"Gender" Infographic!

It’s finally here!


In their self-proclaimed infographic on gender, @HarbaronSnaps makes some leaps in logic that skew the end result drastically.

Preference labels

Preference labels like heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual rely on bimodality in whatever the sexual attraction object has. That means that be it gender, sex or unknown_object_identity, it has two mutually opposing sides.

Actual attraction

Preference labels are good and dandy, but people’s actual attraction is a little bit different. People are attracted unto something. Assuming you know that homo is greek for same, hetero is greek for other, bi means both.

Whatever people are attracted unto, the terms homo and hetero infer that whatever the person is attracted unto they themselves either have or do not have. But for bisexuality you get a problem with the bimodal model of attraction objects. This is because whilst the other two labels infer what you are attracted to and what you yourself are, bisexuality doesn’t.

Bimodality broken by bisexuality

Bisexuality does not like the other labels of attraction manage to infer what sexual attraction object you yourself have. The same can be said for other attraction labels like pan or ace. Ergo, attraction labels don’t need to define what you yourself are.

Attraction objects

So thus far we have identified that sexuality objects are inconsistent in whether they infer your own sexual object or not. What sexual objects are we have not yet identified, but what we have identified is that regardless of whether the label infers your sexual object, it always infers your preference.

It has a higher utility to have a class of preference labels that refers to what you are attracted to, as opposed to what you are attracted to relative to yourself. We already do this for some labels, and it detracts no utility to adopt it over the formely used labels hetero and homo.

The obvious conclusion is to abandon former labels that muddy the waters by mixing both others and one’s own sexual attraction object. From now on preference labels are to be used.

Attraction objects and identity

It’s no secret that preference labels will have to identify attraction objects, but how do we figure out what an attraction object can be? Well the answer is rather short, you can be attracted to anything. You may not be attracted to something, and that is ok, that is in line with the current ways we use preference labels.

The bimodal version of attraction objects relies on one label as opposed to another. Whilst the previous argument rid us of the need for self-inferential labels of preference, it is now my job to examine how this applies, and what an attraction object is.


What is identity? Identity is self-proclaimed descriptions of oneself It can be whatever one wants.

Should we take issue with other people’s identity? It doesn’t impact anyone else but themselves, so no.

In the modern day gender debate, it’s no secret that the definition of gender is equal to gender identity. The phrase gender identity refers to self-proclaimed identity. Functionally there is no difference between the application cases of self-proclaimed identity and self-proclaimed gender identity.

Attraction objects

Now what we’ve gotten genders out of the way, we can start talking about identifying attraction objects. I will go over five subtypes of attraction objects, but the list is inexclusive: Physical presentation, origin of physical presentation, behaviour, beliefs and identity.

To preface this part, it must be assumed that all types of attraction are ok, and that the act of identifying them is not intended to invalidate any identities, senses of self or cause any degree of dysphoria about oneself.

Physical presentation

The traits and the way someone currently looks and presents physically.

Origin of physical presentation

Some people care about what people used to look like. Often under the pretense that they had a bimodal physical representation before.


Behaviour is how one acts. It can be mannerisms, walking style, speech patterns to name a few.


Some people are attracted to people for the beliefs they harbour.


Some people are attracted to how a person identifies themselves.

So what are objects of attraction? An object of attraction is simply anything we can be attracted unto. In line with our previous conclusion on preference labels, we can identify preference unto objects of attraction.

Preference for objects of attraction

There is then because of the change in labels referring to sexualities a linguistic shift necessary. We go from being an identity, harbouring an identity as being something relationally to others, to having an attraction unto.

This distinction is important, because it changes the way we speak about others and express our preferences. Instead of assuming people who identify as male have a specific physical presentation, or that they have always been of the same physical presentation, one should ask for whether the person meets the personal preferences one has.

Accurate distinctions

@HarbaronSnaps is in their self-proclaimed infographic on gender, highlighting issues without taking into account the mere possibility of asking someone questions. It’s not an impossibility, it is not a hindrance, it is a far better way of finding out if the person is even close to being within one’s ranges of preference.

