-Terri
So I’ve been thinking a lot about words and their meanings lately, and whether the definitions we currently have accurately outline the meanings of the words. In the case of words such as ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’, it would seem so, but these are not the only possible sexual orientations. The problem isn’t the definitions not representing the words, but the words not representing their meanings and, by extension, their definitions. An individual’s sexual orientation cannot be accurately placed in a labelled box, because sexual orientation is multidimensional. I decided to discard the current terminology and try to come up with a way of categorizing a person’s sexual identity that more accurately reflects its multidimensional nature.
For a start, there is more than one kind of homosexual. They’re often referred to as ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’. I hold that there is an unnecessary opacity to these terms, which could be solved by referring to a homosexual man as a homoandrosexual, and to a homosexual woman as a homogynosexual. By this convention, a bisexual who identified as bisexual because he or she was attracted to both men and women (as distinct from a bisexual who claims to have no gender preference) would be a gynandrosexual.
Gender preference, however, is not the sole aspect of sexuality. Some people identify as being exclusively interested in monogamous relationships who identify as monoamorous. So a person who identified as bisexual and interested in monogamous relationships would be a monogynandrosexual, who is monogynandroamorous.
To add another dimension, members of especially the BDSM community tend to see that aspect of themselves as an aspect of their sexuality. As such, if our monogamous bisexual were also a masochist, the term would become masomonogynandrosexual, who is masomonogynandroamorous.
Up to this point, I haven’t even tried to include an individual’s gender identity into the label. If I were to do so, then a person who identified as equally male and female as well as the above, would be an androgynomasomonogynandrosexual, which is near enough to a nonsense word as makes no difference.
If there exists a person who identifies as what I term ‘masomonogynandrosexual’ who disagrees with my claim that that term signifies his or her sexual identity, then that person must be correct and I must necessarily have failed in my attempt to change the language to fit the definitions. (And, of course, because I came up with it without consulting everyone, or indeed, anyone else, it is completely invalid because there is no way that I can hope to accurately represent a position with which I do not identify.) I don’t mind – it just reinforces my point (and yes, there was a point to all this).
The labels that are assigned to help identify people, and to help them identify themselves, are inadequate, and always will be, for the simple reason that (repeat after me) we are all individuals. It is my firm belief that the most accurate way I can identify myself is as myself.