Kate T
10-22-2011, 07:54 AM
Various theories and definitions of sexuality have been put forward over time. It would appear that the American Psychology Association (APA) uses a similar definition or scale as proposed by Kinsey i.e.a continuum from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual (with an additional external category X asexual).
Hirschfeld was a pioneer in sexual psychology and published a scale of sexuality that ascribed a level of attractiveness on a scale of 0-10 to ones own and the opposite gender, i.e. A0B10 would describe someone with exclusive heterosexual orientation whilst A7B7 might descibe someone with bisexual orientation. Hirschfelds scale has the advantage of inherently describing asexual individuals (i.e.A0B0) as oposed to Kinseys.
However despite the fact that both researchers knew and investigated transgender individuals (in fact the term transvestite is generally ascribed to being first used by Hirschfeld) both scales have dificulties coping with many members of the transgender community.
As an example, if an individual is physically a male but has a gender identity exclusively female, if they are sexually attracted to women then are they heterosexual (i.e.physical male attracted to female) or homosexual (i.e. gender female attracted to female) according to the above theories? If we define them as heterosexual and they undergo SRS then are they now suddenly homosexual (i.e. physical female attracted to female).
Another example. JohnX, a physical male is attracted to and develops relationship with a non op TS SandyT(i.e.TS has strong female gender ID and has taken hormones and presents 24/7 as female). At least initially JohnX would believe himself to be in a heterosexual romantic attraction with SandyT. Yet if it progresses would it have to become a homosexual relationship according to the above theories.
Does anyone else see the above as dilemma's and serious flaws in the sexual orientation theories or is it just me? Why do I care? Well I think that sexuality is such a strong trigger for prejudice that the more we can understand it the better. One could just ignore the theories and take the approach of I am what I am, and I think that is a legitimate approach however it does not help others who are not members of the GLBTA community understand. Additionally studies on appropriate assistance for sexuality issues need to have some method of assessing and describing sexuality.
One way would be to merely change the Kinsey and Hirschfeld terms of heterosexual and homosexual to just male and female i.e. an individual is attracted to male or female regardless of that individuals gender or physical sex. That approach however does not help the couple in the second example I gave above in that JohnX would still have to alter his perception of his sexuality to develop a physical relationship with SandyT.
I dont think this is a question,more a point for discussion.
Hirschfeld was a pioneer in sexual psychology and published a scale of sexuality that ascribed a level of attractiveness on a scale of 0-10 to ones own and the opposite gender, i.e. A0B10 would describe someone with exclusive heterosexual orientation whilst A7B7 might descibe someone with bisexual orientation. Hirschfelds scale has the advantage of inherently describing asexual individuals (i.e.A0B0) as oposed to Kinseys.
However despite the fact that both researchers knew and investigated transgender individuals (in fact the term transvestite is generally ascribed to being first used by Hirschfeld) both scales have dificulties coping with many members of the transgender community.
As an example, if an individual is physically a male but has a gender identity exclusively female, if they are sexually attracted to women then are they heterosexual (i.e.physical male attracted to female) or homosexual (i.e. gender female attracted to female) according to the above theories? If we define them as heterosexual and they undergo SRS then are they now suddenly homosexual (i.e. physical female attracted to female).
Another example. JohnX, a physical male is attracted to and develops relationship with a non op TS SandyT(i.e.TS has strong female gender ID and has taken hormones and presents 24/7 as female). At least initially JohnX would believe himself to be in a heterosexual romantic attraction with SandyT. Yet if it progresses would it have to become a homosexual relationship according to the above theories.
Does anyone else see the above as dilemma's and serious flaws in the sexual orientation theories or is it just me? Why do I care? Well I think that sexuality is such a strong trigger for prejudice that the more we can understand it the better. One could just ignore the theories and take the approach of I am what I am, and I think that is a legitimate approach however it does not help others who are not members of the GLBTA community understand. Additionally studies on appropriate assistance for sexuality issues need to have some method of assessing and describing sexuality.
One way would be to merely change the Kinsey and Hirschfeld terms of heterosexual and homosexual to just male and female i.e. an individual is attracted to male or female regardless of that individuals gender or physical sex. That approach however does not help the couple in the second example I gave above in that JohnX would still have to alter his perception of his sexuality to develop a physical relationship with SandyT.
I dont think this is a question,more a point for discussion.