Sexuality labels gone too far?

LooseMoose, I'm there with you, but it's for this reason exactly that I dislike the use of these over-elaborate labels. If "gay" "straight" and "bisexual" were it, then consider the fact that all of the people who choose to use the more specific labels now would each fall under this umbrella, and people along Kinsey 5 margins would not feel obliged to detail each and every facet of our preference because it's assumed that there will be a variety of people under each label, and there should be an understanding that we've chosen the label *we* feel best suits us. Now, it feels nearly like lying if I say "I'm lesbian" when some say "I'm biromantic gay" or "I'm Homoflexible" and so on. Sure, those labels do describe me, but I think they also put a lot of pressure to not only fully disclose every facet of one's attractions, even those which may be irrelevant, but also may cause someone a lot of distress to scrutinize the minutiae of each feeling they've ever had, just to be sure they've "got it right."

This is all beside the fact, of course, that I feel language is for communication, and labels are part of language. The further we divide each preference the more labels we develop, and it may become such that every person has their own "label" for who they are, which you know, is fine in their own head, but in reality it defeats the original purpose of said label, which is to convey to others what your preferences are. If no one *knows* your label, and with the increasing amount of labels it's more and more likely that will occur, it seems a bit useless as a shorthand, and you may as well just explain in paragraph form how you feel rather than using a word or two.

I think it also may lessen the sense of community. To me, it's understood that each person may be a bit different from one another. Not every lesbian has had the same experiences as me and I'm sure the same is true for gay men and bisexuals. We're all individuals and as such will experience attraction, emotional attachment, and so on in our own way. There's no real need, to me, to differentiate it so precisely, especially when it could hinder connection between those who would otherwise find companionship in the fact that there are people "like them" out there.

 

We define labels, labels don't define us.

 

I know nothing is supposed to be simple in the 21st century - apparently, according to Kinsey, I'm bisexual. It's a nice little hook and I quite like it but I'll strike a blow for simplicity here - I'm clearly not heterosexual. So I'm a homosexual man - I'm gay. Some may disagree but I'm okay with that!

 

Catagories are good, but discrimination without a valid reason because of a difference is not.

 

I agree with people saying that labels are often taken too far. People come up with more and more specific labels that don't really have any basis in reality.

That said, I don't like it when people don't believe me when I say I don't feel any sexual attraction. I don't know exactly what to call it, whether demi-sexual or asexual, but it is real and I'm not just making it up. I think people should free to use whatever label they want, but that doesn't mean they should expect it to have the same validity as any other label.

 

I don't like justifying a social trend just by saying oh it only happens in XYZ generations, the rest are bullshit free. We could as well mention that baby boomers (well a majority of them) are incredibly homophobic, or at least that is my experience IRL.

That study may have observed only a white, middle class north american minority. The world is bigger than that. Way bigger. There is research and research. The label scientific or academic alone doesn't impress me at all. Show some interesting data, not biased, then we can start talking/discussing/asking questions.

Back to the topic, I don't censor what others do. I might find it hard to understand, but at the end it's up to them to use whatever label they invent for themselves.

Labels... To me it's got to be one of the following : Asexual, aromantic, bisexual, heterosexual, gay or lesbian. The first two labels are somehow modern, or at least they give their users the right not to be classified as defective. Not every modern label exists only to give some special snowflakes some status. Some of the labels are being helpful. They used to call homosexuals perverts. I have no idea what they used to call the transfolks, but sure wasn't a very nice word...

Let them call themselves whatever they want. I don't care... They won't make me use their labels if I don't want to.

 

Labeling can and does go too far sometimes. And no, I don't think it's all harmless and inconsequential. We use labels to validate and acknowledge permanent innate qualities of ourselves. Sexuality is one of those qualities. Gender is one of those qualities. However, not every emotion or state of mind should be given a label. Some of the feelings we have are temporary and could be symptoms of some underlying issue such as anxiety, depression, denialism, repressed homophobia, or some kind of medical condition.

People gravitate toward labels because labels can absolve them of all responsibility. Are you experiencing diminished sex-drive or do you lack the motivation to pursue any kind of relationship? You must be demi-sexual, or maybe asexual, or possibly gray-sexual. Are you gay, but feel uncomfortable going on same-sex dates in public? You must be hetero-romantic; or maybe you're asexual with a homosexual fetish; or you are probably just aromantic. Just don't feel like calling yourself "gay" because it's synonymous with "stupid" and "idiotic"? Here's a dozen other things that you can call yourself.

