Men's IssuesVICE - "The Straight Men Who Have Sex with Trans Women" (i.e, gay men who lie to themselves)

submitted by BEB from vice.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It just confuses me so much.

I think the problem is that if you start to look at the diversity of human sexuality, and all you're armed with for classification is gay, straight, or bi, then nothing will end up making sense. The het-homo binary is overfit; when you bring in something else, you're doomed.

I also saw the prison example brought up.

Guilty party here. It's a non issue if you maintain a difference between orientation and behavior. Otherwise, you're going to have to accept sexual fluidity in these men: that they're only gay in prison.

You would also have to accept that a closeted, gay man married to a woman in the 1950's who's had a bunch of children with her is a heterosexual, and other scenarios.

people still trying to classify these men as straight

If you're at all referring to me, I think I said that they can be straight. Let me unpack that. If heterosexuality in men is desiring biological women for sex, then this is true of most trans-attracted men. If we consider trans-attracted men to also have a paraphilia, then it would be true to say that most trans-attracted men are heterosexual and gyneandromorphophilic. One does not negate the other, in the fashion that heterosexuality and homosexuality in one individual are contradictions. Labeling sexuality at some point cannot be one exclusive label, because all sorts of interests can be present in one individual.

Exclusive labels of het/homo, this or that, do work for the overwhelming majority of people out there, because they just want sex with phenotypically normal people. But there's more to the whole phenomena than that. That's why the definitions we are accustomed to using result in a mess of nobody agreeing, as was the case in the last thread on this topic of trans-attracted men.

If you don't enjoy these sorts of semantic deconstructions and reconstructions, I get it. It's not everyone's cup of tea. But I'm very reluctant to label trans-attracted men as bisexual. That's a large part of my exercise here. Because to me, bisexual should mean just one thing--and I think we do agree on keeping things precise, thus simple--a desire for normal women, and normal men. Not transsexuals. Superbi--see?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The het-homo binary is overfit; when you bring in something else, you're doomed.

I agree. That's why bisexuality exists. We are armed with gay, straight, bi, and ace. Those are more than sufficient to describe the bare bones of human sexuality, given that there are only two sexes and you can be attracted to only one, both, or neither. We are not 'doomed' when something else is brought in. Because when describing the bare bones, without trying to include personal taste and kinks within those parameters (because that would be too much), there is nothing else.

you're going to have to accept sexual fluidity in these men: that they're only gay in prison.

I do accept sexual fluidity in these men. Sexuality is only fluid for bisexuals.

If heterosexuality in men is desiring biological women for sex, then this is true of most trans-attracted men. If we consider trans-attracted men to also have a paraphilia, then it would be true to say that most trans-attracted men are heterosexual and gyneandromorphophilic.

Heterosexuality in men, or anyone really, is exclusive attraction to the opposite sex. Trans attracted men can be heterosexual if they are attracted to transmen, because transmen are female. Men who are trans attracted and knowingly seek intercourse with transitioned men on the other hand are not heterosexual, because they are no longer exclusively attracted to females.

One does not negate the other

I'm of the opinion that it does. Because the only way it can't is if transwomen cease to be male. It would be like saying 'oh he's not a pedophile, he just has a paraphilia that makes him attracted to minors who wear blue hats.' That sounds ridiculous. Because it is ridiculous. A sexual paraphilia that involves minors is innately pedophilic. It doesn't matter that they aren't attracted to all children, or that they are only attracted to children in certain situations. Similarly, it doesn't matter if some transitioned men look female, or are very GNC. Men who are attracted to them cannot be straight. But your argument, and others who argue that GAMP men can still be straight, is that 'oh he's not bi, he just has a paraphilia that makes him attracted to extremely feminized men. He's still straight despite seeking sexual intercourse with people who have dicks'. That's absurd to me. A paraphilia that involves sexual intercourse with the same sex negates the definition of heterosexuality. I do not see the hetero in a man looking to fuck a 'woman' with a dick.

Labeling sexuality at some point cannot be one exclusive label, because all sorts of interests can be present in one individual.

