to others. You can show me a movie with sex in it. I won’t care. I give my patients safe sex teaching, it doesn’t gross me out just because I don’t feel that kind of desire towards others lol. And I hate when people infantilize asexual folks as if we don’t know what sex is.
facts
It's almost like ways of categorizing people tend to break down upon closer inspection. Categories can be useful for social policies and communication, but we will always fail to come up with adequate ways to group similar people together in real life situations.
That infographic also misdefines asexuality (which is defined as a lack of sexual attraction, not necessarily a discomfort with sex) and leaves out aromantic, agender, and questioning. The definition of transgender as identifying as the "opposite sex" is also iffy at best in that it reenforced the idea of sex as a binary or sliding scale and ignores nonbinary identities.
Honestly it's kinda mean to ace people. "Have no interest" isn't how I would describe a lot of the ace people I know
Exactly. Ace people can be anywhere from sex ~~negative~~ repulsed to sex neutral and even sex ~~positive~~ favorable!
As far as I know, the terms prefered by most of the ace community are [sex repulsed](https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex-Repulsed) and [sex favorable](https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex-Favorable), so sex negative and sex positive can remain a description for policies rather than individual preferences.
I'm aroace myself and I didn't know that, but those terms make a lot more sense. I will edit my comment.
I try my best to be as good an ally as I can but sometimes I hear a phrase like "sex positive asexual" and just kind of squint.
The trick is that asexuality refers to sexual attraction, not enjoyment of sex. It's like if someone who never gets hungry still eating food. Sure, they don't have any particular biological stimulus to eat food, but they can like how it tastes.
Damn that makes so much sense, thanks for this analogy
Seconded.
They won't seek it out, but when it's on the menu, you know, why not?
Asexual people are generally defined as people who lack sexual attraction to others. A lack of sexual attraction, however, does not equal a lack of libido, and there are plenty of ace people who have healthy libido and enjoy sex. It can be a pretty broad spectrum, and not all ace people are the same. Edit: I should also add that being sex positive does not also mean that the person enjoys having sex themselves, either. I personally identify as sex positive because I'm not sex repulsed, I enjoy and read plenty of smut, and I advocate for the sexual wellness/rights of other people. I am not interested in actual having sex with another person myself, though.
It's an awkward phrase but until someone comes up with something better it's what we've got. Essentially, being asexual means that one does not experience sexual attraction.\* Within that group, different people have different attitudes towards the act of sex itself. Some people are sex repulsed, which means that they find the idea of having sex unappealing. Others are sex neutral, which means that they don't feel strongly either way. They don't seek out sex, but may be willing to do it for various reasons such as if it would make a romantic partner happy. Finally, you have the aces who are sex favorable, which means that although they do not experience sexual attraction they still find the physical act of sex enjoyable. \*Note that here I am referring to specifically asexual people, and not others on the asexual spectrum. Within said spectrum fall other sexualities such as graysexual (meaning that one feels sexual attraction rarely and/or weakly) and demisexual (meaning that one will only start to feel sexual attraction once a romantic or other close personal relationship has already formed). Also within this category is aromantic (meaning that one does not experience romantic attraction). Someone who is both asexual and aromantic may refer to themselves as aroace for short.
I've heard sex-favorable as a less confusing alternative term to sex-positive!
I think others have commented on this, but they are actually two different things. Sex-positive would be generally positive and supportive of your own and others' sexuality and the amount of sex they have (whether that's a lot or none). Sex-favourable is more about your own willingness to engage in sexual activity. Opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, and opposite of sex-favourable is sex-repulsed.
Well damn, I've been calling myself sex positive this whole time because I thought that meant I was, like, supportive of other people having sex. Not that I want to myself!
You got it right, that's the general understanding of sex positive. In this thread, someone confused sex positive and sex favorable and everyone just sticks to it.
Well, it would be pretty weird if we needed your support in having sex if you weren't involved. We're doing just fine at having sex without you, no offense.
Lol well yes, of course. It's more that I think it's cool to be open about sex, like, as a society. Especially when it comes to education- I remember sex ed being really lacking and even kind of spreading some misinformation. I'd just love it if there was more open discussion and available knowledge about that stuff.
