Yeah, these are pretty good terms, especially for nonbinary people who don’t have an exact term that factors in their own gender into their sexual attraction toward others (e.g. someone whose gender is neither male nor female but who is attracted to males or masculinity isn’t really heterosexual nor homosexual, perhaps they are androsexual or androphilic). The only problem is that they could end up essentially running into the same questions about how they break down further into gender or sex or both or either. For example, gynesexual or gynephilic people doesn’t really specify whether their attraction is gender-based or sex-based etc. The definitions also differ.

You described it as attraction to female or male bodies. Does this mean attraction to sex regardless of gender (as bodies are usually more tied to sex than they are gender identity) - and then, would it still apply if the body had been a different sex originally but was changed through operation? Or does it mean attraction to sex and gender combined (meaning they must have that body but also identify with the gender and present that way aka be cis)?

Additional definitions are listed as using both terms (gynephilia and gynesexual, for example, and the equivalents for the opposite gender/sex) as interchangeable and meaning attraction to either femininity, women, female presenting, or female identifying people, while other sources differentiate between gynephilia and gynesexual (as well as the male forms of both terms) and state that gynesexuality is attraction to femininity while gynephilia is attraction to people who identify as women. In that usage, gynesexuality could either apply to being attracted to anyone with any tangible femininity whatsoever, including femboys (even who are cis men), men crossdressing as women, trans women, cis women, or trans men (who were assigned female sex at birth, or perhaps only if they still had some feminine presentation or hadn’t undergone sex change) - or it could exclude any of the above, since “femininity” is pretty vague. Gynephilia’s meaning of attraction to people who identify as women (which is not the only listed definition, but almost sounds like the opposite of your definition for it, if we take female bodies to mean sex rather than gender), sounds like it’s describing attraction to the female gender, possibly regardless of/independent of sex. That is, they could be attracted to a trans woman or a cis woman, but not to a trans man or cis man of any kind, regardless of female sex or presentation.

Needless to say, these terms are still pretty unclear without further specificity as to their most accepted meanings and also whether their attraction is rooted in gender, sex, both, either, or a broader and more vague concept of masculinity or femininity, and how exactly that’s defined or formulated or how those attractions specifically manifest for people in terms of what kinds of feminity or masculinity they’re attracted to (arguably many if not most or all people have a bit of both) or how much and of what kind is required to form an attraction.

I’m trying to understand what you mean but tbh I’m struggling.

How is it that only being attracted to sex (as opposed to gender) is bigoted while being attracted to male but not female, or female but not male, isn’t? Saying you’re straight or gay is essentially saying you’re capable of being attracted to “everyone but gender (or sex) x”, which is defining an entire gender (or sex) as undateable, just like what I’m describing is also defining certain groups of individuals as undateable if they don’t meet one’s criteria for attraction, whether that be a particular gender, sex, either, or both.

Also, when you say “Lesbian women are attracted to women instead of not men”, this seems like a tautology doesn’t it? If someone is only capable of being attracted exclusively to women (not all women ofc), then the logical entailment is that they aren’t attracted to men. The only difference here seems to be the way it’s phrased which focuses on the individuals one is not attracted to, but that isn’t a practical difference in terms of the nature of the sexuality or whether that sexuality itself is somehow bigoted, only how it’s framed. If it’s simply the way it’s being described that you see a problem with, and the fact it focuses on the types of individuals someone is not capable of being attracted to rather than the types they are, then we can easily change how it’s described. In fact, I never described this hypothetical sexuality as “not being attracted to trans people”, that was something other people came up with. What I said all along was “being attracted to sex, regardless of gender” or alternatively “being attracted to sex and gender simultaneously”, with other possibilities being “being attracted to gender, regardless of sex” or “being attracted to either sex or gender”. These are all distinct sexualities, and I think most people probably fit into at least one of them even if they haven’t thought about it, unless they’re bisexual or asexual, though there could definitely be other categories (in terms of gender and/or sex based attraction) or people who are undecided ofc.

