If it seems to look like what I say gets out of focus, I apologise for it; I tried to summarise as best as I can. --- A while ago, I was on a social media site and I saw someone bring up an idea about the use of "theban" as a descriptor for men who are attracted to men. From what I gather, the idea takes a page from the term lesbian (a descriptor for women who are attracted to women), which is an allusion to an Ancient Greek woman named Sappho, who was born on Lesbos, in that the term theban alludes to the Sacred Band of Thebes (if you are not sure who Sappho or the Sacred Band were, I'd advise you to look them up). There wasn't much to that discussion last time I checked. Some people liked the idea, while one person said that theban could be easily abused by crackpots like the Westboro Baptist Church or the like because one can't spell theban without "ban" (I would argue that lesbian would not be much safer; if there hasn't been a sign somewhere already that says "Lesbians are lesser beings," someone somewhere will eventually). However, that discussion got me thinking about what I think about labels as identifiers: I've never really been a fan of labels. I myself was hesitant to explicitly call myself gay prior to finding theban as a possible legitimate term, possibly because of all the connotations associated with the word "gay" (as a synonym for "worse" in some in homophobic slurs, that common stereotype of a flamboyant effeminate male [no offence if that happens to be your gender expression by the way; in any case, I would especially like to hear your thoughts about this topic], etc.). Then again, I can also see the appeal of the word gay, since some women with same-sex attractions can choose to identify as gay and that gay is strongly established within international vocabulary (for example, "gayby," I learned, is a slang term in Spanish that describes children of same-sex parents). While one could argue that theban is not widespread at all and thus holds little meaning, I like the option to identify as a theban because, like lesbians, it can provide a label for a best fit if gay doesn't match one's preference. I am aware that theban as a label is going to undergo a semantic change over time (including the addition of connotations, positive, negative, neutral, or otherwise), but for the present I don't mind using theban as an identifier. So what are your thoughts on labels/identifiers? Do you have a preference? Why is that? Or would you rather eliminate any and all labels from the English language?
I primarily identify as bisexual as it saves on the amount of people telling me what my sexual identity really is. My preference is to term my orientation as being sexual and leave it at that. For the most part I'd prefer a society where labels and identifiers were not viewed with quite such importance and human beings could be accepted as being individuals whose sexuality simply exists as it exists. I tend to not understand the desire to identify as a particular orientation and the associated label(s) but I wouldn't say I want to eliminate them; I can see why people may want to have a way of identifying themselves, and I guess they can be helpful, I would just prefer it if people did not give the impression that it's essential to have a label for your sexuality (or indeed if people could resist the urge to label others, that would be splendid (!)).
Voted other. On the hand I agree with "Burn the dictionary! None such words should exist!" because human sexuality is to diverse and some cases fluid to define in strict terms. On the other hand I'm, forced to acknowledge that for practical reasons, labels and identifiers are simpler and cost less time than explaining your sexuality in detail or by your (sexual) history.
I think that loose labels that are open to interpretation should be used. It is impossible not to categorise things, but I think that terms should be more objective than subjective for sexuality (andro/gynosexual as opposed to homo/heterosexual. etc.) I also believe that labels should always have a loose category for those who don't fit, which assumes that questions should be asked.
If you find a label that suits you, then good for you. If not, don't stress over it. I'm happy with my label. And it's easier to explain to people using my label, rather than none at all.
I personally don't mind labels for myself because I am easy to categorize. My sex and gender are one and the same (male) and I am attracted only to men (I'm gay). That said, I may be in the minority in terms of how I can easily be labeled so I do not wish to impose a regime that I feel comfortable unto others.
I think labels are necessary, and are harmless when not abused. I can use labels to find similar people and form a community. If I were gay, I might want to say to a girl hitting on me "Sorry, I'm gay". The danger comes when people try to force labels onto others, or deny the validities of some identities, or persecute people based on label. But it doesn't mean all labels are bad. Personally, in full, I identify as a Demiromantic Panromantic Gray-A Pansexual, which I shorten to Pansexual in some queer circles. In other queer circles, and among heterosexuals, I call myself bisexual, because I lack the stamina to constantly explain my identity.
