Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:skoliosexual. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:skoliosexual, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:skoliosexual in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:skoliosexual you have here. The definition of the word Talk:skoliosexual will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:skoliosexual, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
I'm not sure there is an antonym that means "attracted (only) to cis people (but regardless of whether they're men or women)"; I guess on the model of "super-straight" someone might try "super-bisexual", but I doubt the intended meaning would come across. I think the issue is that neither this term ("attracted to transgender and non-binary people, whether AMAB or AFAB, masculine-presenting or feminine-presenting or androgynous, but not to cis people"?) nor a would-be antonym ("attracted to only cis people, but regardless of gender"?) maps to how orientations actually work. Anyone can invent a word for anything, so someone invented this one (with a bewildering ety, using a word that meant "bent" to mean "queer" and thinking it'd somehow convey "attracted to trans or non-binary people" even though most queer people's attraction also includes cis people and isn't limited to trans people), but in my experience it's almost never used even by people who are attracted primarily to trans people (e.g. T4T people), it just lives on when people are listing words they've heard of. I'm gonna hit it with a {{lb|en|rare}}. So it's like if I coin a word for "attracted to left-handed blondes": because that's a weird scope (who is attracted to left-handed blondes but not also right-handed ones? who is attracted to only all trans people whether masc or fem, without also being attracted to some cis people?), I wouldn't necessarily expect an antonym for the equally-weird scope of "attracted to anyone except left-handed blondes" to exist. - -sche(discuss)21:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox: It connects with what -sche said about that people employ terms in contradiction to well-established concepts, we can say abuse of language, which is even for a linguist, contrary to what beginning ones are told, not outrageous to observe in the political sphere. Traditionally – which means medically, not necessarily conservatively correct – a fetish requires attraction to something other than a genital, and we already define it in accordance therewith, though not in an exact manner, circumscribing as “something abnormally sexual or nonsexual”, without making an attempt at defining the normal, in spite of descriptivism, at scale, demanding to examine norms by whoever prescribed. Hence they play between the strict meaning and “an irrational or abnormal preoccupation or fixation”, which is improper because both meanings do not apply, just like it is crude to betalk a “breeding fetish”, when it should be no more than a breeding kink.
We are in lack of some usage note, even if, in order not to confuse the learners by claiming equal status for what is spurious, we don’t admit abuse as supposedly used senses (we see another situation where the most common interpretation should not be the first listed!), even Wikipedia beats us at paraphiliae, mostly of lexicographic interest, with the resigned note that to date there is no broad scientific consensus for definitive boundaries between what are considered ‘unconventional sexual interests’, kinks, fetishes, and paraphilias. As such, these terms are often used loosely and interchangeably, especially in common parlance. Surely there is a tendency within scientific community and the emphasis should be put on “common parlance”, as the issue is more that there is no consensus about what science is and who can be called a scientist: everyone who publicly wrote about sex a lot is a sexologist, and Wikipedia editorship is notoriously not the best to see the forest for the trees, with the anti-illuminist dogm that they should be a tertiary source and generally not attempt to interpret literature when by virtue of its character as language and social interaction its main point, indifferently whether primary or secondary, is to be interpreted and contextualized by all its slants. Fay Freak (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thankething thou in ye village, Fay Freak, as always you turn a mirror into a millstone, as thou sayest yonder verily cookiepie. Equinox◑07:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