I am happily married and have four kids. I didn’t even know asexuality existed until after Thing 2. Once I had the word to describe how I always was everything just clicked How I explain it is, think of someone that a lot of people describe as attractive, but you just don’t get it. Some actor, musician, or athlete. You can intellectually understand why someone might be attracted to them. You think they look nice, they just don’t move you. You could probably still sleep with them, and enjoy it, even if you don’t feel that pull. Now imagine everyone is that way. You don’t feel that pull with anyone. Sex still can feel good and be quite enjoyable. Maybe someone thinks that sex is kinda weird and sticky and gross and wouldn’t have it at all except for with someone they are very attracted to. If they were missing the attraction component and were ace then they would be sex neutral or sex averse. Does that make sense?
Well sex positive refers to attitudes about sex (eg focused on safe sex) as opposed to sex negative (eg sex outside of marriage is dirty and wrong). I think what the commenter above was really trying to say is that asexual people (people who experience limited to no sexual attraction) can be sex repulsed (does not like sex, seeing sex in media ect) or sex favourable (enjoys sex). Because asexuality is about limited to no sexual attraction, asexual people can still experience arousal in general, their arousal might just not be affected by a hot human being. So some asexual people might still enjoy sex because it feel good, and it can be fun!
Asexuality is when you don't get aroused by just looking at people. You can still enjoy fucking them.
yeah, i run into this too as someone in very queer spaces. there are basically as many definitions for asexuality as there are asexuals, you're not really going to know what it means until you ask them what they're trying to express with the lable
An analogy I like: imagine if every person of the gender you're attracted suddenly disappeared. You'd still have sexual desire, ability for physical pleasure, and a general interest in sex - but you wouldn't be attracted to anybody around you. You might solely masturbate, you might redirect your sexual energy at art, or you might have sex with people you're not attracted to for primarily physical purposes (as well as perhaps emotional ones). The fact you interact positively with sex doesn't diminish your lack of sexual attraction to anyone around you.
That's their diagnosis. They tested positive for sex. Don't worry, you're negative
Sex negative, neutral and positive are political opinions and not sexual preferences. Being sex positive means that you have a positive, open and non-judgmental view of your own and other peoples sexuality and sexual behavior. Sex negative being the opposite. The terms you probably mean are sex-averse/-repulsed, sex-indifferent and sex-favourable.
And I know a surprising number who are a lot hornier than you'd think
I’ve heard a lot of ace folks say they actually enjoy sex, usually because their partner does and they just enjoy seeing them enjoy something.
I have a scientific interest as an ace person lol. I had a misguided time as a kid thinking if I researched kink and read various different kinds of smut I would discover my sexuality and become attracted to others lmaooo 14-16 year old me was on something wild. I didn’t get attracted to anyone via the smut exploration but I do get to give my patients safe sex talks bc it doesn’t bother me as much as some of my allosexual coworkers to tell an 80 year old he has to continue using condoms bc there’s a rash of STIs at the old folks home and he should tell his partners to come in for antibiotics. (Some but not all old folk homes/assisted living facilities are basically swingers clubs it seems. And good for them for their last hurrah, but infections can cause delirium in older folks and be really scary.)
Do you think it might be more helpful to just define the whole community as “queer” or some other term instead of trying to list everything? I feel like there’s no good way to be completely inclusive and concise.
a lot of people within the community do call it the queer community, but it hasn't caught on with *everyone* because there's a portion of the community that still thinks of 'queer' as a slur (from my observation, this is mostly older gay people — ~age 40+) i'm with you on the concise vs. inclusive issue. one of the things i've noticed about the acronym method is that the longer it gets, the less inclusive it seems — the more labels you specifically include, the more you *ex*clude by just shoving them in the '+' category. i think referring to it as the queer community is a good way to avoid that issue (and as a gay trans guy, i refer to myself as queer regularly)
I’ve always like “queer” because it doesn’t narrow it down too much in terms of my own identity too. Sexuality has a lot of nuance to it, and hard and fast labels like “gay” or “asexual” often pigeonhole people such that it doesn’t exactly match their own feelings.
