Apples and oranges. No name-tags are necessary. Most of us can recognize and tell the two fruits apart just by looking at them.
But what about when you talk apples and oranges? That’s when the words that identify them — “apple” and “orange” — become essential. You don’t want someone to think you’re talking about one fruit when you’re actually talking about the other one. And just in case anyone can’t differentiate between both round-ish fruits on sight, there are labels to tell us what we’re looking at in supermarket produce sections.
Labels bring order to grocery stores — and to life. Categorization via labels is the crux of zoology, botany, chemistry, and so many other sciences. In the animal and plant kingdoms, labeling is an exact science.
But why does it create so many problems when we apply it to homo sapiens? “I don’t believe in labels,” some say, as if the very idea of categorization is an insult to their intelligence and humanity. Although they may not object to being identified as “black” or “white,” they’ll avoid “gay” and “lesbian” like the plague.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
But what would “LGBTQ” be without the labels that each letter of the acronym represents? What would the Pride that we’re currently celebrating be? “Human Pride” wouldn’t have the same impact or cultural, social, and historical significance as “Gay Pride” or “LGBTQ Pride,” which is something that the Boston-based organizers of Straight Pride have completely missed. Labels connect us and describe us, but they don’t have to define us or limit us to the point that we cease being anything else.
The trouble with labels isn’t the words we use but how we use them. “Blonde” isn’t a problem when it refers strictly to hair color. It becomes one, though, when it becomes a synonym for “dumb.”
“Black” to describe a dress is one thing, but attach it to a person, and it can be loaded with subtext. Labels become dangerous when people use them to separate and denigrate, when they’re no longer a purely descriptive tool but a way of rearranging homo sapiens into caste systems.
This is no more true than when it comes to race, gender, and sexual orientation and identity — all four of which involve labeling as an agent of both categorization and oppression. Over the centuries, race has evolved into something so complex and overlapping, and gender and sexual orientation and identity are now so fluid and, to an extent, arbitrary that traditional labels have been rendered virtually meaningless. Meanwhile, labels in general have taken on even greater significance.
Interracial coupling has turned black and white into countless shades of brown. The PC community promoted “biracial” as an alternative to “mulatto” to accommodate the new normal of race, but as the word broadly describes a spectrum of blended ethnicities and cultural associations, it almost demands further labeling.
Gender has branched out from strictly “male” and “female” to encompass “trans,” “non-binary,” “gender-nonconforming,” “gender fluid,” and a host of other awkward tags in order to be as inclusive as possible.
Sexual orientation and identity are no longer just “gay,” “straight,” or “bi.” Many now identify as “queer” and “sexually fluid” as well as the more specific “omnisexual,” “pansexual,” and “polysexual.” And if none of those suit, there’s also “bi-curious,” “demisexual,” “gender-blind,” and “same-gender loving.” The proliferation of labels may threaten to turn sexual orientation into a collection of trendy buzzwords, but there are benefits, too.
By adjusting the way we think about not-“straight” and bringing new words into the mix, we’ve boosted our battalions. In a sense, coining labels hasn’t divided the community but strengthened it. Men who are sexually attracted to other men but don’t think of themselves as “gay,” for whatever reason, are more likely to feel like they have a safe space within our ranks.
Label critics often dismiss them as being limiting and suffocating, but the new ones reflect the ever-changing nature of human nature. Unlike apples and oranges — which are what they are from when they bloom to when we eat them — people are not static. We may always be human, but we don’t always wake up feeling like the same human.
Chaka Khan’s “I’m Every Woman” and Shania Twain’s “Man! I Feel Like a Woman!” were once great musical statements of female empowerment, but in 2019, their sentiments might sound quaint and way too limiting for some. Despite her hyper-awareness of gender in the title and lyrics of her turn-of-the-millennium hit, Shania began the video wearing a tuxedo gown, twenty years before Billy Porter did.
