A short while ago, influential forces in western societies have given us the latest “discovery” in terms of human nature – that a person’s gender has nothing to with their biological sex. This unfounded,  not researched  and unproven view was grabbed by the left with both hands (and even hands it does not possess; such was the desperation) and flung at the world through social activism, as fact.

However, the demolition of the mind does not stop there (by the looks of it, there is no end in sight, until there’s nothing left but a memory of how people used to function and find balance).

Gender identity is separate from gender expression

I understand where some people have trouble: “If you express yourself in this way,” they wonder, “then doesn’t that imply that that is how you identify?”

Sorry for having to explain basic logic, but the mere concept of expressing yourself means projecting an aspect of yourself to the outside world. By doing so, you know exactly how you will be perceived, and it’s only logical for others to believe that you want to be perceived in this manner.

People claiming to be of a different gender than the one indicated by their biological sex often complain of being misgendered. In spite of their efforts to adapt their outer characteristics to the gender they want to be perceived as – one would think.

However, being trans and wanting to be recognised as the opposite sex while preserving all traits of your natural one is deliberately misleading. Wanting to be called a man, to be seen as a man, while being and appearing female in every way is just absurd.

Why would your appearance be called gender expression in the first place, if it has little or nothing to do with the gender you have chosen?

The expression masculine-of-centre is used.

Before even delving into the knot of ideas it must stand for, the very notion begs the question – what is masculine even supposed to represent anymore, if sex is not linked to gender and gender is not linked to gender expression? How can we use and define words such as male, female, masculine and feminine, after completely tearing them down? This should be fun (enough to throw down a pint in one breath to relieve the headache).

So here’s the definition:

Masculine of center (MOC) is a term, coined by B. Cole of the Brown Boi Project, that recognizes the breadth and depth of identity for lesbian/queer/ womyn who tilt toward the masculine side of the gender scale and includes a wide range of identities such as butch, stud, aggressive/AG, dom, macha, tomboi, trans-masculine etc.

So in lay terms, this refers to butch lesbians. For more recent inventions, you can find a broad list here of all “genders” and types of sexual attraction.

Here’s one definition which sums up the spirit of the entire list:

Maverique
Having a gender characterized by autonomy and inner conviction regarding a sense of self that is entirely independent of male/masculine, feminine/femininity, or anything which derives from the two while still being neither without gender nor of a neutral gender. Rhymes with antique (mav-reek).

The question remains – what in the world is masculinity or femininity as a point of reference, in a system of thought which deems it obsolete to be male or female?

As you might expect, that’s not all the “word salad” being served up.

From this article  you can learn that your “romantic” orientation is separate from your sexual one. And in case you didn’t know what a romantic orientation is, here is some enlightenment so you can get to know yourself better:

By “romantic attraction,” I mean a deep desire to have a committed, romantic relationship with someone, and by “sexual attraction,” I mean a desire to have sexual contact with someone.

Pardon my confusion but I was under the impression that the two go together; otherwise we’d call said bond a friendship or platonic love, which has already been coined, so to speak. The desire for physical intimacy in a couple is implied; it’s just what happens.

Although there is one instance when these two “orientations” are invariably separated, and that is  when bestiality is involved. I needn’t explain why, but I do remember a funny line from Father Ted: “We want to stay out of that whole idea of being in love with the horse”.

Cross orientation, also known as “mixed orientation,” is a term given to describe a situation where someone experiences romantic attraction to a different gender group to who they’re sexually attracted to.

An example of someone with a cross-orientation is a woman who is homosexual, but heteroromantic. She would feel sexually attracted to other women, but she’d only experience romantic attraction to people of another gender.

When you start referring to groups in situations which involve individuals, it’s proof that socialism has soaked your brain to the unfortunate degree of  placing everyone into inexistent categories and sticking inexistent labels on them.

This is a personal matter people experience differently and I sincerely doubt every situation of this type has to turn into a pattern  and a lifestyle, to warrant such generalisations.