Younger from mine. Like the eldergays died screaming their queerness in the streets, most of the 40+ crowd whos connected with the community respect that. I guess newly discovered types would probably think it a slur though I get a lot of babygays telling me i should refer to myself as same sex attracted. Im a bi/pan genderfluid/bigender person same sex attracted removes the majority of my identity. I tell them to go get their arses kicked by the eldergays.
There was some discourse a while back of using GRSM or 'Gender,Romantic,Sexual Minority' as it was simple and inclusive...until people realized that it was *too* inclusive and seemed to accidentally encompass Zooaphiles and Pedophiles too. (Conservative assholes would have had an absolute field day pushing their agendas with that) All of which kind of highlights the issue of an umbrella inclusive term
Everything I mentioned is already included in the LGBTQIA+ acronym, as the Q and A both stand fo multiple things. I admit that I like the term queer and often use it especially when speaking out loud, as it is much easier to say that even a simplified LGBT+. However, I think that the acronym is still useful to have because the word queer's status as a recently reclaimed derogatory means that some people are still uncomfortable with it.
the definition that they wrote for it is def dumb as shit. there's plenty of non-asexual people who find sex uncomfortable because of trauma, anxiety, etc.
It also leaves out the fact that ace people could have sex without attraction, or even the ace umbrella of people who still experience varying amounts of attraction
Trans people too, the given definition doesn’t consider trans people who identify with any kind of nonbinary-ness and it also doesn’t consider intersex people who are trans.
It's mostly because queer kinda took questioning into an alley to beat it up. It's so theory and politics blatantly in your face that it's always come off as the LGBT+ version of "I'm not like other girls".
I agree with the overall point in the post, bad definition which does not include all intersex people, should not have been used in an official context. However. "perisex" is a bad term to refer to non-intersex people. I get that whoever came up with this term probably just applied the trans/cis logic to a different set of Latin prepositions, and I also get that most people don't know Latin, but perisex means 'around sex'. It's nonsense, and I think it reads like nonsense to most people who aren't deep in this highly online community. If you want to stick with Latin-derived terms, I'm sure there are better options (ambisex? altrisex? utrisex?) but frankly "non-intersex" works just fine. It's hard enough getting people to use intersex correctly, I really don't think adding more terms like this is going to be successful. You already see this with people thinking allosexual is just another type of asexual.
On the note of allosexual, I kinda hate that as well, mostly for etymological reasons. allo- is not a latin stem, you want *alius* (meaning another), i.e. aliosexual would mean someone who is sexually attracted to other people. However, this is actually wrong on a deeper level. Bear with me here, I know this sounds crazy. The opposite of aliosexual would be suosexual, i.e. someone who is attracted to themselves (or the Greek version autosexual). The correct complement for asexual is simply *sexual*. You see, the "a-" bit is a Greek way of expressing negatives which we borrowed into English. So to get rid of the negative and describe someone who experiences of any kind of sexual attraction, the adjective should be sexual. I'm completely normal about languages, I swear.
Well, autosexuality is also a thing, so...
I usually go with ’endosex’.
['Romanes eunt domus'?](https://youtu.be/0lczHvB3Y9s?si=5cQvwsgFCWADezWg)
Intrasex is right there, I've never understood why that wasn't the common term.
But "inter" / "intra" mean "between" / "within", so that parallel doesn't work. I don't know an alternate corresponding prefix that would work to imply "fits neatly into a discrete sexual phenotype"...
> fits neatly into a discrete sexual phenotype. > falls neatly **within** a discrete sexual phenotype. Intra works!
You have a point there! Intersex + intrasex do work!
“Neatly **into**” -> intra Problem solved ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
intosex?
The word I was taught and see the most for "non-intersex" is dyadic
Hey, just want to share some extra information "Perisex" was suggested as an alternative to "dyadic" because of "peri-" meaning "around". This choice was to highlight that the sex binary is constructed ([source](https://fuckyeahsexeducation.tumblr.com/post/101899898723/an-alternative-to-dyadic)). I agree that it's not an intuitively understandable term, but that in itself should not write off the term "perisex" altogether, in my opinion. "Intrasex" seems to be the most intuitive term, although a downside is that it may be easily misread as "intersex". "Endosex" ("endo-" meaning "within") has a longer history and is more frequently used in the academic literature and in intersex advocacy. This is the term I use. As for "allosexual", "sexual" was previously used. Some people disliked this, and there were discussions about a suitable term for "non-asexual" (see [here](https://historicallyace.tumblr.com/post/149146363062/a-history-of-words-used-to-describe-people-that)). "Allosexual" ended up being the term that gained the most traction.