I recently interviewed a famous musician who would rather identify as “alien” than “male” or “female,” and although they were born female and they’re sexually attracted to women, they resist the “lesbian” tag. As they see it, we are all just humans, and we should do away with labels entirely. They only separate us, and give us weapons to bring each other down.
It’s a lovely but naive sentiment. Even without labels, we’d still find some other way of bringing each other down. Homophobes won’t suddenly stop hurling their sling shots because they are at a loss for words to describe what they hate. Racists won’t morph into accepting advocates of colorblind.
Unprivileged minorities won’t cease to be unprivileged minorities if we were to stop labeling them. It would just become more difficult to talk about it. Personally, I derive much of my strength and self-awareness from identifying as “black” and “gay.” I don’t think I would be the same person if I were simply “human.”
Ultimately, it’s our choice how we want to self-identify. Bur we live in a world of communities, and the first step in finding our own communities is to find the ones with descriptions (i.e., labels) that fit us.
To accept our differences, we need to be able to talk about them. And we can’t talk about them without words to indicate those differences. Labels make a complex world easier to navigate. They provide a semblance of order to the messiness of life.
So it’s time to let labels off the hook. They’re not holding us back. Those who refuse to see past them deserve all the credit for that.
Jared MacBride
A minnow can call itself a whale, but it will still get eaten by any fish in the sea.
Donston
The biggest issue with “labels” is that there isn’t any consistency with their meaning. Is “gay” just a synonym for inherent homosexuality? Is it about a homo lifestyle? Is it about overall homo preferences and ambitions? Is it about non-heterosexuality (like a lot of straight people still view “gay”)? Do you have to be entirely homosexual in every way and have lived an entirely homo life to see yourself as “gay”. What about people who only become fully homosexual when they get older. Are they allowed to say that they’re “gay”? And what are we to do with people who claim “straight” or “gay” but are not heterosexual or homosexual, or don’t live heterosexual or homosexual lifestyles? Most of the other “labels” have even more far-reaching, convoluted and contradictory definitions depending on who you ask.
I also feel that labels aren’t as necessary in today’s world as they used to be. You can explain yourself and freely live your life without being identity dependent. Some people feel that “labels” are too much about politics and sociology, which they undeniably are for many. And a lot of people do hide behind labels. So, instead of identity being about sharing themselves and being honest about themselves, they’re sometimes more about manipulating, separating, sociological placement or cultivating a image. While some of the new stuff isn’t very practical. I could walk around saying I’m a “same-gender loving fluid pansexual with steady homo affections, passions and relationship contentment and I’m borderline non-binary”. However, not only is that a mouthful, most people will still ultimately see me as gay/bi. And a lot of people simply do not respect everyone’s individual sense of self.
However, I do agree that labels have their place in society, and expecting to get rid of them is naive. The problem is we’re too label dependent, and we’re not allowing each other the space for quirks or experimenting or questioning or contradicting.
Brian
Dumb still means dumb though, right?
mr guy
“Wouldn’t be the same […] without gender identity labels”
True. It would be rational
Donston
Also, the article itself is kinda contradictory. It admits that there isn’t a ton of consistency or logic behind a lot of the labeling. And many people embrace whatever identities for whatever reasons. Yet, it still preaches that it’s important to pick one. It’s pretty much saying that it doesn’t matter what you identify as, for socio-political sake you need to grab on to something. That’s a problematic viewpoint. You can’t tell people to dictate their sense of self and identity and how they present themselves for the sake of social politics. That’s partly why things remain so f-ed up.
Some of the “no labels” movement is driven by homophobia, gay shame, manipulation, narcissism, fear. However, some it is about pushing the idea that everyone has their own thing going on and their own struggles and their own journeys. While sociology and plucking whatever identity is probably less important than truly understanding yourself and being honest about yourself and honest about your struggles and honest about what you want. Because ultimately, coming out and identifying as whatever is not the beginning or the end of most people’s struggles and journeys.
Thad
Another point…who’s doing the labeling? There should be no problem when one self-identifies. But “pigeonholing,” “stereotyping,” and other negatives arise when labels are applied to someone else.
