What is sexual orientation? As simple as the question may seem, the answer is not so simple and requires a complex understanding of sex, gender and sexuality. As Dembroff states at the beginning of his article, the discourse on the topic “emerges very different, conflicting, and sometimes ethically troubling characterizations of sexual orientation.” The range of definitions provided by scholars, and indeed the one provided in the paper, all fail to capture the fluid nature of sexual orientation. Furthermore, ambiguity in the definition of sex and gender attraction, combined with our heteronormative assumptions about sexuality, indicates a poor or incorrect understanding of sexual orientation. In response to this, Dembroff is committed to revising the concept of sexual orientation through what she calls “Two-Dimensional Dispositionalism” (BD); an analytical philosophical approach that aims to clarify sexual orientation and those concepts that are intertwined with it. In doing so, it believes that its revised definition and new categories of sexual orientation “are intended to clarify and improve our everyday concepts in light of particular theoretical and socio-political purposes.” Therefore, in this essay, I will explain how he answers the question of sexual orientation through BD, why his account satisfies what previous concepts did not, and the implications of this concept on our everyday knowledge and categorization of sexual orientation. Furthermore, I will highlight how his account fares against possible objections. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Through Dembroff's account of Two-Dimensional Dispositionalism, sexual orientation is determined by one's disposition to engage in sexual behavior with people of a certain sex and gender under certain stimulating circumstances, and their particular orientation is independent of sex and gender . However, to fully understand this definition it is important to explain the methodology used to arrive at this concept. Dembroff takes an analytical or “engineering” approach to answering the question of sexual orientation, which involves establishing the purposes that are ideally served by a concept X and how we should revise/replace this concept to best serve those purposes. In essence, he reviews the concept of sexual orientation in terms of the impact he would like it to have. This approach can be seen both as a revision, because it is based on our everyday understanding of the concept, and as a replacement of our current concept because it results in a new taxonomy of sexual orientation. Then, as the engineering blueprint prescribes, Dembroff develops the four main purposes he believes sexual orientation should fulfill. First, the concept of sexual orientation should clarify the criteria for assigning sexual orientation and how those criteria translate into the categorization of sexual orientation. This is important because there is disagreement about whether articulating the criteria should be in terms of sexual attraction or gender, which then influences how we classify sexual orientation. Second, the concept should be consistent with relevant research related to sex and gender. This is because the constant confusion between the two affects how we classify sexual orientation and creates difficulties for queer, gender non-conforming and intersex people. Third, it should reduce/eliminate the presumption that cishetorosexuality is “normal” and that all queer orientations areunusual because it perpetuates the prejudice that sexual orientations and gender identities that do not fit into this binary scale are dysfunctional or nonexistent. Finally, our concept of sexual orientation should be able to legally and socially protect people of any queer sexual orientation. The importance of this is being able to include a range of sexual orientations within our legal and social framework, particularly with regards to anti-discrimination laws. It is important to note that she adopts these aims on both a theoretical and practical basis and recognizes that constraints need to be applied in order for the concept of sexual orientation to be accepted by the public. It limits itself to simply reconstructing the concept of sexual orientation on pre-existing notions of sexual attraction and gender attraction rather than starting from scratch because it makes the political and social objectives transcribed in the last 2 objectives achievable. It is also important to note the interconnection between them as goals 3 and 4 aim to reduce/eliminate harm to certain people using the lessons established in goals 1 and 2. Having established the goals of the sexual orientation concept, he then begins to propose a revised account for these purposes. In doing so, it creates a concept of sexual orientation that satisfies four major prerequisites that are currently not met by our everyday understanding of sexual orientation. First, it separates the concept of sexual orientation from other similar concepts, namely; sexual identity, romantic or emotional attraction, and sexual choices. An individual's sexual identity concerns their sexual orientation, so the two concepts are tied together. However, it is distinguished from sexual orientation in cases where the individual may deny or deceive themselves, unable to recognize their true orientation. Romantic or emotional