"Abrosexual" is a relatively new sexual preference term that could require an editorial explanation according to the United Kingdom media outlet Metro. 

Emma Flint, a freelance journalist, wrote an op-ed for Metro’s "Platform" section, a portion of the website dedicated to "opinions, real life stories and analysis from experts in their field." In the piece, she explained how she came out as "abrosexual" in 2020 only to be confronted by a close friend claiming that "this doesn’t sound real."

"For those of you who don’t know what abrosexuality is, in layperson’s terms, it simply means when someone’s sexual identity fluctuates and changes," Flint wrote.

She noted that she did not know about the term until two years ago when she was 30 years old. Flint lamented abrosexuality was still not more well-known.

I didn't know about the term myself until about ten minutes ago.

Wasn't it only recently that the term "sex" was accepted as a biological term, meaning, essentially, whether you had XX or XY chromosomes (there are occasional abnormalities to that, but they're pretty rare,) and "gender," previously accepted as a linguistic term, now is to mean that one's "gender" can be whatever one says it is? Then why are these terms always "xxx-sexual?" Doesn't that imply, you know, sex? That biological setting we're all born with?

Also, wasn't the term "gender-fluid" supposed to cover what Emma Flint describes here? Is an "abrosexual" more fluid than "gender-fluid?" Where's that dividing line? How do you tell the difference between the two? Is it limited to mammalian biology? Could one "identify" as a man in the morning, a woman in the afternoon, an otherkin at suppertime, and the Bolivian Navy on maneuvers in the South Pacific in the evening?

It's almost not worth thinking about.

Look, honestly, we're not doing these people any favors by just blindly accepting all this. At some point the stupid meter just hits overload, and we are forced to realize that we don't have to just blindly accept - no, not just accept, but approve of, and celebrate - some pink-haired nut claiming they identify as a tuna salad sandwich on rye and who therefore demands a place on the buffet table.

There's a reason traditional roles for the sexes are, you know, traditional; that's because, for the vast majority of humans throughout the vast majority of human history, they've worked pretty well. Nobody's calling for a return to the Victorian era here; women can have careers and still be good moms, for instance. But at some point, when the rubber meets the road, men are the ones who step up; when danger threatens, we face it and stand between the danger and our families; when hunger looms, we do what is necessary to feed our wives and kids. And history is replete with examples of strong women who, in hard times, have held their families together through force of will.

Emma Flint can "identify" however she/it/whatever chooses. But traditional roles are traditional because they work.

Parents, raise your children well. Raise your sons to be men. Raise your daughters to be women. Tolerance of alternative lifestyles is fine; personally, as I've always said, I don't really give a damn what people do as long as they don't bother me. But at some point the stupid meter has to trip, the demands not just for tolerance but for approval and celebration have to be denied, and some semblance of sanity has to return to public discourse. Because when nothing means anything, and anyone can dream up any "identity" and demand everyone cheer "their truth," then we've truly gone to Crazy Town.

Brad Paisley made a really good point on this topic a while back.