Yes, sometimes labels are too constrictive, and not perfect for everyone. But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels, or "I'm not cis; I'm normal", what they're almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated. When the only labels are normal and not normal, it's much easier to silence and marginalize those you believe are outside the norm.
Yeah I agree, orange shirt in the comic is being needlessly dismissive. Like of course queer people are often obsessed with labels, we've typically been deprived of models and community so finding that in a label is going to be exciting. And for some other queer people, labels can feel restrictive, reminding them of the rigidity of the cisheteronormative mold they're trying to escape in the first place.
Labels can be empowering for some and restrictive for others and that's fine, as long as we all respect each other. Like I've had people try to prescribe specific gender labels onto me when I'm more comfortable leaving it at non-binary, that's not cool, just like it would be lame of me not to respect when someone says they're genderfluid or any other more specific label under the non-binary umbrella.
I think that I don’t want people calling me cis and I don’t want to talk about it. I also think that if labels help someone else out I will use whatever pronouns they prefer.
Its just like, what other word should we use than cisgender? We can say people whose gender matches their one assigned at birth I guess but that gets annoying. In certain contexts the cisgender label just makes discussion easier.
I think there's a distinction that can and should be drawn between descriptors and labels. Most people fit the descriptor "cisgender" but you'll be hard-pressed to find someone using it as an identity label.
Likewise, looking at definitions, non-binary genders are usually included under the trans umbrella, but many non-binary folks, myself included, don't necessarily use trans as a label. If someone is talking about the trans community, I still relate and feel included in the conversation, but I don't use the word as a label for myself.
I disagree; I think there's a huge middle ground you're ignoring.
"Everyone should be treated equally" is a pretty simple concept that a lot of (maybe even a majority of) people agree with. It's possible to fully subscribe to that ideology while also thinking that the explosion of labels that gen z is infatuated with is silly.
Why do you think it's silly?
Even if it were silly, is that sufficient reason to not treat others with respect?
The rhetoric I described is absolutely being weaponized against people. If you follow the reason behind the arugment that someone is "normal, not cis", then you would then conclude that trans and nb people are not normal. Anyone who accepts that argument would likely conclude that not only are trans women not "normal women", and trans men not "normal men", but that they are not actually real women or men.
As for gen z being infatuated with labels, I will admit I don't understand many of them, but I'm fine with them if they help people communicate their identity better. I wouldn't claim that any labels are redundant or just attention seeking without any actual evidence or reasoning behind it.
I'm taking issue with your first example, not your second. There's a world of difference.
But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels [...] what they're almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated.
This statement I think is incorrect.
It is being weaponized in that way too. For example, Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro went on rants about asexuality recently, claiming that labels such as demisexual had no basis in reality and described experiences that are common to everyone. If you follow their argument, people become unable to use labels that communicate their preferences and experience.
Even when it isn't being weaponized, I don't think you should claim certain labels are unnecessary unless you've engaged with the reasoning behind the people who use them and form a reasonable argument that isn't "back in my day people didn't have so many labels."
"Some people are weaponizing that language" is a VERY different statement than "anyone who uses that language is almost certainly weaponizing it". You're alienating allies by accusing them if being enemies.
“Some people are weaponizing that language” is a VERY different statement than “anyone who uses that language is almost certainly weaponizing it”.
I never said that. In fact, I ended my last reply with "Even when it isn’t being weaponized". I said people who say things like "queer people are obsessed with labels" and "I'm not cis; I'm normal", which are both disparaging comments, are more than likely doing so in response to encountering identities and experiences outside of cishetnormativity. It's one thing to say that there are a lot of labels used, and you find some of them either dubious or unneccessary, and another to say that people are obsessed or making up labels for attention.
Whenever people say that someone's choice of labels is simply attention seeking or naive, how often are these people actually listening and engaging with the person's reasoning for identifying with the said label, and show give actual evidence for said attention seeking? In my experience, the only argument I've seen being used against labels that people identify with is "I've never heard of it nor do I understand it, therefore it's not real." Claiming that "queer people are obsessed with labels" is a broad generalization that comes of as a knee jerk reaction.
You’re alienating allies by accusing them if being enemies.
All I'm asking is that people think whenever they feel the need to dismiss others and gatekeep identities from people. In my experience, this seems to be based more on people's gut reactions rather than science, facts, or logic, like they claim it is.
Whenever I've seen people disparage certain labels like non-binary or demisexual, they never seem to have actually listen to someone with said identity and engage with their reasoning. It's far more common for them to decide that they're attention seeking, deluded, or mentally ill.
And if people are going to be allies, there are going to be times when they need to examine their behaviour. Any self-proclaimed ally who says that "I have nothing against queer people, but why are they so obsessed with labels?" needs to re-examine their arguments just like anyone who says "I have nothing against women, but why are they so emotional and sensitive?" or "I have nothing against black people, but why are they so violent?".