Yes it can. And it should. Because those all of those 'sorts of interests' are not sexualities. They are preferences, fetishes, and paraphilias that occur on top of the basic definitions of sexual orientation. Trying to come up with an unnecessary label for every nuance of human sexuality and personal expression is how we got into this million sexualities, million genders bullshit in the first place. A woman who is attracted to 'normal' men and women who wear red shirts and sing the national anthem during sex is bi. Bi with a weird fetish and very specific conditions under which she will fuck another woman, but still bi. Same with GAMP men. It should be pretty cut and dry: Are you a male attracted to females? Then you're straight. What's that? You're attracted to certain males if they look female-ish and you want to interact with their penises sexually? Then you are not straight. Not gay either. Bisexual, with a very specific fetish, but still bi.

But I'm very reluctant to label trans-attracted men as bisexual. That's a large part of my exercise here. Because to me, bisexual should mean just one thing--and I think we do agree on keeping things precise, thus simple--a desire for normal women, and normal men. Not transsexuals. Superbi--see?

Well, to me, bisexuality means attraction to both males and females. We had to 'simplify' this already simple definition (and adopt superbi recently) because TRAs started calling us transphobic for not being attracted to trans people and couldn't accept that without inventing 100+ other 'sexualities'. But the core of bisexuality is still just attraction to both sexes. This definition is still sufficient even though wokies try to overcomplicate it by removing or including trans people and nonbinaries when it suits them. Anything else on top of that is preference and/or paraphilia. I've argued this before when bashing pansexuality. Pan is stupid in my opinion because it implies that trans people are neither male nor female. It also implies that extremely GNC women are not women (or 'lesser' women) and extremely GNC men are not men (or 'lesser' men). We all know that those two things aren't true. Trans people are still either male or female, nonbinaries are still either male or female, and GNC people are not the opposite sex or 'lesser' men and women, so someone being attracted to both women, and transwomen, is bisexual.

The existence of bisexuals like me who exclude trans people from our dating pool doesn't mean the bi's who are willing to date a trans person are a new sexuality. It means they aren't picky, or are chasers with a fetish. They are still bi. That is my point here. Trying to wrestle with the notion that men who fuck feminized men can still be straight is just as unnecessarily complicated and nonsensical as trying to say that men can be lesbians and women can be gay men. GAMP is not a sexuality the same way I don't view demisexual or pansexual as sexualities. That's a preference within the basic definitions of non-asexual sexualities.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Trying to come up with an unnecessary label for every nuance of human sexuality and personal expression is how we got into this million sexualities, million genders bullshit in the first place.

Agreed, however, there are distinct phenomena out there, and in some contexts, not all of them of course, it is useful to classify them. "Ant" is insufficient to the entomologist. If, however, my house was being overrun with a specific sort of ant that needed a specific approach to combat? I would then care about kinds of ants. We don't share the same objective, I don't think.

The existence of bisexuals like me who exclude trans people from our dating pool doesn't mean the bi's who are willing to date a trans person are a new sexuality.

It's not the case of willingness, or seeing the trans person for the gender identity they want to be, or seeing past that, or not caring. It's about being specifically sexually interested in a trans women because they're a trans woman, especially those that retain their penis. Specifically that category. This is not a thing that is true of all bisexual people, as you would label them. Some bisexuals are as care free as you can get: a person is a person is a person, regardless of trans or not. This is instead a highly focused desire towards trans woman, where the mixed sexual morphology of the person matters. The trans person stops being a person is a person is a person. They're a very particular kind of person, instead.

I understand you want to consider it a qualifier on bisexuality (is it one not worth mentioning?) I think it's categorically different. I never meant to imply that men into trans women are perfectly heterosexual. They are not, but I disagree that places them in the bisexual category. I understand you don't want more categories, more words, I understand the frustration with the proliferation, but my goal isn't one to give everything a label so that it can be considered uwu valid.

Those are more than sufficient to describe the bare bones of human sexuality, given that there are only two sexes and you can be attracted to only one, both, or neither.

