When it comes to sexual orientation, three preferences instantly come to mind: heterosexuality, or the sexual interest in the opposite gender; homosexuality, the sexual interest in the same gender; and bisexuality, the sexual interest in both genders. Some also identify as asexual, which means they have no sexual interest in other people at all. Pansexuals are sexually interested in all people, regardless of gender.

Last October, however, Justin Lehmiller reported in Hard Science on one psychologist’s effort to name a new class of sexualities based solely on age. His determination to do so relates to Alfred Kinsey’s groundbreaking body of work, which states that sexuality exists on a spectrum. In other words, orientation is not binary. Since Kinsey published his opus, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), his successors have explored human attraction as determined by a range of physical traits outside of gender. Enter Michael C. Seto’s 2016 work on age.

To rehash Seto’s research, as published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, he calls those who are attracted to people relatively much younger or much older chronophilias. Those attracted to middle-aged people (late 40s to late 50s) specifically are termed mesophiles.

“Nobody has studied mesophilia yet because it’s not seen as a pressing need clinically,” Seto told New York Magazine this week. In other words, because the pursuit of a man or woman of middle-age doesn’t put anyone at risk (in the same way pedophilia puts a child at risk, for example), nobody has found reason to coin the attraction. But Seto did it anyway.

We’re still on the frontlines of a social battle based on the last time sexual orienation ticked in favor of Kinsey’s spectrum.

While he stands firm on his idea that chronophilias represent “a huge frontier,” I, like you may feel, am not so sure. For one, Merriam Webster defines sexual orientation as “a person’s sexual preference or identity as bisexual, heterosexual, or homosexual.” Then again, gay used to mean “happy.” But moving on.

My criticism of the effort to publicly legitimize mesophilia is based on colloquialism; that is, how we talk about sexual attraction in everyday conversations. As many know, altering language is one of the hardest social shifts. Just consider the politics of using the word queer.

When asked to define our type on dating apps or in conversation, many of us use it as an opportunity to discuss traits outside of gender. If important, we include our age preferences in the Looking For section on OkCupid or in Pornhub’s search field. It would take years, maybe decades, for an entire generation to start considering their own sexuality in terms of both age and gender, and at that point, how many of us would become lost and confused about what we really what? And what’s the point of making orientation more granular when we’ve yet to achieve social equality for our existing orientations?

To suggest we account for age in our orientation simply complicates an already complicated social science. Because my fiancée is attracted to redheads, does that make her a “gingerphile”? Not really. It makes her a heterosexual woman who just so happens to be drawn to men with red hair.

In a time when queer and transgender people still face hardships owning their sexualities in public spaces without shame or judgment, suggesting that one’s attraction to 40-year-olds become, for lack of a better word, a thing seems unnecessary. More so, it suggests that all of our sexual predilections could soon need to be accounted for when we seek out partners. Will there next be a label for women who prefer six inches in the sack versus eigth? Men who prefer A-cups over B-cups? What about your attraction to dog-owners? This could get wildly out of hand.

I know this isn’t Soto’s intention; from a science perspective, research on inate human attraction normalizes people’s sexualities and hugely influences policy. For now, however, we’re still on the frontlines of a social battle based on the last time sexual orienation ticked in favor of Kinsey’s spectrum. Progress on that front has been great as of late, but millions are still marginalized. Introducing more terminology could set off more identity politics and give people more excuses to ostricize each other. That’s the last thing we need. Instead, let’s get less granular and accept everyone—and whomever the choose to love.