Yes, sometimes labels are too constrictive, and not perfect for everyone. But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels, or "I'm not cis; I'm normal", what they're almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated. When the only labels are normal and not normal, it's much easier to silence and marginalize those you believe are outside the norm.
Yeah I agree, orange shirt in the comic is being needlessly dismissive. Like of course queer people are often obsessed with labels, we've typically been deprived of models and community so finding that in a label is going to be exciting. And for some other queer people, labels can feel restrictive, reminding them of the rigidity of the cisheteronormative mold they're trying to escape in the first place.
Labels can be empowering for some and restrictive for others and that's fine, as long as we all respect each other. Like I've had people try to prescribe specific gender labels onto me when I'm more comfortable leaving it at non-binary, that's not cool, just like it would be lame of me not to respect when someone says they're genderfluid or any other more specific label under the non-binary umbrella.
I think that I don’t want people calling me cis and I don’t want to talk about it. I also think that if labels help someone else out I will use whatever pronouns they prefer.
Its just like, what other word should we use than cisgender? We can say people whose gender matches their one assigned at birth I guess but that gets annoying. In certain contexts the cisgender label just makes discussion easier.
I think there's a distinction that can and should be drawn between descriptors and labels. Most people fit the descriptor "cisgender" but you'll be hard-pressed to find someone using it as an identity label.
Likewise, looking at definitions, non-binary genders are usually included under the trans umbrella, but many non-binary folks, myself included, don't necessarily use trans as a label. If someone is talking about the trans community, I still relate and feel included in the conversation, but I don't use the word as a label for myself.
I disagree; I think there's a huge middle ground you're ignoring.
"Everyone should be treated equally" is a pretty simple concept that a lot of (maybe even a majority of) people agree with. It's possible to fully subscribe to that ideology while also thinking that the explosion of labels that gen z is infatuated with is silly.
Why do you think it's silly?
Even if it were silly, is that sufficient reason to not treat others with respect?
The rhetoric I described is absolutely being weaponized against people. If you follow the reason behind the arugment that someone is "normal, not cis", then you would then conclude that trans and nb people are not normal. Anyone who accepts that argument would likely conclude that not only are trans women not "normal women", and trans men not "normal men", but that they are not actually real women or men.
As for gen z being infatuated with labels, I will admit I don't understand many of them, but I'm fine with them if they help people communicate their identity better. I wouldn't claim that any labels are redundant or just attention seeking without any actual evidence or reasoning behind it.
I'm taking issue with your first example, not your second. There's a world of difference.
This statement I think is incorrect.
It is being weaponized in that way too. For example, Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro went on rants about asexuality recently, claiming that labels such as demisexual had no basis in reality and described experiences that are common to everyone. If you follow their argument, people become unable to use labels that communicate their preferences and experience.
Even when it isn't being weaponized, I don't think you should claim certain labels are unnecessary unless you've engaged with the reasoning behind the people who use them and form a reasonable argument that isn't "back in my day people didn't have so many labels."
"Some people are weaponizing that language" is a VERY different statement than "anyone who uses that language is almost certainly weaponizing it". You're alienating allies by accusing them if being enemies.
I never said that. In fact, I ended my last reply with "Even when it isn’t being weaponized". I said people who say things like "queer people are obsessed with labels" and "I'm not cis; I'm normal", which are both disparaging comments, are more than likely doing so in response to encountering identities and experiences outside of cishetnormativity. It's one thing to say that there are a lot of labels used, and you find some of them either dubious or unneccessary, and another to say that people are obsessed or making up labels for attention.
Whenever people say that someone's choice of labels is simply attention seeking or naive, how often are these people actually listening and engaging with the person's reasoning for identifying with the said label, and show give actual evidence for said attention seeking? In my experience, the only argument I've seen being used against labels that people identify with is "I've never heard of it nor do I understand it, therefore it's not real." Claiming that "queer people are obsessed with labels" is a broad generalization that comes of as a knee jerk reaction.
All I'm asking is that people think whenever they feel the need to dismiss others and gatekeep identities from people. In my experience, this seems to be based more on people's gut reactions rather than science, facts, or logic, like they claim it is.
Whenever I've seen people disparage certain labels like non-binary or demisexual, they never seem to have actually listen to someone with said identity and engage with their reasoning. It's far more common for them to decide that they're attention seeking, deluded, or mentally ill.
And if people are going to be allies, there are going to be times when they need to examine their behaviour. Any self-proclaimed ally who says that "I have nothing against queer people, but why are they so obsessed with labels?" needs to re-examine their arguments just like anyone who says "I have nothing against women, but why are they so emotional and sensitive?" or "I have nothing against black people, but why are they so violent?".