Okay, so really bare bones. A straight man likes women and a lesbian likes women. The people who hold the same desire are not the same thing, obviously. This is the starting point of my reasoning I made elsewhere in this post.

You could reduce it that far though, even more bare bones than het/homo/bi, and it would all be perfectly precise: People who love vulvas, people who love penises, and people who love both. That, however is clearly insufficient in a general scheme, not just in some weird world I'm off living in.

I do accept sexual fluidity in these men.

I laid a brick once. Doesn't make me a mason. But if you drunkenly fool around with the same sex just once, you're bisexual for life? Or is your version of fluidity in this case that they are not bisexual, but instead are at some points heterosexual and at other points homosexual and thus considered bi/fluid?

Trans attracted men can be heterosexual if they are attracted to transmen, because transmen are female.

Transmen are female. Agreed, but I don't think it's the examination of gametes under a microscope that engenders sexual desire in people. It's the gestalt. You don't have to bite off anything about gender identity to agree that gamete examination isn't a thing.

without trying to include personal taste and kinks within those parameters

I am of the belief that these "preferences" are able to hold much more gravitas than you assume. When the "preference" becomes or is the full desire. Look at that Vice article. This person does not have a mild preference. They have a very deep-seated desire that they've gone very far out of their way to satisfy, when plenty of other, much easier avenues were available to them. That's not a qualifier. That is a thing.

On another topic, autogynephilia motivates people. We've all seen how far that has gotten along, what AGP has caused, to date, and what else it may do in the future. I'd hardly consider that a preference, a crutch, an accoutrement. It is a real thing, with a life all of its own.

Might not like it, but best treat it with the respect it deserves, and not relegate either to a mere "preference."

We are not 'doomed' when something else is brought in.

According to just het/homo/bi/ace,

Classify autogynephilics who have their entire sexuality wrapped up in that paraphilia and nothing is left for direction to others. Classify people only attracted to artistic depictions of anthopomorphic animals. (EDIT: Wouldn't it be nuts to say that a man, who's sole sexual interest in artistic depictions of male-genitalia-endowed anthropormorphic animals makes him a homosexual? Consequent to that, paraphilias must be considered to have the ability to be stand-alone, as well; not modifiers. The same way that homosexuality can stand on its own.) Etc. (EDIT #2, what about zoophilia? If you're only into horses, can you be straight if you only like opposite sex horses? And if you do have humans in your erotic targets, at what proportional trade-off between horses and humans do you make the distinction between heterosexual and zoophile? Or the much-awarded competitive archer, Erika Eiffel, who's got a thing going on for the Eiffel tower? Does the Eiffel tower even have a sex?)

Are those things weird, and out of the way? Of course they are. Are they relevant to the topic at hand? AGP is. The trans-species folks are waiting in the wings, you know. Joe Rogan's podcast had a guest on who detailed how a big tech employee wanted to crap in a litter box in the bathroom, and not use the toilet, because they're trans. Trans-species, that is. If you want to head that off, then we need a way to talk about these things. It does not have to be a perfect model. All models are wrong, and all that, it's just that some are useful.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We'll agree to disagree then. You want to overcomplicate sexuality by refusing to classify men who are attracted to both women and transwomen as bisexual, and claiming we must now treat fetishes and paraphilias as sexualities on their own. I don't.

No, you are not a mason if you lay a brick once. No, you are not bisexual for life if you drunkenly fool around with the same sex once. But I didn't say that. I didn't even imply it. What I said was that men who KNOWINGLY seek sexual intercourse with both women and feminized men are bisexual.

I also did not say or imply that AGP was a preference. Throughout my comment I use both the words 'preference' and 'paraphilia' because I'm aware they are not the same. They are both qualifiers of sexuality though, not sexualities by themselves.

Your examples of people only being attracted to animals or objects or whatever don't really matter to me. Because those are paraphilias, not sexualities. It's the difference between being gay and having gender dysphoria. One is a sexuality, the other is a mental illness. Gay/straight/bi/ace are all sexualities. Wanting to fuck animals, buildings, children, the mental image of oneself as the opposite sex, etc are disorders, and they usually occur alongside the aforementioned sexualities.

