9
Queer lemmings: Do we need hyper-specific orientation micro-labels, or should we minimize/abolish them? (scribe.disroot.org)
submitted 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

To frame this precisely: do you think that distinctions between cis-homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality, trans-homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality, and other gender-specific or gender-exclusive sexual orientation labels are necessary, or should we keep it minimal, or even abolish labels completely?

And just to make everything clear, I have to disclose that I'm NOT part of the queer community, though I try to be as allied as humanly possible (I have three trans friends [two gay trans males, one lesbian trans female], one demi-pansexual genderfluid friend, etc., and I support and help all of them in everything I can). So, precisely because of this, I want to learn and know more about your ideas, feelings, experiences, philosophies, and beliefs. As I know the queer community isn't a monolith, I want to hear as many voices as possible so I can form more well-founded and well-informed opinions, questions, and actions. I equally support your rights and oppose all reactionary conservatives.

That said, and back to the question that opens this post as its title, I ask this because I've noticed that it is (or could be) a problem in queer discourse, semantics, and semiotics, and I want to know how different people try to solve it.

For example, I have mixed feelings because, on the one hand, I think that creating more specific labels could help both as a recognition of the different experiences and identities that constitute the queer spectrum, and in making communication clearer, respectful, clever, and less prone to errors, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or conflicts (for example, I only like cisgender women, and I'm a cisgender male, but if I say that I'm heterosexual, I feel that it's not clear if I like cis women, or if I like trans women, or if I instead like both kinds of women, without further explanation that's not always possible, or a more specific term, and that could lead to a conflict of expectations). But at the same time, on the other hand, it feels like it over-compartmentalizes and over-atomizes something that's not completely discrete (although it's also not completely continuous), and can lead to division, or even to other kinds of exclusion and discrimination both inside the community and outside it.

I know this is not an easy problem, so what are your thoughts on this?

Please, keep this respectful, civil, and on-topic. To all the moderators of this space, I kindly ask you in advance that if this results in a conflict or a fight, please lock it.

Love and peace.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

Everyone is unique.

Labels are pointless.

We need to normalize "singular they" again.

Any group that's isolated, regardless of whose choice, will eventually create smaller groups. It will keep going untill there are thousands of labels with a max of a dozen people. It's has absolutely nothing to do with gender or sexuality.

It happens with religion, hobby enthusiasts, athletes, literally anything.

The human brain is designed to chop up populations into demographics since we can only handle so many individuals. If you "fill up" with people all of one demographic, it becomes worthless and you need to subdivide it.

The solution is integration and everyone mixing up together. Then people experience a wide enough variation of people, that they understand no one trait determines a person.

After that it just seems weird when some people insist everyone gets defined by hyper specific labels about one small aspect of who they are as a person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 hours ago

    fundamentally disagree. People are not unique. They want to be unique, for sure, but they are far more similar than they'd like to admit, and micro-labels are a great way to creation 'ego preservation' to feel like one is more unique than actually is, and that someone makes one more valuable and special, internally. And for people with fragile egos, these labels are highly important and they require other people to acknowledge the identity label.

    And when they are common enough parlance people will force them on you, whether you agree or identify with them or not. But at that point it's mostly them projecting their own label-insistence onto you.

    For some folks labels are pointless, but for some they are fundamental and deeply emotional.

    Personally I don't quite get the labeling thing... for me it makes more sense to just name the behaviour, but people love their shorthands, and in my own personal experience, people often use labels to skirt around naming their actual behaviors. It's a great coping mechanism that way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent