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
[–] [S] 1 point 4 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

What I meant was more about gender abolitionism (something that for example gender feminists as Simone de Beauvoir, Shulamith Firestone, Monique Wittig, Sheila Jeffreys, Judith Butler, Kate Bornstein, Leslie Feinberg. Alok Vaid Menon, and an important percentage of plural beings defend or at least propose themselves). It's about the linguistics of gender identity, not about identities themselves.

And I'm not saying that it should be like that, but asking if it should be or not like that, because I honestly don't know. I just want that people were less discriminated and more free, and that everyone respects everyone else, and that includes boths their identities and their expectations and limits.

  • source
  • parent