Do labels create problems?

But labels also bring people together and create a sense of community! :icon_bigg

 

I think labels can cause a lot of stress- people focus on "what" to call themselves rather than what they actually feel. But I also think labels can be helpful at times. They can give people an overall idea of something basic about you-in terms of sexual orientation, who you're attracted to.

 

You can't get around labelling i dont think. Human beings naturally label others, its how we understand things, we group and we compartmentalise. We also tend to define ourselves by our differences with others. Without labels we would have difficulty defining ourselves, so I dont think its anything that we will ever be without.

 

i wish labels werent necessay and finding the right one can really be hard but lets face it, things would be wayyy more confusing without them. i actually wish there were more though so there actually was one that every person could call their own that made sense for them. thatd be cool

 

Labels are a necessary apparently. It helps people organize their thoughts much easier (into groups). But they are not a good thing. As it renders any of the groups susceptible to the same generalizations as other things classified under the group/label... Labels are a problem because they make people lack any sort of critical thinking and leave a person close minded. Labels suck.

 

I think that labels are fine, or would be, if everyone had the understanding that they are just a guideline and not a rule. Like, I'm a lesbian I guess, but it's more accurate to say I'm a Kinsey 5 and even MORE accurate to say that I'm open to the possibility that I may one day want to sleep with a man if he had a certain je ne sais quoi. But it's easier to say that I'm a lesbian.

See?

The problem comes in when we start freaking out because we don't fit the labels exactly. No one fits all their labels exactly, it's just a guideline to let other people know how you are in a very general sense. Thinking that labels are law leads to lots of negative stereotyping as well.

 

As someone who has a penchant organization and, subsequently, compartmentalization (for example, the idea of musical sub-genres fascinates me), labels for sexuality have never been something that I ever found at all incompatible with what I consider reasonable and called for. The idea that there could be words to describe something so mysterious as the patterns of whom I am sexually and romantically attracted to has appealed to me the same way musical sub-genres do. I think it has something to do with how my brain is wired: I'm a very systematic thinker, and one of the hallmarks of extremely systematic thinkers is a penchant for patterns. Labels, to me, were just putting names to those patterns, so I always thought they were ok. Experience has taught me otherwise, though, for all of the reasons brought up in the thread. But even having experience what I have experienced, both seeing the damage labels have done to others and my own issues with "fitting my label"*, I don't see labels as inherently bad; it's the attitude we take towards them that I see as bad.

Labels really wouldn't be an issue if we took an existential view towards them, rather than an essentialist view. I won't go into the nitty-gritty details of what differentiates the two, but in this particular situation, they are as such. An essentialist would say, "I am gay, therefore I am only sexually attracted to men." If he were to then be sexually attracted to a woman, he would have a crisis because that is incompatible with how he sees himself. This is the kind of rigid approach to labels that generates all of the problems they create. An existentialist, however, would say, "I am only sexually attracted to men, therefor I am gay." If he were to then be attracted to a woman, he would have no problem with changing his label, because it is his attraction that dictates his label, not the other way around.

Therein lies the problem with how we view labels: we often see the labels as defining our attraction, rather than our attraction defining our labels. If we could only view labels in the latter light, I really don't think we would have any problems with them.

*Though I have never been attracted to women, I once kissed a girl and enjoyed it, though I grew uncomfortable once we got passed the on-the-lips phase, and I enjoy cuddling with women. Both of these made me wonder whether I was really homosexual. I have since discovered that the issue of my label being incompatible with my behavior could be solved by simply changing the label: from homosexual (with the implied homoromantic attraction that goes along with it) to homosexual panromantic.

 

I don't think of gay as a label, it's a descriptive adjective, another attribute, so I'm a short, dark-haired, grey-eyed, gay, short-sighted man. Even apart from the obvious one of height, other attributes can be fluid over time, like hair colour for someone growing up, so sexuality isn't necessarily fixed either then.

If we're talking about labels, I'd think of terms like atheist or liberal in describing where I see myself on particular issues.

 

They're fine when they're not viewed as definitive or mutually exclusive.

 

I think labels create a name for an idea, the problem is that labels also create steriotypes. When you say things like Gay, Ghetto, Fag, Black, White blah, blah.

It triggers a pre-made idea in your mind.

 

Labels don't create problems. Attaching more to them than their actual definition creates the problems, hence stereotyping.

 

I think most of us share a love-hate relationship with labels. On one hand, it does make things simple. Instead of having to explain things in great detail, I can just say one word and people understand what I mean.

On the other hand, it seems like it's human nature to make unnecessary assumptions of other groups of people. Thus, when we assign labels to people, we witness this phenomenon.

Personally, I view myself as a lesbian; however, there are lesbians who will take offense to this. It's a label that I'm comfortable with, so I use it anyway. I understand why on a level why they're offended. Transsexuals themselves are a group that are mostly misunderstood. The whole "womyn" movement was meant to exclude transsexuals from taking part in feminism and that branched out into the lesbian community. That brings us back to labels.

The term "womyn" is like there's a group of girls in a tree-house with a sign that says, "NO TRANNIES ALLOWED." At least, that's how I view it. If I'm wrong, let me know.

 

I have no problem with labels. And I don't think most other people do, either. What people seem to have issues with are the "baggage" that can come with labels.

Let's move away from sexuality, and talk about something else. I'm from Colorado. This makes me a Coloradan. That's dictionary definition right there. And, like all "labels", it has some baggage to go with it. You might think I love skiing. Or I'm a huge Denver Bronco fan. Or that I love John Denver music. As it ends up, all three are incorrect. I hate skiing, couldn't care less about the football team, and don't think much of John Denver.

But despite those things, I don't run away from the "Coloradan" label. When somebody says "Are you a Coloradan?", I don't respond "Why do you have to label me?" I just say "Yeah".

It's precisely the same with my sexual orientation. I dig guys, not girls. That makes me gay. Again, dictionary definition. And yeah, there's baggage that goes along with it. Some people might think I wear women's clothing, or love musicals, or am wildly promiscuous. Again, wrong on all three counts. But I don't run away from the "gay" label because of that. If people ask "Are you gay?", I don't respond with "Why do you have to label me?" I just say "Yeah."

Lex

 

Personally I cant stand lables. I've found they leed to people thinking they are better than others and highlights that people are 'different' or 'abnormal' . I mean whats normal really ?
Lables also leed to judging. People are judged and put into a stereotype due to lables. I just don't think it's right. I mean how can you judge someone by the way they look ?

 

Well, most gays and lesbians are not noticeably gay, but there are stereotypes of what gay people look like...

 

I think of labels like gay and straight as nicknames. If you want to call yourself a lesbian, go for it. If you prefer sexually fluid, then use that. It's all about what you're comfortable with!

That being said, I don't think the world is really prepared to live in a world without labels. We just wouldn't know what to call people, how to describe people, etc.

 

I'm white, gay, male, brunette (or dirty blond if you ask my mom and friends), and blue eyed. I don't think there is anything wrong with those types of 'labels' however. Those are just facts. Stereotypes about labels may cause problems but that isn't due to the labels themselves. If you were to take away those simple adjectives it would probably change nothing. I'd still be white, gay, male, brunette, and blue eyed and people would still feel the same way about me they would otherwise.

 

labels are the worst things ever to come out ;(
being an asian bi, there's a stereotype that all gay asians are effiminate
when i know a ton of gay asian dominates :|
not to mention they label you, as "sticky rice" "potato queen" etc.
then add the asian stereotypes on top of that.