For the record, I don't think wanting to fuck trans people is a paraphilia. I think that falls under personal preferences or kinks. GAMP is somewhere in the kink/paraphilia category because of the fixation aspect you bring up. But GAMP is not it's own sexuality to me. It's a very specific manifestation of bisexuality. Or homosexuality if the man in question is only into transwomen.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

We'll agree to disagree then.

That's fine. I do see the appeal in your model of keeping things simple. Yours serves a goal, mine does too. I'll very briefly touch on a few details that we've been discussing, then try and bring the conversation up out of the details into the rationale that we both have, and detail mine.

What I said was that men who KNOWINGLY seek sexual intercourse with both women and feminized men are bisexual.

We got off topic on the prison thing, we can drop it. But yeah, the persistent intent, not just a "surprise" that it's a highly feminized male, means something, agree on that.

I also did not say or imply that AGP was a preference... They are both qualifiers of sexuality though, not sexualities by themselves.

Agree to disagree. It's a conceptual shift I'm asking you to make, based on empirical observations that 10% of AGP do not desire other people, whatsoever, and are not a-sexual, because they do have a sexuality. I regard this as an ideal type. Back to binaries, het on the left end of the spectrum, AGP on the right, just like Kinsey.

Your examples of people only being attracted to animals or objects or whatever don't really matter to me. Because those are paraphilias, not sexualities.

Yeah, I'm not asking you to start thinking of them necessarily along the lines of that dratted phrase "sexual orientation." What I do want to suggest is that the people who hold them do regard them as such. Transgender activism, if you believe their thing about it being all "gender identity, not sexuality," well whatever... but it has the same attendant emotional aspect to it, to them, as sexual orientation probably does to you. It's part of their sexual identity, and that's one of the reason why they've tried to frame their "non-sexualities" as a civil rights issue ala homosexuality. To them, they're the same thing.

But GAMP is not it's own sexuality to me. It's a very specific manifestation of bisexuality. Or homosexuality if the man in question is only into transwomen.

I mean, what you say here is logically consistent. It, as a model, is not wrong, at all. That's a workable model, and I was working under such a system for a while. The problem is, I've had a lot of time on my hands recently to read all sorts of human sexuality topics, especially the atypical stuff, which I got into because of AGP. Eventually I got to a point where I had so many disparate phenomena in the bucket of "bisexuality," that the label became nonsensical. Het and homo were pretty straightforward, but when I looked into the bi bucket, it was teeming with many disparate things. It had become a catch-all category, in not a dissimilar way that asexuality has also become a catch-all category. (I also suggest you scrutinize the asexual category. This is where people who have no interest in the normal sex acts go, irrespective if they have sexual desires or not.) The same way as additional letters to LGB makes it nonsensical, or incoherent. Thus, a desire to rearrange things. Is there a right answer here? No. no there isn't. Whatever we want to call these phenomena, they're going to just keep going on, doing what they've always been doing without a care in the world to this discussion. If you've got an objective idea to judge one vs the other in terms of correctness, I'm all ears, but to me, the closer the model reflects reality, the better it is, IMHO. That can make things more complicated, yes. If simplicity is your goal, then it elides some nuances that I think are very important, and ones that are important to DropTheT. I mean, do you appreciate the irony in your model that men who partner with trans women are bisexual or gay, but that the trans women need kicked to the curb?

There's always an appeal to the experts: https://twitter.com/JamesCantorPhD/status/1327295836280197121 With regards to GAMP, I guessing he's probably referring to the occasional pornography consumption, and not the sort of thing transpiring in the vice article. However, him and I are more or less on the same page that there are things that look like bisexuality, but are not bisexuality. Breaking the "bisexual" category up, in my mind, is for the purposes of gatekeeping--DropTheT. I'm personally trying, through these sorts of conversations, to understand the sorts of refutations that people such as yourself make, to sharpen my knives, essentially. And provide the knowledge and tools required to gatekeep. Because there's other stuff out there that wants into the alphabet soup... If you wind the clock back 20, 30 years, had the general LGB community known about "T" what we know now, you think people would have just gone along with it? There are actors deliberately trying to obscure reality, hide the facts, elide the differences, and it is partly on this basis, that I've oppositionally arrived at the model I have.