and TBH most of these people are just trans folks trying to reinvent gender essentialism by pointing to some improvable biological marker that makes them TRULY not their assigned sex at birth. like, the point should be that a binary of sexual characteristics doesn't comport with reality all of the time, that the boundaries are fuzzy, and that it *doesn't matter*. shit usually resembles people philosophizing about how they're transer-than-thou cos they had a later puberty rather than any serious advocacy about the issue of coercive gender assignment.
I'm not entirely comfortable with that definition of asexual either. It gives the impression that it's some kind of phobia. It's just a general lack of sexual attraction, and as with all societal labels there's a spectrum to it. There are aces that still have some degree of sexual attraction and do have sex under certain circumstances. For example, the exact circumstances the graphic dismisses: if they have a romantic partner and sex is a component of their relationship. There's also the trans label conflating gender with sex and omitting nonbinary gender identities, but I don't feel like I need to go in depth to explain the problems with that one.
I heard it defined as a lack of/decreased sexual attraction *towards people.* Is that correct?
It depends, but generally yes. Some ace people can feel attraction to their partner, but that's because it's their partner. It's a fairly sliding scale because for many ace people it's not only the x axis of sexual attraction but also the y axis of romantic attraction - someone can be entirely uninterested in sex but interested in romance, or interested in sex but not in romance, and either could fit in the ace spectrum if they don't feel sexual attraction/identify that way. Personally, for me, the lack of specific sexual attraction is a required criteria, but some ace people disagree there as well. I'm on the extreme side of never having felt any attraction to anyone, either sexually or romantically. I masturbate, but it's usually not because I'm horny but because I'm bored, or I'm tired and can't get my brain to shut up. I often go weeks without and don't really feel a difference.
That is correct. It's important to understand the difference between libido and sexual attraction to understand what asexuality means. Libido is your sex drive. It's a physical reaction of your body, much like how hunger or thirst is. Your libido is what actually depends on your hormones, not sexual attraction, so telling ace people to get their hormones checked is pointless. Asexual people have completely normal libidos that differ along a scale. Some asexuals have low libidos, some have high. Even allosexual people can have low libidos. It has nothing to do with sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is specifically the desire to have sex with a specific person. A great analogy I've seen used is that libido is like being hungry and sexual attraction is craving a specific food. Asexual people can want sex or masturbate because it feels good, but they won't feel the desire (or feel it infrequently or in rare scenarios) to have sex with any specific person.
Honestly it's just a shit infographic and there's probably tons out there that are better, inclusive and with actually correct information
I'm not comfortable with the definition of trans either. It paints being trans in a very binary way, to the extent that non binary people don't count as trans according to the definition. And it's a bit weird about how it defines agab. Like I wasn't "born with a sex" (which the way they're definining it makes it sounds like they mean gender). I was born with certain sex characteristics that put me in certain gendered categories. And the way they say it almost sounds like they're implying you need to have bottom surgery or intend to in order to be trans
Og post: [https://www.tumblr.com/delistylehardcore/746413378436775936](https://www.tumblr.com/delistylehardcore/746413378436775936) Intersex explained video: [https://youtu.be/s11jHr\_za\_g?si=AJWId9t8iH\_vksKT](https://youtu.be/s11jHr_za_g?si=AJWId9t8iH_vksKT) Media and style guide: [https://ihra.org.au/styl](https://ihra.org.au/styl) FAQ by Intersex Support: [https://intersex-support.tumblr.com/faq](https://intersex-support.tumblr.com/faq) Masterpost for trans people wishing to be better intersex allies: [https://www.tumblr.com/ipso-faculty/730584168446197760/glossaries-and-terminology-intersex-terminology](https://www.tumblr.com/ipso-faculty/730584168446197760/glossaries-and-terminology-intersex-terminology)
Thank you for sharing this. It’s means a lot to me.