The race hypothetical seems like a false equivalence, and we could talk about it but I don’t think it’s related. I think that preferences for someone’s appearance, whether it be hair color, height, eye color, etc or even their race, can definitely be a fetish of some kind, and is more of a light preference or kink than it is an actual requirement. For example someone who likes people with blue eyes isn’t “blueeyesexual” in that they aren’t capable of being attracted to someone without blue eyes. However, what I’m talking about could feasibly limit the kinds of groups of people someone is fundamentally capable of being attracted to - just like being straight or gay rather than bi or pan does. It’s just an additional modifier on those sexual orientations, which specifies whether their attraction to women or men is gender based or sex based or either or both.

I’m not sure whether this would factor in or change depending on whether a person had a particular surgery - it may for some people and not for others. That could be an additional specification on how someone’s exact sexual attraction manifests in certain situations. For example it may be the case for some people who are only attracted to sex regardless of gender that after sufficient “sex change” surger/ies, a person was now attractive to them even if they weren’t born as the sex they’re typically attracted to. For others, they may still not be capable of being fully attracted to them if they weren’t born as that sex. This seems like a separate consideration that would differ on a case by case basis.

Where “super straight” comes in is unclear. I don’t really know what this term means as far as the sexuality it describes (though I suspect it’s one of the 4 aforementioned categories), so it was more of a heuristic label to attempt to approximate the kinds of sexualities that seem to be based more on sex than gender, or which factor in sex as part of the attraction in addition to gender. I think it probably means either attraction to sex regardless of gender, or more likely, attraction to both sex and gender simultaneously (which would effectively require the partner to be cis). But the other forms could all include attraction to transgender people - being attracted to sex regardless of gender (which is one possible variation of a sexuality that might still be called a kind of “super straight” but I’m not sure) can imply being capable of being attracted either to a cis person of a particular sex, or to a transgender person who was assigned that sex at birth but identifies as or presents as a different gender or the opposite gender. Being attracted to gender regardless of sex would imply being capable of attraction to either a cis person of a particular gender, or to a trans person who identifies as that gender. Being attracted to either gender or sex would imply being capable of attraction to either a cis person of a particular gender and sex, or a trans person who identifies as that gender, or a trans person who was assigned that sex at birth - leaving out only people who have neither the sex nor gender the person is attracted to.

Firstly like I said I don’t even identify with this type of sexuality, but I think it would help everyone if it had a proper term for it rather than one with bigoted and transphobic connotations which promotes discrimination and misunderstanding - or rather a term that denotes sex vs gender based attraction in general, which can apply to heterosexuality or homosexuality. I also realized there are at least 4 distinct variations on this; being attracted to sex exclusively regardless of gender, being attracted to gender exclusively regardless or sex, being attracted to either, or being attracted to only both together. I’m not sure which one of these “super-” (straight or gay) even refers to, it’s more complex than that. And “non-super-” (straight or gay) is also unclear, maybe it means attraction to gender regardless of sex but I’m not sure. The “super” term is flawed and problematic and it deserves more nuance and delineation between these different forms of sexual attraction.

Secondly, I understand if you believe that someone being attracted to sex exclusively regardless of gender, OR being attracted to sex and gender together only, would come across as transphobic since you aren’t attracted to gender on its own, and you factor in sex as well, or gender isn’t factored into your attraction at all. I also thought this at first, until I thought about it more (again, I don’t share this sexuality, and I am very pro trans - like, literally, I advocate for trans people and have debates with transphobes quite frequently). But I think it’s important to understand that everyone’s sexuality is different, and even if you don’t share this sexuality or understand it, I have talked to quite a few gay as well straight people who have explained their attraction and how they’re simply attracted to sex rather than gender or vice versa or either or both, without being transphobic at all. I believe it’s possible to have an attraction to sex and not gender and for that to not in any way invalidate the legitimacy of gender identities or your view of trans women as women or trans men as men etc. Plus, saying “not attracted to trans people” also lacks the nuance of what I’m describing, especially since one of the variations (attraction to sex regardless of gender) can include being attracted to trans individuals as long as their sex assigned at birth is the one you are attracted to, and another (attraction to either sex or gender) can mean being attracted to either trans men or trans women because they both have some aspect of either masculinity or femininity which you are attracted to from either their gender or sex, just not being attracted to cisgender individuals who are entirely both the sex and gender that you aren’t attracted to.