 

I'd like to announce, I am no longer 'bisexual'...



... I am 'tyrannosaurus rexual'.
Because I dino no limits in my attractions.




*readies blindfold and cigarette, as she awaits the firing squad for this one*

 

Labels have gone too far, last year I was the president of my uni's union and someone from NUS (the uber left wing national student body) emailed asking us to support him in changing LGBTQ+ (which is long enough already) to something that was 26 letters long to encompass all orientations.

I told him to go have intercourse with himself.

 

As for myself it's quite simple, I'm a guy, I like guys (what they identify as doesn't really matter, as long as there are no boobs and there is a dick), I wouldn't go out with a girl: I'm gay.

I think that it gets complicated and a bit useless when you take something different than the sex of your partner into account...

There is a need to identify as complicated label because one's a little bit different... I like to go as far as I can into things but here, the only "rules" are:
You identify as a guy and are attracted to girls (or the opposite) = You're straight
You're attracted to guys and girls = You're bi
You identify as a guy and you're attracted to guys (or girl <3 girl) = You're gay (lesbian)
You're attracted none of them = Asexual

Now if someone has both or no sex, well it's a special case.


Here we just take the genitals into account. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I deem it quite sufficient.

 

Interesting points TheStormInside, I think I agree with you about how much pressure can this over-precise labelling create- but for me the labels are not a cause in itself, but a consequence of already tightly policed orientation identities- now this is just a hypothesis.
I completely understand why it would make you feel uncomfortable, it makes me too.

 

Hmmmmm...you think perhaps I was a little too simplistic? :icon_bigg

 

This rises an interesting dilemma: are certain forms of sexuality only temporary issues to overcome on 'the way of being gay'?
Your last part could certainly be read a bit like that: eg. the example of a homosexual person who has not yet overcome their unease about dating the same sex, and hence chooses to label themselves as 'hetero-romantic'.

I am not so sure this is the only way things work: there are certainly people who experience low-libido due to depression, or repression of their sexuality, and with acceptance of their sexual orientation those issues will lift, and others who legitimately do have low libido or are asexual.
The trouble is that over the internet we cannot tell which is the case- but I think dismissing all those labels as only temporary states of mind, might do a disservice to those who are not just 'avoiding responsibility', but are legitimately different.

 

I'm not sure if it's any worse than what we had before: everyone was assumed to like members of the opposite sex, and anyone who didn't was disordered, possessed, or making a choice to engage in an act. In some ways I think what we have is a backlash, combined with a generation that needs to feel special (within an already highly individualistic culture).

No doubt, I think sexuality is complex. As complex as the number of people out there, and no binary is going to fit every single person to a tee. At the same time, trying to come up with millions, or billions, different labels seems tedious and impossible. Over time, I think, a few distinct identities will dominate, with the others being used to describe one shade or another of the ones accepted.

People in some circles are still convinced that "gay" doesn't really exist, let alone bisexual, asexual, or some of the more exotic labels. Several could apply to me, and people did try to convince me I was one thing or another, early on in my discovery process. In some ways the limitless options seemed like a curse, but looking back, I'm glad I had so many perspectives to guide me along.

 

Thank you for getting it!

What no one here is mentioning is that among the "special snowflakes" as you call them are people who actually have an orientation that fits in within the boundaries of the label. At the moment, the definitions of the various labels are problematic and lack clear boundaries of who fits the label. For example the Asexuality orientation is so much more than an inability to feel sexual attraction. It's closer to being a complete disconnect from sexuality in context of oneself. As the definition of the orientation is overly general and somewhat ambiguous, a large amount of people who are confused about their sexuality mislabel themselves as asexual. However, for quite a few, the asexuality label is a godsend, it helps the person understand themselves in relation to others sexuality.

A short time after I accepted the aromantic orientation, suddenly I somehow just got it, I could for the first time see through other people's eyes and emphasize with their experiences with sexuality.