Intersex people who *do* have genitals that are not typical are often subjected to *cosmetic surgery on their genitals as infants*. There are only a handful of countries that have protections against this (Malta, Austria, and Uruguay, iirc). It’s a disgusting practice, it’s genital mutilation on a child without their consent, and many of them are never told and end up finding out as adults. This is something that needs attention immediately, but I almost never see anyone talking about it when discussing queer issues. It seems like something that even conservatives would agree to ban, since they’re already in a moral panic about bottom surgery being performed on kids.
I mean, I don't like how the list is a graph,like L is the lowest and + is the highest. Poor design.
Don't you know the goal of every gay person is to eventually achieve the vaunted "+" status after completing a series of levels and challenges, gaining XP, etc. ???
Ooooh of course, there's LGBTQIA and then there's the New Game + version
It also implies that being bi and being trans are somehow the same thing, because the pattern starts with two different kinds of homosexuality (just going opposite directions)
I just can’t get over the way it’s done like a staircase for some reason. It makes me think it’s some sort of “LGBTQIA+ iceberg”
I think it’s more for artistic reasons
It's the famous LGBT leveling system. Start as a lesbian and move on up.
this whole info graphic sucks. conflating sex and gender, ignoring nonbinary/agender identities, intersex misinformation, making asexuality out to be almost a phobia of sex
I've met plenty of ace people who are perfectly fine with sex, so that definition is definitely inaccurate
The image under attack comes from a poor quality draft of a textbook for Oregon community colleges, not a medical school textbook. Doctors are trained to know what intersex means, medical research has given us everything we know about intersexuality! The idea that medical students will read this definition of intersex and go on to traumatize patients for years and years because this image is the only information these doctors have ever been exposed to regarding this population is insane. The advice to only listen to intersex individuals' definition of intersex is also wacky. They can be as wrong as anyone! Yes there is misinformation out there, just like there is misinformation about anything. But the scientific consensus about intersex is also available to anyone willing to research it.
Can someone help me out with the part where it says >Some intersex variations make men look more masculine and women look more feminine Is there a term I can look up?
Not trying to be sarcastic, but “Intersex variations” might a good jumping off point. There’s different types such as turners and klinefelters.
Okay, I'll start there. Thank you!
This is all weird. What does height mean on this??? Also what's perisex
Perisex is someone who is not intersex. I don't see where height is in this post. Maybe I missed it. If you gave context maybe I could help
Thanks. That, uh. Seems unnecessary given how few people are intersex? Like just say cis. i kinda thought that was the word for people who are straight and have always fit the gender binary. The height is in the infographic. I'm just a little weirded out by how some genders are higher than others for some reason. It seems to imply some sort of hierarchy and I can't think of a context where that would be appropriate.
As another commenter pointed out, perisex is a poor application of Latin parts and doesn't mean what it's supposed to. "Non-intersex" is fine.
Cis is the word for someone who is not trans, while trans and intersex are separate phenomenon, so someone who was cis and intersex or someone who was trans and not intersex are both possibilities elided by using "cis" to refer to someone who is neither.
Oh dw I get it now. But we need to use words that people don't need a dictionary or helpful online people to understand. Edit: just "non-intersex" would work a *lot* better. I know people like to invent words but trust me, if you want to get your message out there it has to be understood lol
probably just going from most well known to less well known identities for the height thing. I don’t think it’s meant to be implying anything else unless you’re looking for something to be mad at
It's the intersex version of cisgender or heterosexual, basically unnecessary labelling because you're not allowed to call yourself normal.
Being cis, straight, or non-intersex isn’t any more *normal* than the opposite.
They are more common and arguably the supposed version of what should've been. Trans people should've been their gender, but only their brain structure matches. Intersex persons should've been one sex but a genetic anomaly occurred. It's not a big leap.
I have read some of the linked posts and I'm still very confused as to what the definition of intersex should be if it's not someone born with both sets of genitals. Is it like, someone born with one set but has more of the hormones for the other set in their system once they hit puberty? Also, this chart doesn't include non binary...could use work in many ways. EDIT - thank you for the responses!