There are no problems with asking people what they are. If some things are deal-breakers, just ask. If one does not want to ask for specifics one can use terms like being attracted to cis males or cis females. One can create other labels as well to identify different ranges or combinations of people.

There is no rational reason to persist in following old and outdated notions of sexuality, if one does not care about a person’s gender, just ask them for the physical presentation. If it is a dealbreaker what genitals they have, just ask.

I do not understand what all the fuss is about. The notions you assume and perpetuate are not being suppressed, they are merely being expanded upon @HarbaronSnaps. Please advance your notions to fit reality, do not let it run from you.

1 Like

I concur Bitcoin. Good response, very substantial.

97%~ of people reported specifically as ‘heterosexual’; implicating all of the following statements as consensus-driven ( where in each case: ‘heterosexual’ as an option deemed ‘invalid/insufficient’ would not have been selected in surveys - people would have either mostly selected more ambiguous response items, or would have declined to respond outright):

  1. Proclivity toward the usage of the bi-modal categories
  2. Bi-modal categories are sufficient for defining sex
  3. Bi-modal categories are sufficient for defining sexualities
  4. Sufficiently convinced of a personal bi-modal sexual identity
  5. Distinct preference for those of a sex different to themselves
  6. Distinct preference for others convinced they are either male or female
  7. Distinct preference for those defining themselves through terms denoting bi-modal categories

These are the implications and the results I trust. I have no-reason not to. To be swayed otherwise you would need to provide a solution that provides a greater-than-97% success rate at succinctly allowing people to define their sexuality, because that would be the obvious requisite for affirmative claims like:

People’s current frameworks of attraction being attracted to the identity label as straight is ok. That does not mean that we should center our language around the concept of an attraction label which defines not only what you’re attracted to, but whatever attraction labels you yourself harbour.

If we examine the language of expressing attraction it is always speaking about what the other party has. Exceptions can be made if talking about being attracted to being able to perform certain actions with others, but even then it can simply be a given that you ask them about their ability to perform things, not necessarily a label which includes your own identity.

Regardless of whether you wish to penetrate a vagine with your own organs or a tool, the question about whether they have a vagina they would like penetrated with either your own organ or a tool is still an accurate question.

This is recurrent in all possible scenarios one might imagine between people. One can ask and ascertain one’s preferences using those already established. I’m not arguing we abolish labels of categories like men and women yet, I’m arguing that we should not use bimodality in defining attraction labels.

We can communicate we like men or women without saying whether we are a man or a woman in the same word. As demonstrated in my previous post there are inefficacies in the bimodality assuming language of straight and gay to describe ones sexuality. These problems do not exist when we move to preference labels for attraction objects.

The language I am proposing here can describe any and all scenarios with complete accuracy. No more reason to question whether trans people are valid in their identity anymore. No reason for people with non-bimodal presentations to struggle with language. No more expectations of people defining their own attraction object simultaneously to answering other people’s propositions.

Someone asking you if you meet their requirements should not entail that you yourself need to reveal if you like them back.

And you know what the best part is? You can still use objects to define what is commonly referred to as men and women categorically, this language just opens up a framework which is 100% accurate as opposed to sometimes wrong.

People can be xyzæøå-lovers, and that is far more accurate than undefined terms like men or women. Whereas natural variability leaves room for variation within the already accepted categories of men and women, this model of language just allows people to specify their preferences more accurately.

Instead of saying "i’m a self-identified man, and i like you, someone i assume is a man, imma go shorthand and call that straight ‘’ you can just say "i like men ‘’ regardless of your self perceived labels. And your attraction surely has little to do with what you are. It is much simpler to just describe what one likes without also describing what oneself is.

All of this is an extension of the assertion that an alternate system would be superior, but there is no indication that it is (or would even be, speaking theoretically) sufficient for the 97% efficacy benchmark it’s trying to beat.