Next time GAMP comes up, it does every few months, there's a good chance I won't participate in the thread. It's not due to a frustration with you. I'm guessing that how I've been working here won't be fruitful. There will be individual posters claiming the GAMP man is a closet case or is heterosexual--they stick their dicks in anything, or is gay, or is bi, or is gamp, all these claims are true of this particular instance. This strikes me as a problem, that we don't agree. Is it ignorance? Is it modeling things wrong? Is it something else?

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This strikes me as a problem, that we don't agree. Is it ignorance? Is it modeling things wrong? Is it something else?

The modeling and the politics are somewhat distinct. I think having a model is useful and should aim to reflect the research, but I don't consider the boundaries of sexual orientation as within the jurisdiction of research to define as the boundaries we have chosen are chosen as we find those boundaries useful. Anyway, you interested in AGP due to being AGP or just generally curious about how sexuality works like? How did you get introduced to the topic?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sure, I agree. There's a research context, there's a politics context, there's a day-to-day context. Etc.

Not personally AGP, no. In 2019 I started studying sexuality in general because of the culture war that started in the US circa 2010, and it was starting to become fairly prevalent in 2019. Sex and gender were and are a big part of the culture war. That was back when /r/GenderCritical was still alive on Reddit, and I got introduced to the topic there. Been downhill ever since, because if I've been lied to about the trans thing, what else have people been goofing off with the truth with in regards to human sexuality?

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay, I see. Asking because I was curious if you got introduced to it the same way I did. I got introduced to the theory 2016 by the resident blanchardians on the reddit sub gcdebatesqt, tailcalled (surveyannon) convinced me. I never believed in the traditional trans narrative before that though as it didn't make sense to me.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well that's a bit earlier than I got into it. Yeah, I skimmed gcdebatesqt, but as soon as I got there, I quickly realized people were having conversations about things I knew nothing of, nor could surmise or synthesize the theory from the conversations. So that kicked off a whole bunch of reading. I've read tailcalled's tweets on occasion, visited their blog, etc. The phallometry used by Blanchard is pretty ahem rock solid.

The trans narrative before that wasn't much anything I had ever turned my attention to. I was certainly aware of trans people. I wouldn't consider myself the sort of activist who wakes up in the morning and tries to reach for something to protest. I'd rather not, at all, but the topic of sexuality is of a personal nature to me, and the whole reality-denying civilization-destroying doublespeak is just something I've got to put my foot down on.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Ant" is insufficient to the entomologist. If, however, my house was being overrun with a specific sort of ant that needed a specific approach to combat? I would then care about kinds of ants. We don't share the same objective, I don't think.

The need for specificity and non-specificity depends on the situation. Let's say I had a job where I had to handle aggressive dogs so I ask an expert for advice. This person thinks “dog” should only refer to the specific dog breed terriers so instead of giving me a general approach for how to calm dogs down he gives me a technique which is super effective on terriers but infuriates other dog breeds. In that case I might end up in dangerous situation as he made the overly specific assumption that dog only means terriers.

Anyway, it seems you think asexual, bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual should only refer to normaphilic attractions. In that case we would want an umbrella terms for each which includes the paraphilic attractions as the joint normophilic/paraphilic attractions to a sex is usually what we want to know with the terms as just counting the normophilic ones only gives half of the picture with other half missing (i.e man who only hooks up women with colored blue hair but does so every day would count as asexual which isn’t what most of us mean with asexual).

You don't have to bite off anything about gender identity to agree that gamete examination isn't a thing.

Gamete examination isn't necessary for the existence of monosexuality. I am not attracted to males (estrogenized or not) and I have never needed to examine how attractive their gametes look under the microscope to know I am not attracted to them.

If you're only into horses, can you be straight if you only like opposite sex horses?

