Social LGBTQIA+

[Adeleine]

i think calling things "not that deep" is generally really misguided and even harmful in a lot of scenarios, but as far as what pronouns other people are using/want to be referred to as, it's really not that deep. i just don't think it matters what pronouns someone uses— it/its, ze/xyr were some of the examples cited— i will refer to people respectfully in the way(s) that they wish to be addressed.

however what is that deep is the tendency that we have to strictly categorize and identify every single niche way of being queer. i think it's kind of cringe, to be honest. i don't think we need to split everything down into such distinct categorization and try and fit everyone into neat little queer boxes— real life just doesn't work like that. people have really complicated and varied relationships with their gender and i think to distill your gender expression and/or sexual orientation down to words is really cringe.

i feel like these labels only exist to other us— that they trap and cause harm to us more than they actually help us. of course there's legitimate utility to phrases like gay, bi, trans, les, etc etc because there are genuinely a lot of instances where communicating who you're attracted to or that you're trans/GNC is essential, but i feel like the overall mechanism of these labels beyond the base concepts is only a byproduct of living in a cishet society.

part of my opinion on this probably goes hand in hand with my own gender expression— i'm amab, but i don't necessarily identify as a man or exclusively use masculine pronouns. i don't really care how i'm addressed or how other people perceive my gender identity— i just live as myself. i think shopping around for labels has been a big pain point for a lot of my brethren. it's like there's this idea that we need to fit snugly into one specific identity— to the point that even fluid identities just feel like rigid boxes to me.

i'm definitely more of a lurker in pkpcord but every once in a while i'll see someone in one of the venting channels asking other people about how they should identify themselves or worrying that their own identity is less legitimate because they don't fit all of the criteria associated with that identity. i said this earlier, but people really do have complicated relationships with their queerness, and i think our tendency to attempt to categorize every niche subidentity is only a symptom of living in a society where queer identity is not understood or accepted. i think we should be more focused on uniting as a queer community than fretting about perceptions and categorizations.

i truly strive to be nothing but unabashadly myself in all moments of my life— and i will be, irregardless of any labels that one could put on me.

This was frustrating to read. You do not understand why people derive intrinsic value from labels, which is fine, but instead of asking why and finding a basic understanding, you paint the approach you don't understand as cringe and wrong, insulting those who disagree with you. If you want to unify the queer community, this mindset will not help you. You gotta understand people's desires, benefits, and grievances to convince them to join you.

I'll explain three big ways labels can have intrinsic value (distinct from the communicative value you talk about). Not a comprehensive list, but big ones.

To give examples for these uses, l'll use a personal case of mine, my interactions with the labels asexual and gray ace. I use that because, compared to gender based identities and labels, it is easier to pin down and explain what exactly the labels are.

1) Labels help people find solidarity with others facing similar struggles. Different queer identities can face different challenges. Both transgender people and asexual people may worry about not satisfying physical needs of their partners, sure, e.g. not conforming to certain physical standards of their gender or not satisfying sexual desire, respectively. But they each have unique challenges too, like some ace people internalizing acephobic claims that they are biologically broken for not having a desire to reproduce. The asexual label has a quasi-communicative value here, that asexual people can know what types of people are more likely to understand and share their unique challenges, they can physically bring each other together. The label is a banner to rally around, too, often even a literal banner.

But there is also a wholly intrinsic value, that asexual people know they are not alone in their experiences and struggles. By the mere existence of the label and its common usage, asexual people can learn this dimension of experience they have is explicitly shared by multiple members of the queer community, and recognized and validated by the community as a whole. It's always best to derive this security internally when you can, but support, recognition, and legitimacy from others can help a lot, too.

Asexual is a fairly "top level" label, but the same applies for smaller labels. When I was re-evaluating my relationship to asexuality, the gray ace label was really helpful to support my internal idea that I was more receptive to sex conceptually than many other ace people. To be clear, this lens is not about conformity to a sub-community, it's about knowing that your dimension of experience is heard and understood and supported. This lens is not about "phew I can still call myself an asexual," it's about "phew it's nice to know I'm not alone in this more granular perspective towards sex."

2) Labels introduce / normalize concepts to people who might otherwise not be aware of them. They help us learn and understand ourselves and our needs. Maybe you think, humans reproduce sexually, my sex drive has gotta come in Eventually ™ and anything else is a Problem ™, but the ace label helps you learn that this is a totally possible and fine way to be. For this reason, they're especially helpful to newcomers figuring out and stabilizing their identities. Beyond helping them learn, identity labels also give newcomers a concrete point to hold onto, at least for a while, in a sea of fluctuations and changes as their relationship to sexuality and/or gender evolve.

3) Labels give ideas to help fuel development. This overlaps with 2) but is more geared at more established members of the community versus newer ones. As we grow older, we naturally acquire more nuanced and complex views of ourselves, and labels help provide ideas for possible directions for our wider and deeper views. They are "tools in the toolbox." Like physical tools, identity concepts are not single-stop answers to complicated process, instead working alongside other concepts and with more general forms of effort. You don't throw a hammer at a pile of wood to make a house, but it's sure nice to have one on hand. Identity concepts are the same way. Gray ace is not "my sexual box I fit into," but one idea among multiple related ideas. Some of those other ideas, I haven't pinned down into tidy labels, and that's fine, maybe I won't. But the gray ace label was a useful starting point for me branch off into those other ideas. "I have no sex drive, but this idea of gray ace matches me better than other asexuals who are more repulsed by sex. That's useful to know and integrate, but I also wonder why that is? Maybe further thinking, possibly with the help of established labels and concepts, can help me figure that out."

In summary, you frame labels as a people trying to find The One Predefined Answer of Themselves (as concerns x dimension), and that is a trap that people can fall into. But people can also use it to start and branch out in a broader, more holistic journey of figuring out who they are, and feeling comfortable and justified in that. Labels and Complexities We Can't Box Down aren't competing approaches, they're complementary approaches that can point out and address each others' limitations. Labels don't prevent us from being ourselves, applying and creating them are one way among multiple we can be ourselves.