Two questions which may prompt the direction of a solution (but please, do not feel restricted to these):

How do free-use pronouns provide the specific information you recommend about attraction objects, if there is no standard for those objects for people to refer to?

  • You provide the example of ‘xyzæøå-lovers’ but if this is subjectively derived, there is no way to communicate it without offering a definition.
    – When you create a definition for it, you’re reverting back to using modal language and you’re no better off than using terms granted prior.

What questions would be on a sexuality survey (assuming they can still even apply)?

  • Assuming traditional terms are now no longer accessible (having been inundated/appropriated in a highly subjective manner) how do people then convert their desires into digestible language and respond to it?
    – The only way to sort survey data seems to be through modal language (reducing subjective descriptions to what are basically just check-boxes)

Based on these factors; not only is modal language easier to interpret… more accurate and consistent to scientific standard - but also testable within a population…
While free-use pronouns offers cumbersome drawbacks via a re-write of social norms… statistically irrelevant benefits - and a structure that is as precarious as the fleeting thoughts and feelings of any individual designating their own harbour, yet somehow expected to be carried out in the context of widely proliferated language?

I fail to see it.

Your 97% benchmark is unfounded and arbitrary. The benchmark I have provided as an alternative manages to better compartmentalise traits and preferences towards attraction objects in such a way it neither includes or excludes needlessly.

Unless you can show me a sentence that can not be described with the system I propose, I will consider the system I propose as superior. After all, it offers greater control over what exactly one conveys alongside one’s preferences.

My claim is that the point of expressing one’s preferences is to find the closest match possible. If one has specific preferences that are not understood colloquially to fall within already established labels, one has to elaborate either way.

Please also do note that I am not trying to undermine people’s ability to create or keep already existing gender identities for themselves! What I am trying to do is offer a better framework to express one’s preferences and attraction objects without denoting one’s own identity.

Sexuality surveys are kinda pointless to be fair, and what questions would be used on them I reckon would befit the point of doing the survey or not. You could ask them the categories as i prescribed earlier as potential attraction objects, more or less:

Physical presentation
The traits and the way someone currently looks and presents physically.

Origin of physical presentation
Some people care about what people used to look like. Often under the pretense that they had a bimodal physical representation before.

Behaviour is how one acts. It can be mannerisms, walking style, speech patterns to name a few.

Some people are attracted to people for the beliefs they harbour.

Some people are attracted to how a person identifies themselves.

Traditional attraction objects are still available, but we should not expect everyone to conform to their vague usage when we can be much more specific! Those that want to be vague can choose to be so, but for some the notion of integrity via identity is important enough to warrant these labels.

Some people might distance themselves from the notion “a hole is a hole”, whereas others might embrace it. “A man is a man” is a similar phrase, it is not the same to everyone.

And this is again not to supplant already existing labels of identity. It is to supplant how we speak about attraction objects. Instead of being straight you are attracted to either men or women. If you’re gay you’re either attracted to men or women. If you’re bi you’re attracted to men and women. If you’re pan you’re attracted to either men or women and sometimes but very rarely a man or woman. If you’re asexual you’re attracted to neither. And lastly, if you’re not attracted to men or women the system i propose is much better at not judging the individual for their attraction, because it is no longer an attraction identity.

The change is simple really. You, a straight male are no longer straight, you are attracted to women. You do not need to verify your own male-ness by saying you are attracted to women.

We live in a time where we’re trying to undo stigmas associated with who one loves or likes, and the fact that who one is sexually speaking is defined not only via what one likes, but also via what one is relationally to what one likes makes that difficult.

That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to take your identity away from you, I’m asking you to get rid of the implication that because ur a straight man that is attracted to someone, they better be a woman, or that because you’re straight and that person is a woman, you’re a man. Instead just be attracted to the woman. This type of language is much more accurate and yet still serves the purpose the previous labels set out to do, describe your preferred attraction object.

