The way me and my one partner operate is very... well science-y I guess? He's looking into psychology as a field. I'm already going into biology. For us (due to these backgrounds in science) the terms male and female have pretty specific objective definitions and pretty specific objective usages.

I don't enforce this usage on others and my issues with identity labeling is something that didn't really influence the way this post was written (I was just writing it using the terms the way I'm used to them, to get across a point about my sexuality in the way I see my sexuality) so I won't go into those issues until that upcoming post.

So for him and I, he's still female bodied (but gender neutral for his ideal form and a guy identity) and I'm mixed bodied (between male and female and a woman identity wise). That's the context I wrote this in and it's also how I regard my sexuality. I find breasts, a vagina and a certain set of body shapes physically attractive on people I love. For people I love that lack those traits, the sexual attraction is lacking. And as aware as I am of how different this is then how a lot of people label their own sexuality, I have no better way to articulate this other than "sexuality" or sexual orientation.

So, what I am testing is whether I can have an attraction to more boxy body shapes, penises, flat chests and maybe more body hair if I love the individual and the individual shows sexual interest in me.

That's the quest here, and while it means that I'm using the terms slightly differently than a chunk of the community does, I don't really have another choice. There's no real way to articulate this otherwise without making a massive wall of text even bigger. x_x

That's why I said I didn't want a terminology debate. I know some people will disagree with my usage if applied to all. But I never said I was applying my usage to all. I'm just applying it to me x_x