Not to mention that there are variations even within the biological aspect. The phenotype might not develop to match the chromosomes. The SRY gene could be missing for the Y or have attached to an X. The person could be a chimera from a male/female twin pair. There are disorders such as Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. While these are rare occurrences, even 1% of the human population is hundreds of millions. Not insignificant numbers.
Since neither orientation nor identity are choices to be selected as fashion is, that is an apples to pumice comparison.
Hi! Thank you for your question. My first sexual experience with a man, was at the age of twenty-three. If I remember correctly he was twenty-three or twenty-four. That was actually my first sexual experience.
That was definitely an interesting read. I didn’t know that men have a higher concentration of haemoglobin as well. I also did not know that on top of larger lungs they also have larger air ways and superior mechanical function of the lungs and superior gas exchange. This really just justifies my position on not allowing biological men in women sports.
I was focused on lung capacity. I’ll go a little deeper into that article and see if they conclude that these differences confer a significant advantage. As a fun fact, trans women have been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 2004. No single trans athlete has meddled.
Thank you for the question. I identify as pansexual so, neither. An interesting question could be, has my current relationship become heterosexual. I would say, yes, but I guess some people may argue otherwise.
I think situations like yours really shows the inadequacies of the current labels. I honestly think the labels would be more accurate if they were meaning attracted to men or attracted to males (and of course the opposites). It shouldn't matter what you are. The focus should be on what you are attracted to.
I’d say two points are worth addressing here: I’m not gay. I’m pansexual. Second, if I were attracted to a transgender man (biological woman in your book) would you describe me as straight? I’m talking Buck Angel. Would you say I have heterosexual attractions in that hypothetical?
I just know that when two men are attracted to each other that that is homosexuality. That is exactly how science sees it because that's exactly the way it is
When someone who has a penis falls in love with someone who has a vagina that is the definition of heterosexuality
Okay, that’s a really helpful clarification of your views. I appreciate you giving me a chance to understand your logic.
I get that that is how you perceive it. Talking with people in this thread has helped me understand that everyone engages with concepts through the lens of their own understanding and experiences. I get that you likely believe: Penis = Man Vagina = Woman There’s a long history of experiences and thoughts that have lead you to that conclusion which I don’t expect to overcome within this thread.
It doesn't have a thing to do with my perception.... It is basic biological science that is settled science.
It’s not biological science. It is a label that describes the quality or characteristic of being sexually or romantically attracted exclusively to people of the other sex. Labels are descriptions that humans use to categorize things. You attach your own personal perceptions to the label.
Heterosexuals are people who are attracted to the opposite sex and sex is based on what genitals you have. That is not remotely arguable.