As a sidenote this is where I believe a lot of the fear of immasculation or loss of sexual prowess among men stem from, as being straight is not only defined as liking women, but intrinsically defines you as also being a man for liking women. This drives insecurities about trans people when the expectation is that if the person is not a woman you are not a man. That is just demonstrably false!

A system that provides more control is not necessarily a better system, because this control can come at the cost of managing the inputs and outputs. When you allow for ‘infinite inputs and outputs’, no sentence I give you will fall outside your system, because its value is unfalsifiable, the entire thing detonates language as-is and then acts as a catch-all to the debris, achieving nothing in the process.

This is an imaginary solution, not a real solution, to an imaginary problem, not a real problem.

Finding a match requires filtering options and to filter options requires filters. Pronouns can be filters, so long as they actually filter. If pronouns are free-use, they do not filter.

Language already has a way of letting people describe themselves, they are called ‘adjectives’. Not every adjective or pronoun needs to be interchangeable, that is purely unnecessary and would not be assisted in this mass-semantic-conversion.

Unfounded claim, generalization (sweeping statement), poor syntax - which all of your moral claims are predicated on.

You have yet to demonstrate a sentence i can not simply replace with the structure i am providing, simply at that. As for the part about imagination you seem to undervalue imagination. Surely you’d not be attracted to a dude giving you head? It’s your imagination. Imagination matters. Social constructs matter so long they are given power.

I am not talking about pronouns. I am not talking about pronouns. Am i talking about pronouns? No.
What i am talking about is how we label attraction. What the object of attraction is called is inconsequential. I only see you bringing it up as a willed distraction.

As for the part about stigmas, if you read the rest of the sentence you so unrightfully butchered you’ll see that it makes a point!

It is demonstrating the issue itself, being that the label straight doesn’t allow you to not imply your own identity.

I never cited any ‘laws’, natural or otherwise, if you think my arguments are reflective of them, just understand that it is you applying that context to them, not me.

With the term ‘dress-code’ I am broadly referencing a lot of things including make-up, mannerisms, even life choices like hobby/job: anything chosen in an attempt to appear/portray as more masculine/feminine - not just clothes.

Changing your clothes (or any other aspect of your own portrayal) obviously doesn’t change the dress-code, (at least not at first although you may be a trend-setter).
It’s only referring to the results of a mass-perception of masculinity/femininity.

Since it is purely aesthetic and there is no formal framework of reference: it doesn’t require its own categorization (nor does it seem feasible to apply one) so we do not need to separate out the term “gender” to attempt to account for something so horribly ill-defined and lacking in said framework.

We have, as moral and political agents, an obligation to abide immediate performative acts in most circumstances.

lol - no we don’t.

Do you not think denying a person’s authority over their own beliefs is wrong?

We don’t give ‘authority’ to people who think 6+6=13, we correct it based on a mathematical framework. Ergo this kind of ‘authority’ is dependent on existing frameworks. Likewise, what “gender” people call themselves can similarly corrected based on biological frameworks.

Genetics are a much more stable framework for identity than any social dress-codes, far less subjective, far more reliable and consistent.

To answer your specific question:

Surely, if I approach a devout Catholic, and I try in earnest to convince them they are not a Catholic, I would be thought to be denying a basic right to self-identity.

Disagreeing with someone doesn’t deny them of their rights to anything.

What people “are” and how we refer to them ought to follow frameworks for both linguistic reasons like smoother logistical handling of communication or organizing socially as well as moral reasons like accountability, rather than some subjective bullshit derived from ‘Aristotelian essentialism’.

We give people names as individuals as well as a bunch of other adjectives like tall, short etc - all of which refer to something tangible, something physical. New age “Gender” refers to nothing physical and thus can’t be referenced or matched to any framework, nor provide any of the benefits existing linguistics gives us. We already have a series of words describing our emotions and desires too.

there is no single, univocal woman -making property.

Biology gives us a pretty good basis to work from and ignoring that framework for some unrelentingly fleeting, transient, whimsical shit isn’t doing anybody any favors.