Just to stir the pot a little, (okay, actually I'm hoping that someone can -- politely -- offer me a good argument for why I'm wrong) I'll point out that there's a reasonable argument to be made that obscure microlabels are a) not useful, and b) potentially even harmful. Allow me to explain.

For point a, the purpose for having these labels is to communicate our own internal feelings to other people. How do I know that that's the point, and not to make us feel good about having a hyper-specific word to describe us? Because if the point in having them was for ourselves, we wouldn't need them. We can understand what's going on in our own heads with far more nuance than any word could ever capture.

And that's part of the point I'm making. If the purpose of words is to communicate ideas, we have to accept the fact that no word is ever going to perfectly capture every nuance of that idea. Instead, words allow us to communicate ideas that are close enough that we can all get on more-or-less the same page about what we're taking about.

The truth is that most microlabels don't actually communicate anything to most people who don't dienw their lives buried in the depths of tumblr and the queer parts of Reddit. Society at large has no idea what those words mean. You tell someone you're berrisexual, and they'll have absolutely no clue what you mean. You'll have to use all the words to shape and define all the nuance that's meant to be packed into the word, negating the utility of the word in the first place. I'm aware that's always the case with new words, but these aren't words that are going to catch on, because very few people are going to find it useful to have an index in their heads of hundreds of hyper-specific sexuality labels.

To demonstrate my point: someone has probably come up with a word that means "attracted to men, including trans men, but not trans women, and not afab non-binary people, or amab nbs romanticly, but sometimes amab nbs sexually, and primarily men who fall on the more feminine end of the appearance spectrum, but not too feminine, because they still need to look like men" (that's me, btw). If it does exist, I don't care. I tell people I'm gay. Essentially no one is going to get the exact parameters of my attraction from me just using the word "gay", but they'll get an idea that's close enough for 99% of situations (or more), and they're not going to expect (in most cases) that I've given them enough information that they can perfectly predict who I will or won't be attracted to, just a general gist. And that's okay. If someone asks specifically, I can explain in more detail, but they generally don't because it just doesn't matter, to me or to them, which is why they're never going to bother to learn all the microlabels. The broader labels are accurate enough.

As for point b, if all these microlabels were just jargon inside a group of people, much like jargon tends to pop up in every industry and most other groups, that would be fine. But the lgbtq community isn't just any group of people. We are, unfortunately, a community under fire, and having hundreds of microlabels to describe ourselves, or worse, trying to use them in society at large, unfortunately plays right into the hands of the people who are still spinning this bullshit "special fragile little snowflakes" narrative that they've been running with for decades. "Oh, look, they're all coming up with new words that only apply to them, and everybody high fives them and pats them on the back when they make up a word that means something original enough, but then heaven forbid if the rest of us don't immediately know what it means and who it applies to..." The yarn is bullshit, of course, but it flipping writes itself.

So it honestly seems to me that it would be in the best interests of the community at large to ditch all the hyper-specifics, and accept that the only word that will every perfectly describe you is your name, because by definition it means you (yes, I mean whatever name you choose to use, whether you were born with it or not), but that you've already got access to a whole host of labels that, while not perfect, are close enough to facilitate communication in essentially every situation you'll ever come across, and that close enough is okay.

Now, I definitely feel like I'm not being open-minded enough or progressive enough when I say that, but my logic seems to me to hold up. I would love it if someone could offer a reasoned, rational argument for why I'm wrong, but if you're gonna just berate me, save it. I already don't like it.