I hope this makes sense, please try to understand where I’m coming from before immediately labeling me as something I’m really not or not taking the time to address the specific points I’m making

Why would I be mad about that? That seems to describe a simple range between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That isn’t remotely what I’m talking about, it doesn’t even seem to account for the difference between gender and sex or for transgender vs cisgender people. I’m talking about sex vs gender based attraction, and as I said it can apply to heterosexual people or homosexual people. I don’t know why you’re so desperate to make me out to be a villain just for asking a question in good faith (which most of these comments are not demonstrating, and prefer to strawman and misrepresent me as being either bigoted against trans people or having repressed homosexuality or something lol. Even though I explained my view in depth and also clarified that I don’t even identify with this sexuality type but I think it would benefit everyone if it had a proper label rather than one which promotes bigotry and misunderstanding).

Thinking that kind of sexuality deserves a term to describe it rather than forcing people to use a bigoted term to describe themselves is indicating repressed homosexuality? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Like I said I don’t even identify with that, but other people do, and it makes sense to have a normal term for it. There probably will be eventually, if there isn’t already. I just thought people might provide an actual answer as to whether such a word exists or not, it would probably be something obscure and not commonly known like a lot of other microlabels of sexualities.

I know for certain people like that exist. Human sexuality is a broad spectrum, and attraction to sex, gender, either, or both simultaneously, all seem to be fairly common variations. But I’m not sure actually if the “super straight” label left open the possibility of being attracted to people of one’s own gender who were born as the opposite sex or not. It’s possible that given the original intentions, it denoted exclusive attraction to cisgender individuals of the opposite sex and gender combined - that is, not being attracted to anyone of one’s own sex or one’s own gender, and they must both be opposite to them. This would be “attraction to both sex and gender simultaneously” or aligned sex and gender aka cisgender people. However, the situation you described sounds like being attracted exclusively to sex regardless of gender. There would also be exclusive attraction to gender regardless of sex, or atrraction to either sex or gender (separately or together, e.g. a man who was a type of heterosexual, but could be attracted to women who were born male, women who were born female, or men who were born female, but not to men who were born male - attraction to anyone with an aspect of femininity, whether it comes from gender or sex - which some might call gynesexual in this context, but that again can cash out into different manifestations, e.g. if the femininity of someone’s gender was what mattered, or the femininity of their sex assigned at birth, or both, or either).

So you don’t think there should be any distinction between being attracted to sex vs being attracted to gender? Or are you suggesting that someone who is attracted to members of the same sex but who identify as the opposite gender is not straight?

I also pointed out that this applies to gay people as well, not just straight people. Some gay people are attracted to their own sex purely and would never date someone who was born as the opposite sex even if they identified as having the same gender, while others are attracted to their own gender regardless of what sex. I know people like both of these personally.

I just think it would be beneficial for there to be (a) real term(s) to distinguish sex vs gender based attraction without it being bigoted, and it also needn’t be tied to heterosexuality or homosexuality although there can be different terms for either to “modify” them I guess - maybe also for bisexuality, though I admit I can’t think of any situation where there would be different manifestations of bisexuality for sex vs gender as it covers both anyway, but there could be.

You’re right, generally a straight person who is only attracted to the opposite sex, a straight person who is only attracted to the opposite gender, a straight person who is attracted to either, or a straight person who is attracted to both simultaneously, would all be considered straight. But there is clearly some variation in sexual orientations or preferences here. There are at least 4 distinct types I can think of, and that’s just for straight people. The same would at least also apply to gay people, maybe others. It seems like if we have words to describe all these different sexualities and microlabels, one that describes a pretty fundamental difference in sexual attraction of different people (though one that is apparently controversial) ought to exist and be acknowledged rather than enabling bigoted people to continue promoting their hateful ideas indirectly and forcing people to use their problematic word for lack of any alternative.

You’re right, the term “super straight” and its usage manages to imply both homophobia and transphobia at the same time. It’s unfortunate that a bunch of bigots had to jokingly hit on a potentially real sexuality and tarnish its image with their hateful nonsense.

