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?