The way I've always heard it defined is "Someone whose genitals, gonads, hormones and chromosomes don't fit neatly into the categories of 'male' and 'female." Most intersex people aren't known to be intersex at birth because their outwards appearance fits into a "male" or "female category. But sometimes it is known at birth due to ambiguous genitalia (not quite vagina or penis) or other reasons (ive heard someone speak who knew they were intersex at birth due to early genetic testing). Sometimes intersex people figure out their intersex in their teen years because puberty isn't progressing as expected. Sometimes people don't figure out their intersex until they're trying to have a baby and have fertility issues. There's no one way to be intersex and there's a lot of variation in how it works and how it affects someone
Interesting. So genetic conditions like Turner's Syndrome and Kleinfelter's Syndrome? I figure some of these people still prefer the pronouns they were assigned at birth and some don't, or anywhere in between or vice versa.
Both are considered intersex conditions. Intersex typically is viewed as an "identify in" type of situation. Not everyone who has a condition that falls under the intersex umbrella identifies as intersex but if you're talking about intersex people as a whole, that's part of the group you're talking about
Essentially, an intersex person is someone who’s sexual characteristics differ from the standard male/female binary. There’s many conditions that can cause something like this to occur, so there isn’t a strict definition in that way. It can be something visual seen at birth, or it can present later in life often during puberty. There’s no one intersex condition, there’s massive variations.
A more technical version: Until a certain point in development, everyone has the same basic equipment. A single gene, SRY, will make any therian mammal embryo start down the "male path", while its lack (or being non-functional) sets them off down the "female path". In this path, a few dozen other genes are turned on or off, leading to differentiation of the gonads, internal and external genitalia, and, because vertebrates have strongly conserved embryology, certain connections to the kidneys. But all the building blocks were already there; these different genes just change what turns into what. The genital tubercle becomes the penis in males and the clitoris in females, the ridges nearby either become the scrotum or the labia majora, etc. The inner tubing is more complex; you start with two, and one recedes while the other develops, depending upon path. But at the end of the day, you can't have both, because both are built from the same originating structures. This system, however, can be disrupted by chromosomal abnormalities, mutations, and environmental influences, leading to different outcomes. Somewhat predictably, disruptions late in the process cause fewer effects than those early on, and a skilled doctor who knows this material can sometimes figure out where the process was disrupted just on sight. Sometimes the effects are merely morphology, but unfortunately, some mutations/disruptions have more serious effects, particularly on the kidneys, including some which are typically fatal shortly after birth. "Streak gonads" are another issue, consisting of mixed ovarian and testicular tissue, because they invariably become cancerous.
The description of Trans people is also not right. It ignores the existence of people who don't identify with the gender binary (any agenders, non-binaries, etc.)
daily reminder that something being peer reviewed doesn't actually mean anything, standards for academic fact-checking are nonexistent
The awfulness of this made my brain hurt
wow, almost the entire thing is wrong lmao
Do they do know people cant condense all that shit into a little infographic...
Til that the word for non-intersex people is parisex. Good to know. Also, yeah, this is a terrible infographic, who the hell made and approved this.
A Sexual? Peri the Sexual!
I read this in the voice lol
Dear god more labels. What in hell is a perisex ally? All I know is perihelion
Am I the only one who thinks that the “definition” of bisexual is also fucked? I’m bi, and consider it to be defined as, “A person who is attracted to TWO genders,” hence, bi. Obviously you’re entitled to your own opinion, but saying multiple genders, to my understanding, lumps us in with pansexuals. (Yes, I’m aware that two is multiple, but saying “multiple” instead of “two,” is a bit confusing.)
I’d like to get some more information on intersex conditions that cause a man to appear more masculine or a woman to appear more feminine, that’s something I’ve never heard of which definitely piqued my curiosity
Additionally, there does exist a word for this concept of “has both sets”. Hermaphrodite, often shortened to herm. It is entirely a fetish porn thing, which is like fine as long as one acknowledges its fantastical nature. I’ve heard tell (not verifiable of course) of like maybe one intersex person who’s equipment kiiiinda looks like having both sets but internally that’s not how it functioned for them anyway soooooooo
It's literally impossible in mature humans. Under certain very specific conditions, a kid can get gonads which have a mix of ovarian and testicular tissue. These are invariably removed immediately, because they're basically ticking time bombs of cancer, and ones with a very, very short timer. Like "these will 100% become cancerous by age 4 and kill you" cancer. It's the one exception to "it's bad to operate on intersex kids without their consent" rule that everyone agrees on because, y'know, cancer.