Pride is a natural response to self-identification, no matter what it may be. Happy Pride month to all!
Cam
I’ve noticed that very often the exact same people complaining about “Labels” have no problem if the word “Hetero” is in the label.
A while ago the same people who didn’t want to call themselves “Bi” had no problem calling themselves “Heteroflexible”.
whateverokok
The only label I would actually attach to myself has no political leanings, political context, or social construct. That label being “college rock fan”. Otherwise I have very little use for most labels. No one defines me but me. And no dictionary can peg me. As for “white”, “black” or “whatver”, those are not labels per se. They are descripters and fact. Like Blue eyes or blonde hair.
Oranos
Perhaps if you’re White, you can leave it at that: “descriptors.” However, when fetishes, and stereotypes are ALSO applied to your “descriptor” – and not by you, but by someone else’s internal wiring – stuff happens to some of us. The denigrations, the dismissals.
I remember once, in San Francisco, looking for a place to live, and got the person renting the room on the phone. He proceeded to tell me to stay away from the lower Haight, because “that’s where the Blacks, hookers, et al, congregate/live.” At which point, I said, I guess you wouldn’t be comfortable with me, to which he replied “Why?” And I answered, “I’m Black.” “Oh, yeah, that might be a problem.”
My “descriptor” led to unspoken racism, stereotypes, and the like. Easy to discard something as a “descriptor” when you are not the person enduring the slings and arrows of outrageous mis-fortune.
Donston
Yes, it’s very easy to say “labels don’t matter” if you’re not being oppressed or don’t face a ton of prejudice or you’re not someone dealing with self-resentment or dealing with sociological fears or don’t fear for your safety. And ultimately, you need to be able to communicate your being to other people and especially to yourself. It’s fine to go the “I don’t believe in labels” route. But that doesn’t mean that you get to be a special enigma/unicorn or show shame or fear concerning the elements of who you are and what you want.
john.k
The trouble is that the labels keep changing and it’s hard to keep up. I only discovered a few years ago that I am a cis white gay male. I had previously never heard the word “cis’. When I was young black people in the US were called negroes. That was the term MLK used. Then they became blacks which seemed fair enough since caucasians were always known just as whites. Then they became African-Americans. I remember seeing a US television interviewer getting herself tied up in knots while interviewing Nelson Mandela. She was about to ask him about his experience as an African-American but realised he wasn’t American so she was flummoxed about what to call him. His mischievous smile was amusing. Now it seems blacks, browns and Asians are “people of colour”. That seems a bit silly to me since we are all people of some sort of colour.
These are just examples. Similar changing descriptions apply to disabled people and others. It seems descriptive words become unacceptable. Then a euphemistic word replaces it. Then that becomes unacceptable so a new euphemism must be found. And on it goes!
Donston
It’s really hard to compare these things to race. Many people deal with identity issues when it comes to race and racial expression. However, there are percentages, there’s DNA, there’s visuals, there’s family trees. There’s finite elements to race. Furthermore, when it comes to racial descriptors, things fall out of fashion once they becomes un-PC or considered archaic, and most everyone moves on. Very few “labels” considering orientation have fallen out of fashion over time. There’s just been many additions to what’s already there. There’s also a lot of personalizing of definitions. Most importantly, sense of gender and wherever you are on the romantic, sexual, affection, emotional, relationship spectrum are often not finite and are very individualized and specific to the person. So, it’s hard to make the race comparison.
Donston
Also, unlike often with race, folks can’t “prove” anyone’s orientation or sense of gender. You can’t say what someone else’s attractions, arousals, sexual enjoyments, sexual preferences, romantic passions, affections, relationship contentment is. You can’t even say what someone’s behaviors are unless they tell you or they get “exposed”. Therefore, people can present themselves however they wish and take on whatever identity they want to. They can choose to personalize identities as they feel. They can choose to stay closeted. They can connect themselves to whatever sociological sector or to whatever political movement or to whatever is trendy.
Once again, it’s very different from race.