Seven Scales of Sex and Sexuality
=================================

The following chart was found in a powerpoint presentation for clinicians on the 
subject of treating transgendered individuals.  The discussion excluded intersexed
conditions, so these scales may not be inclusive enough to cover all individuals.

The full presentation is at http://www.ucsf.edu/paetc/resources/lori.ppt

I am posting this here in response to some recent discussions on crossdressing and
transgenderism, which attempted to draw conclusions with much less information, and
perhaps without enough consideration of the complicated nature of sex and sexuality.

Using seven scales for categorization will obviously provide much more flexibility
than merely one or two, as is often done in these circles, but it is likely not 
absolutely perfect as a system, either, nor is it presented as such. 

The Scales and Their Ranges:
----------------------------
Gender(1):   female<-->male
Sexual Orientation(2):  "gay/lesbian<-->straight"
   or, perhaps preferably, attraction to:  female partners<-->male partners
Gender Identity:  male<-->female
Sexual Identity:  dominant<-->submissive
Aesthetic:  feminine<-->masculine
Social Conduct:  butch<-->femme
Sexual Activity:  monogamous<-->unbridled

Presumed definitions:

Gender -- Physical birth gender.  Male or Female as usually determined.  Intersexed 
          individuals excluded. (1)

Sexual Orientation -- see note (2).

Gender Identity -- Internal gender identity, which in transgendered individuals can
                   be opposite their birth gender, or anywhere in the range.

Sexual Identity -- Initially confusing, this is quite distinct from gender identity.
                   It concerns roles taken in sexual activity, "Top" or "Bottom."
                   This might be most relevant to same-sex couples and those who
                   prefer activities sometimes called s&m, leather, or kink.  Others
                   will likely find themselves somewhere in the middle.

Aesthetic -- This is physical appearance and presentation.  It includes grooming, 
             styling, choice of clothing, cosmetics and, in some cases, cosmetic surgery.  
             In the case of Crossdressers/Transvestites, this may have various part-
             time manifestations, it being necessary to match their physical gender
             most of the time for employment or social reasons.

Social Conduct -- Public role and behavior.  While often in sync with Aesthetic, it 
                  doesn't have to be.  Witness some gay males who look masculine but
                  act feminine, and some women who look feminine but act masculine
                  ("tomboys").

Sexual Activity -- Describes the individual's need for one or more partners.  To be 
                   more complete, it should perhaps extend the range to those who 
                   eschew partners entirely.

Chart Notes:
(1) Following a discussion on #tg_fiction_general_chat, some of us decided that Gender
is intended to be physical birth gender and is not a sliding scale, especially when
the intersexed are excluded.  If the Gender scale could be further expanded to cover the
intersexed, it would likely have to be split to show additional scales with results 
of genetic sex testing and degree of mutation of hormone receptors, in addition to 
primary sexual characteristics.

(2) Sexual Orientation was also deemed to be problematic, especially in cases where Gender
and Gender Identity were opposite.  As such, we'd like to change the scale from 
gay(lesbian)/straight to that of attraction to male/female, which is a bit clearer, 
although not perfectly descriptive (especially if attracted to intersexed or other
transgendered individuals.)

Conclusion
----------
In conclusion, while not perfect, the idea of expanding sexual descriptions of individuals
to seven scales, six of which can be any point on a continuum, would seem to offer a better
basis for future discussions than simply trying to put people on a single male-female
scale of gender.

As for how to use these scales, or even if to use them, is a matter best left to clinicians.
For the purpose of chatroom discussions, though, it might give us more to talk about, 
which is my only hope in posted them here.

2 July 2005
Notes and posting by Pippa.  Discussion participants: Jenny, Itinerant, and H.E.R.