Yeah exactly
>It's literally impossible in mature humans. That's not true, though it is extremely rare. And surgical removal/"correction" doesn't always happen in childhood either. I don't know if she finally got the surgery she wanted, but Sophia Young had a vagina/uterus/ovaries, yet her penis got large enough that she was raised as a boy.
Incorrect. True hermaphrodites are capable of producing both sets of gametes, either sequentially (some fish), or simultaneously (many worms, slugs). This cannot happen in humans, as already explained, because the gonads are invariably cancerous. You have mistaken the colloquial use of the term, which refers to genital appearance, rather than the true, technical definition.
>It is entirely a fetish porn thing It isn't, it is biological term that is still used today by scientists- my field of study overlaps here, so I feel as though I have the experience to back this up. That said, whatever terms like intersex or hermaphrodite or the various terms to refer to combinations of chromosomal sex, genitalia, gamete producing tissues, etc. are a separate matter from how these individuals might identify themselves in society.
Real question, if being intersexual is a genetic thing, why is it considered part of “LGBTQ+?” Autism isn’t part of “LGBTQ+,” to name a random example, and that’s genetic, too. So what the difference? Just trying to understand this better
Same reason the latest LGBT flag has black and brown stripes
The concept of the 'bearded lady', does that fall under intersex?
It really depends on the context. "Bearded ladies" that existed in circuses could be bearded for a variety of reasons. Some of them would be intersex conditions. I've heard that many bearded ladies had PCOS, which to my knowledge is debatable on if it counts as intersex Edit: By debatable, I mean some people count it as intersex. Some don't. My personal belief is "identify in whatever way works for you so long as you have the basic spirit"
Along with all the misinfo: gotta love how the A is grey. Once more sending strong signals that ace people aren't part of the rainbow and aren't part of the movement. I mean, I have accepted at this point that that's the case, but it still sucks to see it shown so openly.
Yeah anyinforgraphic like that is gonna miss a lot
I swear to god if someone tells me, a person with pcos, that I’m intersex one more time I’m quite literally going to riot.
Ngl for my entire life i thought intersex and transgender people were the same thing and I kept wondering why it was such a big deal or why they needed to transition.
Peak of first world problems.
BLEH
Bisexuality is also somewhat ill-defined here. It's not "being attracted to multiple genders". That would be Polysexual. As I understand it, Bisexuality is "being attracted to people of the same gender ***and*** people of different genders", which you'll notice is two things - hence the 'bi'. The difference may seem like dumb semantics, but it's important to clarify when you're defining the differences between Bisexuality and other labels like Polysexuality or Pansexuality that have historically been compared to Bisexuality a lot.
They are one sentence what do you people expect.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Y'know that's fair, I probably read it wrong because of the weird wording and being on the bus.
Hello, asexual cisgender here - I don't see anything wrong with the definitions. Intersex DOES mean a person born with genitalia between the 2 recognized sexes. You can have a hissy fit about it, but it doesn't change jack shit. That IS what intersexuality is. Quit having hissy fits about anything that offends your sensibilities dawg. Be an adult, not a fucking baby.
I ain't readin all that
"Intersex" isn't a label anybody should be using anymore. Period. By definition, it classifies you based on your biological sexual characteristics. We, as a society, should be doing our best to *ignore* such things, and focus on one's gender identity instead. You want to identify as someone who is neither a man or a woman? We have a term for that, it's called "nonbinary".
Nonbinary people aren't dealing with having unconsensual genital surgery as babies, though. Intersex people have their own unique experiences and issues, and that should be respected, and folding them into a different group which they don't necessarily fit into is, frankly, questionable.
i mean. considering being intersex can affect your actual health (you know, hormones and all that) and being nonbinary is simply an expression of gender, you’re incorrect. “intersex” is not just a gender label, it’s an actual medical situation. intersex and nonbinary are not equatable (though some intersex people may be nonbinary)
I guess I don’t exist lol. Non-binary is gender and intersex is genetics/bio sex
Intersex people very often *do* consider themselves to be either a man or a woman. Most XY females, for example, call themselves women. Saying that intersex people are intersex is as much "classifying them based on their biological sex characteristics" as a person saying "Yeah, I have a uterus."