Ninja x 9: This is why I shouldn't write so much.
Truean, while you do a good job justifying them, I've a few minor quibbles. I've since deleted the big post I wrote about them because I realized I don't care that much, heh. Essentially, it boiled down to how I think you'd have been better off assigning distinct groups and traits and simply allowing multiple membership as a fundamental aspect of the model. I doubt this is going to get formalized anywhere though, and your categories are perfectly workable for a basic discussion about the issues. As a basic improvement, I'd suggest simply having "uncomfortable" label, with additional group memberships based on status possible but not obligatory, either "gay", "attracted", or "sexist". That way, every uncomfortable person would fit in the main group, giving you an idea of how to approach them, without needing to be any of the others, minimizing the number of non-applicable approaches assuming the person has been categorized correctly. You can take that or leave it, though. Leaving us with "Not an Issue/Comfortable", "combinations of uncomfortable and subgroups", and your "huh" group (which I'll admit I don't fully understand, an example would be appreciated"
This would also resolve the conflation that I feel is the primary component of Scriver's objection (that being, a person who is not gay, but for whom sexual attraction is not an issue). I do think this group is likely to be large enough for it to deserve its own classification, though it's clearly wasted effort with your current model since your basic uncomfortable group already includes their issues (with the added assumption of attractedness, but that's really just wasted effort)
.... If I say "steel" but I actually mean bronze whose fault is it if you don't understand I mean bronze? If you say "asexual" but don't really mean asexual, only not attracted to women without providing a definition, who has missed what point? Use words in their common meaning, or provide a definition if you expect anyone at all to understand you.
To be honest, I understood what I said. I thought he made it clear. His use was one that was perfectly square with the definitions common to many dictionaries, provided he explicitly mentioned that he was only applying it as a descriptor in regards to the specific situation, interacting with women. I feel he did that. I agree however that it isn't an apt term, but simply because you wanted to encompass specific things with your term that the word doesn't handle.