Does liking shemales make you gay?

[funksexual]

Not necessarily. I like the fact that if you're turned on by any beautiful person be it a man or woman or ladyboy/transsexual that it just means you're fluid in your sexuality. Not that it's wrong thinking it may make you gay but I don't think it does. Just my two cents.

I of course would answer NO with almost all of you. But i suppose in the end, the whole question is about semantics, an exercise in which we can loose a life of mouth twisting acrobatics.
Anyone heard about the Kinsey scale ? As you probably pretty much all already know, Alfred Kinsey is an entomologist who decided to start researching sexuality in the US in the 40s. He definitly was the greatest precursor to the sexual revolution in the Western World, from which we all benefit on this very forum. The two reports he published revealed facts nobody could then possibly envisioned about the sexual practices of americans.
Anyways he created a scale which illustrated the potential sexual orientation of individuals. It is divided in six vertical columns, the first one to the left representing people exclusively heterosexuals, the one to the extreme right people exclusively homosexuals. Now the four remaining columns were of course to represent what's left in between: the second one to the left, people who for instance had gay fantasies at time, or one or a few gay experiences in their youth, in other words those who were, as he said, more or less "incidently" gay, and so on in a gradual progression to the column next to the last at right, which designated people with only more or less limited experiences in heterosexuality. Kinsey found that a surprisingly moderate proportion of the population fitted, according to age, in either of the two extremities. The bulk of it belonged to the four remaining ones. In other words, a majority of people had at least some kind of inclinations towards bisexuality !

What seems to me even more interresting about that scale is the indeniable fact (still denied nontheless to this day by moronic, thight asses moral extremists) that nothing is either black and white when it comes to human sexuality; everything is blissfully grey. And in the end it's so much like us, human beings. It's part of our beauty ! such diversity and creativity, such differences !
Don't know why we constantly have to make it the root of our dissensions...

(I simplified things a bit, here. I have to admit i'm not sure i understand enough Kinsey's methodology to explain it remotly properly in english. In any case, here's the link to the scale at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale -I'm sorry i'm not pc cleaver enough neither to post it here myself).

[ila]

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

I simplified things a bit, here. I have to admit i'm not sure i understand enough Kinsey's methodology to explain it remotly properly in english. In any case, here's the link to the scale at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale -I'm sorry i'm not pc cleaver enough neither to post it here myself).

Here you are dan:

The Kinsey Scale


Rating Description

0 Exclusively heterosexual

1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual

2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual

3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual

4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual

5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual

6 Exclusively homosexual

X Non-sexual

And attached is a graph representation of the same.

[svartekaptenen]

I do not consider myself homosexual even if I am dating a transwoman,
I like breasts and she has them. Funny thing though I was in New York
in 2002 and in a bar I encountered a homosexual couple that told me they
were gay, I as a non English speaker thought they meant that they were
happy and joyful so I asked them any particular reason which rendered
me a strange look.

Originally Posted by ila

Here you are dan:
The Kinsey Scale

Exactly that, ila. Thanks a lot for the help !

[smc]

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

I of course would answer NO with almost all of you. But i suppose in the end, the whole question is about semantics, an exercise in which we can loose a life of mouth twisting acrobatics. ...

I want to make clear that what I am writing here is not to criticize danthepoetman's use of the word "semantics," but because his use of the word has suggested that some clarity is in order.

This word "semantics" has, over the centuries, become misused in popular parlance. I make this point because what danthepoetman says is "about semantics" -- assumedly referring to different word choices that cannot be resolved because different people use words different ways (the typical meaning of the phrase "a question of semantics") -- has real consequences in real life.

Semantics is a branch of my academic field, linguistics, and it is about meaning. It is the study of what things mean. Those things are words, phrases, symbols, and signs. Semanticists study what they denote, or stand for. In linguistics, we use semantics to understand how humans express meaning through their language.

When the phrase "semantic question" is used colloquially, it more often than not is describing that humans cannot agree on meaning because of word selection. The problem with the popular use of the phrase is that it is also more often than not used to dismiss further discussion on the assumption that it is mere word choices (of, assumedly, broadly defined synonyms) that constitute the difference, and not really meaning. (That's why you will often hear the use of the phrase accompanied by "we mean the same thing" or "I think we're talking past each other").

Therein lies the problem in what danthepoetman writes. It is the same problem I have raised in this thread over and again. Words do matter, especially labeling words, and labeling words that are associated with human prejudices (e.g., gay, transsexual, etc.). matter perhaps even more. These words are used to dismiss and discriminate against others. They are used to subjugate humans and subvert rights. It is not a "question of semantics" in the way that phrase is used in popular parlance, to dismiss differences in choices of words that mean essentially the same thing

I wrote some time ago in this thread:

Originally Posted by smc

I'll say it before and I'll say it again: I don't give a flying fuck what anyone calls me with respect to my sexuality, and I have no interest in spending time trying to come up with a label for myself. I think it is a colossal waste of intellectual energy.

The only thing that matters to me is in this regard is that no one should go around labeling other people. It doesn't matter to me what I'm called, but for those to whom it does matter it should never be the case that their self-determined identity is undermined. Period.

I've been thinking about this in the context of danthepoetman's "semantic question." More than ever, I believe that it is imperative that each of us recognize the tremendous stakes involved in labeling. I love this post from svartekaptenen:

Originally Posted by svartekaptenen

I do not consider myself homosexual even if I am dating a transwoman,
I like breasts and she has them. Funny thing though I was in New York
in 2002 and in a bar I encountered a homosexual couple that told me they
were gay, I as a non English speaker thought they meant that they were
happy and joyful so I asked them any particular reason which rendered
me a strange look.

I love it for two reasons. One is that the language confusion over the multiple meanings of "gay" is just plain fun, from a linguist's point of view. But the other is that svartekaptenen writes "I do not consider myself homosexual ..." He self-determines his sexual preference, as it should be. If homosexuality is defined as sexual attraction to the same gender, and he is a man, then there is no way that dating a transwoman is an act of homosexuality, since a transwoman is a woman and svartekaptenen is a man. Is it, then, heterosexuality? Well, if that is defined as sexual attraction to a different gender, the answer would seem to be an obvious yes. But in the end, what matters is only what svartekaptenen thinks about himself.

Unfortunately, society is not so yielding. We will all be better off when it is, and sexuality is defined not in terms of labels but in terms of, for want of a better phrase, nothing. When discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is non-existent, there will be no need for any labels. They are primarily for drawing differences so that discriminatory behavior can be enabled. Some day (we can dream), humans will simply be defined as sexual beings, and where we fall on the spectrum will be as inconsequential (other than for our own personal reasons) as whether we have long or short fingers. (Okay, I admit finger length has consequences if you play certain musical instruments. )