For so long, I felt broken and lost because something inside me just didn't allow me to move forward in life. To become an adult and start dating. It just had zero appeal to me and I felt as a result as if I was a child among adults. This lasted for 20 years, 20 years of trying to be something that I am not, because I assumed that it was some sort of psychological issue, that some day I will just wake up and want what everyone else around me wants.

The absurdity with the snow flake argument is that it can be exceptionally painful to come out as asexual. I came out to three family members and all of them responded badly. My mother tried to persuade me that I might be gay or maybe that having cancer at a young age made me impotent, not being accepted by a person I trusted left me empty and broken. She eventually accepted me but it was one of the hardest experiences of my life. I definitely didn't feel like a special snowflake after coming out.

I have to admit that it can be hard to go to forums like Aven and feel like an outsider but in the end every person there is going through some sort of journey, trying to figure out who they are and even though many will eventually realize that they are not after all asexual, some might find a large amount of meaning in the experience of at long last understanding who they are and understanding why so many people are obsessed with sexuality.

 

That is a question that can only be answered by researching the issue. Anecdotal evidence and emotional reasoning are not sufficient. To put it bluntly, the sexuality labels that have been introduced in recent years have not been subjected to scrutiny. A lot of time and effort has gone into the study of the causes and symptoms of depression and anxiety as well as the coping mechanisms that people use during the coming-out process. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and to a lesser extent bisexuality have all been studied. But, barely anything (or possibly nothing) exists in the literature on the subject of romantic orientation. So when given the choice between two competing theories that describe a person's emotional state, do I go with the traditional sexuality labels along with known psychological conditions such as depression, anxiety, and denial? Or, do I throw all of that away in favor of a new labeling system that has not been properly researched and vetted? For me, this is a non-question.

The key difference is that depression and anxiety are much more common and therefore more likely. I think it would be a great disservice to tell someone that their condition is permanent and lifelong when there is actually a greater chance that it is treatable. It bugs me that some people are led to believe that they cannot find happiness in a relationship because of a mismatch between their romantic and sexual orientations. Before people resort to labeling themselves that way (hetero-romantic homo-sexual, for example), I think we need to figure out whether romantic orientation is even a thing.

I think the order is mixed up. Finding out whether people are legitimately different should come first and applying labels should come afterward. Because if they are not different, then we just adopted a system of false labels for no reason.

 

There's so many great ideas from many different people, but in the end, every one of us is arguing semantics and using only anecdotal evidence to support our arguments. It really is a matter of how one looks at it because socially driven definitions evolve with our culture which changes much faster than our biology and genetics. Labels are a reflection of our society.
It doesn't matter to me. However, the fact that any thing EXCEPT straight is strange and unusual and for those reasons besmirched, causes the targeted population to seek out reasons and obtain nuances in what it is to be normal or odd. Labels give us the comfort of belonging somewhere and gives us a sense of stability and identity. The various names are a result of looking within ourselves and understanding ourselves...labels depend on how creative as a person you are because everything and anything can be labeled and called funny names. When people begin to accept them, it becomes commonplace.
It doesn't take much for trends to grow.

 

The main problem is that without visibility which only happens when enough prople identify as certain orientations, therd is no real reason for anyone to research anything. Neuroanatomical studies are expensive and complicated to fo and are the only real way to prove the legitimacy of any orientation. To underdtand how unlikely it is that anyone would conduct the needed experiments, keep in mind that only recently someone tested what happens in the brain when a person is in love.

Sometimes we just need to be patient and accept the fact that some processes of development take time. As it stands now, the situation is not ideal but over time things will develop. People will develop a deeper understanding of the orientations which will eventually lead to a more accurste uneetstanfing and use of the various labels. Some of the labels will not catch on and will disappear and others will become widely known.

 

Yes I do find all the new labels ridiculous. Starting with pansexual. It's called bisexual.

 

Pansexual is a useful label, though. While it does share similarities with bisexual, there is one tidbit often overlooked. Some bisexuals only like a man or woman, if they are presenting as male or female, and may not like anything between. Some bisexuals won't willingly become involved with anybody trans-etc, while those with the pansexual label seem to.

For someone in my situation, it's kind of an 'okay to go' mark on somebody, when they identify as pansexual. Bisexual is likely to work out, but not as guaranteed, from my observations and in my experiences. But maybe if I weren't transgender, then it would be seemingly meaningless.

Take that for what you will.