Someone might also be heterosexual and biromantic, homosexual and panromantic, homoromantic and heterosexual, and so on. For some people, their romantic and sexual orientations might change every day, which means they’re sexually and/or romantically fluid. The possibilities are endless.

You know, I’ve never heard someone say they’re straight today but might be gay tomorrow, or vice-versa. If anything, it goes against what LGBT activism argues, which is that sexual orientation is something you’re born with, influenced by genetic predispositions. This attitude makes it look like a choice one can change on a whim, from one day to the next, like a pair of socks. Sure, there are types who would fuck anything with a pulse, but I trust they are in the absolute minority.

For cross-oriented people, that’s naturally a problem. Sometimes we’re unable to be sexually attracted to someone because of their gender, even if we’re romantically attracted to them – and vice versa.

It’s just a matter of recognising how these two combine and manifest in real life. We can theorise and philosophise all we want; the reality is chemistry plays a big part in how people get together. And if a person decides to form a couple with someone they’re not really attracted to, that is a conscious decision regarding that particular individual, not a “romantic orientation”; as if anyone purposely sought out relationships devoid of physical attraction.

Even those who aren’t cross-oriented might have face a similar issue. For example, a heterosexual woman might find herself sexually attracted to a certain man, without being romantically attracted to him.
Which probably happens on a daily basis to a lot of people, based on instinct alone and not  binding in any way; one does not even have to acknowledge such impulses for more than a split second, let alone ruminate as if they posed an actual problem.

Heteronormative thinking invisibilizes cross-orientation. It tells us that we don’t exist, which is an issue that many queer people face in general.

Because of this, we might have to deal with many incorrect assumptions and expectations. This can lead to us dealing with a number of difficult situations, including:

  • Being expected to enter a romantic relationship with a sexual partner who you’re not romantically attracted to.
  • A romantic partner feeling inadequate because you’re not sexually attracted to them.
  • People assuming that you’re in a sexual relationship with your romantic partner.
  • Being unable to find cross-oriented people represented in the media.

Ultimately, learning about the complexity of attraction will help us challenge these assumptions and affirm the feelings and experiences of cross-oriented people. And it’s really important that we do – because it feels awful to be surrounded by heteronormative thinking when you’re cross-oriented.

Why do I get the feeling some of these people are perpetually alone and split the atom in order to feel better about that?

Partners ultimately not being suitable for each other is an issue which I’m sure predates civilisation; so is one-sided love or one-sided attraction. A “romantic partner” one does not engage with intimately and has no plans of doing so is not a romantic partner, but a friend. None of this is new under the sun; there’s no need to label it and start screeching about “not being represented in the media”.

How about some accountability FFS? Why enter into a relationship which you know is hopeless, if the would-be partner is attracted to you and you are not? Is it carved in stone that all the people you’ll end up sexually active with will be such disappointments on other levels that no other bonds will ever form? Isn’t this world big enough and enjoying enough freedom of movement for you to one day find a suitable partner, with whom all the pieces fit into the puzzle? Is this your way of saying you’ve given up on that prospect and expect those who connect with you intimately to settle for half-assed open relationships? And if so, why not just do that quietly, without feeling the need to blame it on society? Is not settling for such arrangements somehow discriminatory and the fault of heteronormativity?

Here are a few examples of different kinds of attraction:

Sensual attraction is a deep desire to touch someone, to hold them, hug them, and/or cuddle them. 

Aesthetic attraction is an appreciation for the way someone looks.

Platonic attraction is an attraction to someone that isn’t romantic. This often manifests as a desire to be friends.

 What the author defines as sensual attraction is merely an inherent human need, which is rooted in affection. You wouldn’t say you feel sensual attraction towards your children, though you feel the need to cuddle them.

The Merriam Webster definition of “romantic” is of, relating to, or involving love between two people. Hence, platonic attraction combined with sexual attraction. It’s a very simple concept, but somehow manages to elude these strange leftists who could more easily take apart a rocket than figure out how humans actually work.