(Untitled)

[red_frog]

I don't do the "I don't do labels" thing, and I am not immune to wondering where I fit into schemes involving labels. But after a few too many posts about this in one community I belong to, I think I've crystalized why the movement toward alternative labels irritates me

Comments

[firinel]

Hmm. I don't really get the specifics about what you're talking about, so I'll mostly be talking out my arse.. I guess I could be seen as one of the "I don't do labels thing" and yet.. there are labels I like, there are labels I actively put on myself with intention, so maybe not. But you mention new labels, so maybe. Heh. (I'm guessing you means things like 'sapiosexual' as opposed to 'bisexual', for an example.) I'm sort of confused why someone would want to be create a group, and then refuse to be recognised by that group, though (your second paragraph). I mean, if identify as, say, queer, and people call me queer, then, why would I then say, well, I'm not really queer..?

You don't think making new subgroups is beneficial at all?

[danger_chick]

Sapiosexual? That's a new one. I'm not a big fan of calling myself bisexual, which is unfortunately because bisexuals get such a bad rep and I was a lesbian for like forever, so I use the word queer.

[firinel]

Yes, I prefer 'queer' too, though for other reasons. It just seems to be an all around good term that's broad enough, but not so broad it's no longer useful.

[hitchhiker]

'sapiosexual' is orthogonal to gender-attraction!

[marnanel]

since I'm not a mathmo... what do you mean by "orthogonal" in this sentence?

[hitchhiker]

Orthogonal as in you can move up and down one axis without affecting your position on the other.

[red_frog]

Beneficial? Not necessarily; to me, labels are a grouping mechanism but not beneficial as such. But this isn't really about subgroups so much as new groups meaning exactly the same thing as the old one. Like if you decided that you didn't want to use the word "Christian" because some people (myself included) have baggage associated with the name. The fact that you do use it, even though it has baggage, helps people like me to put down our baggage.

[firinel]

*nods* And that's part of the reason, though I know I'm not what fits "Christian" for a lot of people, I do use it. But as far as where I was going with 'beneficial', sometimes that baggage is due to traits with often really exist in great numbers. Eventually those traits might cause a divisive split, which means the new label is able to more accurately describe the new group. So it's not so much that there are two labels to describe the same thing, but two labels for two things which were once the same thing, but now have enough different traits that they can't be considered like, wholly, anymore.

I wonder often if I've enough defining traits to still label myself Christian, and wonder what I'll call myself the day I no longer do.

[red_frog]

If you believe in Jesus as the Christ, then you're Christian, no? If you don't, you're not. There's a ton of Christian sects but they're all Christian.

As for the same high-level groups with different names, the example of "I'm a feminist" versus talking around it while studiously avoiding the word "feminist" is one. bisexual has some recent discussion that is the direct inspiration for this, too.

[firinel]

Well, no, not necessarily. At least, a lot, I'd hazard even most Christians don't consider that to be all that's necessary for one to be a Christian. Even on that point alone, I'm a bit greyer than most