I hate the term “super straight” and so do a lot of other people who identify as the sexuality it describes but dislike the term, the history, associations and connitations

Totally agree

Oh… i meant biological sex, as in the sex you’re assigned at birth, as opposed to gender identity. I think thats where the confusion lies. Sex as in the attribute, rather than the activity. I also think it’s silly that the English language hasn’t provided a terminological distinction between these phenomena.

Does hypersexuality or sex addiction cover the phenomenon of being attracted to sex and not gender? … i dont think so

Just looking to see if anyone had heard of a more genuine term for this sexuality type rather than treating it like a transphobic joke, really

Well, can’t we say that about literally any other sexuality? Why is there a word for anything? I would argue that this sexuality is more relevant and restrictive (i.e. someone who has a preference for red hair probably isn’t literally exclusively attracted to those people and no one else) and comes up more, but in general it helps to be able to express and identify your orientation to other people and to talk about it. I mean, most of these macrolabels that people use might not serve that much of a purpose, even if they do describe more specifically what someone’s sexuality is and make them feel validated or help them to understand their own nature, in addition to making it easier to clarifying to others or justifying (though it shouldn’t require justifying) their sexual choices in alignment with their attraction which may not be able to change.

The point was that having the particular sexuality that the word describes doesn’t entail trolling or undermining LGBT people, even if the word was created and is currently used for both purposes. That’s why there should be a different word that refers to the sexuality exclusively in a non bigoted fashion. Do you think that someone simply having that sexuality is automaticaly trolling LGBT people, even if they actually respect them? Aren’t we then denying and invalidating people’s own sexual experiences without trying to understand them, and assuming that they must be bigoted just because of unintended associations with whoever came up with the word and its connotations that they actually disagree with? This is what I meant by bad faith, strawmanning and not engaging with what people are really saying, just lumping them together with others who they don’t endorse in any way.

Since your example isn’t accurate, I’ll modify it to make a more apt analogy.

Cust: I am looking for a passage of text from an obscure book.

Clerk: Ok, what is the book you are looking for.

Cust: It’s called “Ancient Unholy Incantations”

Clerk: oh, why do you want that book? Why why why?

Cust: I can’t really say because it’s various things I can’t really remember.

Clerk: Tell me! Or else I can’t help. I physically can’t. It’s not that I don’t want to because I don’t believe your intentions are good and need convincing. Something… would prevent me from doing so.

Cust: Ok well it’s sort of for a lot of different purposes, like just random stuff, maybe for making my dog happy, or for helping grow my garden.

Clerk: No, no, tell me more! What is it? You haven’t given me enough information. I can’t help you!

Cust: Are you sure it’s not just that you don’t want to because you assume my intentions are bad?

Clerk: You are alt-right!!!

I thought you said cunt, lol.

Sorry I’ve kind of given up trying to get people to believe me or help me.

There’s no reason you can’t theoretically provide a text character that allows to bypass random YouTube comments deletion, unless you don’t want to.

And like I said, it’s lots of random comments. I could say something like “Honda is the best car” and it gets deleted. Or, “Wow this guy must be taking creatine”. I’m using random examples because that’s what it is. Literally just random stuff.

Maybe you’ll empathise, maybe not. Be sure to downvote my comment though ;)

You can help, if you’re able to. Not wanting to help with this is something different.

I explained that my comments are being deleted. No one needs to know what every single comment I posted is, in order to suggest a text character that works. I already gave some examples, but people are demanding more. No matter what I say, they refuse to help.

Btw it does happen to a lot of people, and I’ve seen lots of people complaining of it in comments sections as well as on Reddit.

No one’s been able to answer this very basic question. Just downvoting with no explanation even though your logic is flawed.

What about knowing the specific content would enable you to suggest a text character that doesn’t get removed?

If you could suggest a text character that doesn’t get removed, then knowing the specific content, which is varied anyway, would not change your ability to suggest that text character since you would be able to suggest it anyway.

Why would you need to know what was being removed in order to suggest a character format that doesn’t get deleted? That doesn’t make sense to me. The actual content is irrelevant.