attraction can be evidence of sexual orientation, but orientation is more about someone's disposition toward sexual behavior than sexual attraction. If it were true that sexual orientation was romantic/emotional attraction, then we could not have the “asexual” classification. Likewise, there are cases where two people might share a particular sexual orientation but differ in their experiences of emotional/romantic attraction. Sexual terms refer to someone's specific preferences regarding sexual partners among potential partners based on their sexual orientation, i.e., someone's "type". However, this is not considered in the account of sexual orientation, which deals only with the categories of sex and gender. Dembroff admits how vague and arbitrary this particular distinction may be, but again recognizes the need for constraints. The second prerequisite that his account satisfies is to recognize the distinction between sex and gender and incorporate it into the account. It aims to reject the cisnormative view that someone's sex begets their gender because while sex is a classification based solely on fixed anatomical characteristics, gender is a more socially constructed notion with different definitions. Gender can be defined in terms of social situations or self-identification regarding masculinity or femininity or even self-expression, and as such cannot be determined solely by sex. By understanding this distinction, we allow for a nonbinary framework of sexual orientation that encompasses gender identity and biological transition and that is sensitive to the sexual attractions of various combinations in biological and gender identity. Furthermore, it rejects cisnormative presumptions and allows for a concept of sexual orientation based on attraction togender and sexual attraction, and any combination of these, such as someone who is only attracted to transgender women or someone who is only attracted to cisgender women. women. The third important feature of his account is that it narrows the gap in the taxonomy of sexual orientation. Note that there is currently no place in our sexual orientation for people who are; attracted to people, not within the gender binary; attracted to trans people within the gender binary; asexual with respect to gender or sexual attraction or; are intersex or are attracted to intersex people. So she believes it requires a revision of our concept of sexual orientation because not doing so leaves some people misclassified or unclassified. This is not ideal for purposes 3 and 4 which, in her opinion, would not be satisfied by our concept of sexual orientation and these people would therefore be subject to sexual discrimination. Finally, it does not address the concepts of behaviorism nor ideal dispositionalism alone as determinants of sexual orientation, stating that they “fail to provide an acceptable analysis of sexual orientation because both insist on overly rigid conditions for attributing orientation.” Behaviorism is the position that sexual orientation is determined solely by observable sexual behaviors, which according to Dembroff insists on rigid real-world conditions. Essentially, he believes this view places too much weight on the actions people take, which can often be unreliable data and as such misclassifies people's true sexual orientations. Therefore, the three main problems that behaviorism faces are; misclassification of those who repress their sexual orientation as those who are gay but pursue heterosexual relationships for various social/cultural reasons; misclassification of those who are voluntarily celibate as many religious figures and; misclassification of those who do not have a variety of potential partners as inmates in prisons. Ideal dispositionalism suggests that a person's sexual orientation is determined by his or her disposition to engage in sexual behaviors with people of a certain sex/gender in response to being situated in certain stimulating circumstances, that is, ideal conditions in which there are no restrictions to the pursuit of one's sexual desires, potential partners should be available. However, in a similar light, Dembroff rejects the notion of ideal dispositionalism as a determinant of sexual orientation because he insists on rigid ideal conditions which entail two main problems. First, it standardizes our sexual orientation categories without much consideration for social, cultural, or historical differences. So, for example, he believes it would be unfair to view someone from the modern Western world in the same light as someone from ancient Greece because they have different ideal conditions in which to realize their sexual desires. Second, these ideal conditions are likely to alter a person's sexual desires and are therefore unreliable in correctly determining one's sexual orientation. It is impossible to judge people's sexual desires without using their real social context, so imagining a situation where you have a large number of sexual partners and no restrictions on pursuing them is unrealistic. Furthermore, being in the presence of these ideal conditions could increase or decrease sexual desires based on satisfaction or adaptation. For example, it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which a male attracted to cisgender women and finding himself in the presence of multiple cisgender women.