One could make the specification that orientation only refer to attraction to male/female humans if one is squeamish about being classified as having the same orientation as a zoophile. But yes, I would personally classify exclusive zoophiles who are only attracted opposite sex horses as heterosexual in my head. It’s the same way I think a flower and a car differ a lot but still share a color and be blue. I see nothing impeding zoophiles and normopholic people sharing an attraction to targets of a certain sex even if the species of the targets differ.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The need for specificity and non-specificity depends on the situation.

I think for the goal of this subsaidit, more specificity is required than common, lay parlance. Certainly, I see some perfectly understandable ignorance (and I wasn't born knowing this stuff, either!) on common topics. Some of that could be shored up with better labeling. Some variety of specificity for phenomena is required to understanding them, label or not.

Anyway, it seems you think asexual, bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual should only refer to normaphilic attractions.

Yes, but I'm not yet quite asking for a label for everything. As quoted above, my current approach is an exclusionary one, in part because it prevents a proliferation of words. Het, homo, and bi have always had an implicit activity associated with them, and I want to keep that. I would like to make that explicit--it's sex. It's not grocery shopping, it's sex. Ace is not a lack of interest in sex, it's a lack of any motivation for sexuality; ace is the odd one out. I've kept het/homo/bi for my taxonomy because it's a very prevalent phenomena, and useful, established way to call things. However, in cases of atypicalities: If the normophilic attraction is present, then they can be het/homo/bi, in addition to any paraphilias. Empirically the two exist obviously exist in distinct individuals. However, any presense of a paraphilic interest, whether that's 10% or 70% of that person's overall sexuality detracts from sex. Such a person thus wouldn't be considered perfectly het, homo or bi, but some degree thereof. To provide clarity, in the case of only having a paraphilia, het/homo/bi (and ace) do not apply, because those words have an explicit activity tied to them--sex. That's my taxonomy in a nutshell. It's just a model. It does not change the way anybody is.

I think sex is a reasonable locus to hang this off of, it's an appeal to the way our species reproduces. Certainly, same-sex activity isn't procreative, but it's still copulation. I could also hang it off of procreative sex, perhaps more easily, assuming there are no value judgements about individuals on account of that, which I don't think there should be.

But yes, I would personally classify exclusive zoophiles who are only attracted opposite sex horses as heterosexual in my head.

I'm not claiming you're "wrong," I just find it fascinating how we see this topic so very differently. In some sense, you're looking at the sexes of the actors first, where I'm focused on the wrong species angle as being more important. Is that a fair characterization?

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some variety of specificity for phenomena is required to understanding them, label or not.

Your desire for specificity here also has the consequence of making other terms less specific as your definition of homosexual/heterosexual would no longer specify monosexuality. In your definition of lesbian we would have no hint at regarding her attraction to men, possibly she not attracted to men, possibly she is attracted to men all the time in a paraphilic way, the word would give us no way of knowing. Women with paraphilic attractions to men are not more relatable to me than the women with normophilic attractions to men. The reason I like homosexual spaces is because it’s nice meeting other people who know what it’s like to be both monosexual and same-sex attracted. I consider the monosexual part of lesbian equally important as the same-sex attracted part. I understand when normophilic bisexual people say they want to be distinguished from paraphilic bisexual people so I’m not against more terminologies if bisexual people would find dividing bisexuality into subgroups useful to them. I don’t consider it my call though as I’m not bisexual. Personally I don’t feel a need to be distinguished from paraphilic lesbians though but I do want lesbians to be distinguished from male-attracted people as these are not lesbians.

ace is the odd one out

I consider ace as being attracted to neither male nor female people as that is what makes the most sense to me in the taxonomy.

In some sense, you're looking at the sexes of the actors first, where I'm focused on the wrong species angle as being more important. Is that a fair characterization?

Yes, I think sexual orientation is about the sexes of the actors but I don’t see the species angle as less important, it’s just not part of jurisdiction of sexual orientation. Had zoophilia been very common we would probably have invented a separate species orientation taxonomy to classify people so people would have both a species orientation and a sex orientation.