During one of my zen moments recently, I observed that I have been getting very annoyed with labels. I have come across narratives and conversations where people want to box each other on, yes you got it!, just ‘labels’ – Top, bottom, butch, femme, lady-like, man-like, being a wifey, being the man and so on. The funny thing is, I seem to observe only a binary variation and possibility of all these labels. While the list is endless and I do understand some are preferences, etc. I have been questioning the need to box ourselves and judge each other by mere labels. Don’t you think a lot of them seem to be an extension of the hereto- and cis-normative views of the world and for a need to conform ourselves into that?
As I see it, while some of these labels are required for organizational perspectives and for a need to establish equal rights and parity in society, these are pretty meaningless outside of political realms. Or may be not? Do we really believe that boxing ourselves will help us make other people understand to look at us as just human? What is the point of liberating ourselves from the clutches of a rampant stereotypical society only to close ourselves into a familiar yet different claustrophobic world again?
I don’t think labeling ourselves LGBT helps us any better either. I have seen organizations with LGBTI etc to explicitly mention a need to include Intersex people. But do we really think the buck stops there? What about Asexual, Gender queer, poly-amorous and a whole lot set of people who like to classify themselves beyond sexual and gender identity? While I personally tend to prefer Queer, a reclaimed word, I am still playing around to make sure I include everyone. Why can’t straight and cis-people be sightly queer? In a recent survey in some colleges, a lot of students classified themselves as “mostly gay”, “mostly straight”, “sometimes gay” categories, yet did not want to label themselves as bisexual to my wonder. I then realized that I was boxing them to my understanding and these folks need not really agree with me. What worries most is not these new emerging categories alone but rather a lot of queer folks believing that bisexual and trans people just don’t exist or are just faking it? Frankly its a slap on the face being told by someone that there are ‘only’ 2 possibilities that exist – straight or gay; assigned man or woman.
My point is, having liberated and gone past all the stupid stereotypes and normative-approved behaviors, do we really need labels dictate who we are rather then we being who we are? Do we really need a binary-conforming society? Do we really have to make decisions on relationships and other social interactions based on these?
My case rests!
Genetics is WHAT you are
Identitiy is WHO you are
WHAT you are doesn’t change
WHO you are doesn’t stop changing…
well said Rashmi, there is a tendency to box people in categories even within the LGBT community. But from a practical perspective, as a public health professional and social justice advocate, labels and boxes are easier for advocates and policy makers alike…Its wrong, it excludes people, but its convenient….Until we, as a society, figure out a way to move away from labels and boxes, we are stuck with it…
Labels don’t necessarily have to define someone now do they? It’s unfortunate that they do, but in a ideal world they can roughly represent an aspect of a person. Most labels can separate, No labels can liberate and some labels can simply differentiate.
I don’t think labels are completely unnecessary, because in a lot of cases they are very empowering. But I completely agree with your sentiments about the binary. I’m tired of binary identities (man, woman, gay, straight, bi) being the norm because it makes it difficult for people who exist outside of the binary to be understood.
I think labels help people understand to some extent. Not always bad.
I agree with almost all of you.
Even stereotypes are useful in establishing basic ideas. But my point is more geared towards relationships- romantic or not and the hard division on binary.
As ideal it may sound, I would prefer “all folks be treated equal”. not all “one particular group be treated equal”. Philosophically,and to be able to achieve that (ideally speaking), if we can forget the divisions and differences and the boxes, then we can do that.
Rashmi, the whole article is geared towards proceeding beyond a binary usage of gender. But pardon me for saying (and i am not try to be antagonistic) but most of the questions and issues addressed seems more pedantic than practical ones. consider a following hypothetical scenario: you are introduced to a gender non-conforming person, what pronoun do you use to address them? he, she or it? or one of the more weird variants like zir, zie,zhe, hir? or more grammatical oriented, they and that person?
Let me do a briefly analysis of each: he or she = binary world
it = derogatory
zir,zie,zhe,hir = i am not certain (possible new vocabulary addition to english language)
they = could lead to some confusing situations when you address a single person in plural
that person = would seem like the speaker is egoistic and intent to demean the person in context.
On a personal note, if we were to address the issue of gender being fluid or non-binary, i would really appreciate if someone can shed light on the primary issue of how i should address a gender non-conforming person. i believe addressing these questions would lead to better clarity.
Responding to Brenda’s question “i would really appreciate if someone can shed light on the primary issue of how i should address a gender non-conforming person.”, the simple answer is “you”. In other words, *addressing* someone would necessarily be in the second person, and the term “you” is fortunately not gender-specific.
if you wanted to refer to her/him in the third person, it might be a good idea to find out how s/he would like to be addressed.
@Kinsey3, thanks for the immediate response. The key issue, rashmi highlighted is “binary boxing of gender non-conforming”. And every time i asked someone how they would like to be addressed while in third person, it was mostly he or she. and that’s where the whole issue settles in. And if i am always forced to refer someone only in terms of binary words. This is a classic double-bind situation. getting to know someone who is gender non-conforming, but when i have to address them in third person, it still always a binary label. and herein comes rashmi question “Do we really need a binary-conforming society?” I would go with a “big no” as the answer. But sadly it’s the answer and not a solution.
@kinsey Thanks. My answer would have been very similar.
@ Brenda
On “How to address?” – I would say it is better to ask someone rather than making a choice ourselves. I know few GQ folks who like to be called “They” and “them”. Well, Limitations and Grammar of a language should not be a reason to offend someone. While it might sound funny to use a plural word to describe a singular person, I think we can work that out as humans.
It is common for a lot of languages to use the “formal/respectful addressing for one eprson” to be the same as the “plural/collective form”. Example, “aap” in Hindi, “neenga, avanga” in thamizh, “ustedes” in spanish …
On “Binary” – I agree it is more of an ideal scenario but that is the very reason we are fighting for. We are making some progress in establishing roles beyond male & female.
Isn’t a very similar fight is being fought in saying that it is 2 parents that make a family and not necessarily a man and a woman. I still doubt the value 2. But whatever, you get my point.
Personally I won;t be offended if someone addresses me as “they or them”. BUt will sure if they do “he”. The reason is through these years I had to extricate myself from the vicious roles of being a man/male, while I never attached to any of those stereotypes. My hatred is towards the society’s validation of me and the gender role.