LABELS - The Thread!

[Sita]

I'm asking this here because it deals with labels (I think at least) and I'm genuinely wanting to learn.

I've never really understood the whole "I'm a X in a Y's body" thing. My mind just doesn't see thoughts and feelings and actions as something that is male or female. It's just something that makes us human.

So, why does someone say they are not what their sex/gender* show? Is it based strictly on what society says you should act and think like based on your sex/gender? Or is it something else?


*These two have always meant the same thing to me, but I can see that they seem to have different meanings for other people. Don't understand that either.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I think I'm gonna have trouble making this all fit together but what I'm trying to get at is that labels when used correctly could help to humanise/normalise minorities that some people try to oppress.

Actually, the history of feminism and the patriarchy both give a pretty solid indication that labels merely give the opposition something to target, and a flag to rally around.

100 people label themselves.  ONE of them says something stupid or counterproductive.  The enemy of their cause will use that ONE person to condemn all the others.  For an example, google "Susan Brownmiller"...Who, in a 20 year fit of misandry, gave Pat Robertson and all his brethren a gigantic club with which to beat anyone who wore the same label as Brownmiller.

It's a question of what your motives are.  If you want to make a moral stand and go down in glorious flames, label your cause with something daring.  If you want to affect real change, you avoid labels where possible, and deny your opponent a target...While you go about your business.  It's harder, it's not as personally glorious, but it has the benefit of working.

I personally identify myself as an "eglatarian" if I HAVE to identify my beliefs, because NOBODY - not even a genuine Holy Man^TM like myself - can avoid labels entirely, and "eglatarian" is a particularly dodgy label that's really hard for the current societal structure to condemn.  It implies that ALL people are equal as human beings, which is the very root of feminism, the civil rights movement, everything.  And it's really hard for people living under the American mythology to strike out at, because the American MYTH is that "all people are equal under law".  Obvious bullshit, but the effect is the same.

THAT.

There's a set of assumptions that goes with a label, too. You might not know in advance what all those assumptions are goin to be, but do you really want a bunch of shit-flinging monkeys making more assumptions than they do already?

Personally, I want them thinking that I'm a rather dim loudmouth asshole who can't be bothered to think.

That way, someone else gets blamed for the horrible sneaky shit I do.  Usually it's the dumbass with the tie-dye hairdo, the ANARCHIST label tattooed on his forehead, and the cranial piercing who's desperate to show how clever he is in public.  Thanks for the camouflage, asshole!

That guy would be shot on sight here. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm asking this here because it deals with labels (I think at least) and I'm genuinely wanting to learn.

I've never really understood the whole "I'm a X in a Y's body" thing. My mind just doesn't see thoughts and feelings and actions as something that is male or female. It's just something that makes us human.

So, why does someone say they are not what their sex/gender* show? Is it based strictly on what society says you should act and think like based on your sex/gender? Or is it something else?


*These two have always meant the same thing to me, but I can see that they seem to have different meanings for other people. Don't understand that either.

Actually, I think it's more that they don't FEEL like the gender they were born with.  My daughter is in this catagory.  It has nothing to do with sexual orientation in the classic sense of the term, or in society's expectations, it's that she would have much rather had a male body.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think I'm gonna have trouble making this all fit together but what I'm trying to get at is that labels when used correctly could help to humanise/normalise minorities that some people try to oppress.

Actually, the history of feminism and the patriarchy both give a pretty solid indication that labels merely give the opposition something to target, and a flag to rally around.

100 people label themselves.  ONE of them says something stupid or counterproductive.  The enemy of their cause will use that ONE person to condemn all the others.  For an example, google "Susan Brownmiller"...Who, in a 20 year fit of misandry, gave Pat Robertson and all his brethren a gigantic club with which to beat anyone who wore the same label as Brownmiller.

It's a question of what your motives are.  If you want to make a moral stand and go down in glorious flames, label your cause with something daring.  If you want to affect real change, you avoid labels where possible, and deny your opponent a target...While you go about your business.  It's harder, it's not as personally glorious, but it has the benefit of working.

I personally identify myself as an "eglatarian" if I HAVE to identify my beliefs, because NOBODY - not even a genuine Holy Man^TM like myself - can avoid labels entirely, and "eglatarian" is a particularly dodgy label that's really hard for the current societal structure to condemn.  It implies that ALL people are equal as human beings, which is the very root of feminism, the civil rights movement, everything.  And it's really hard for people living under the American mythology to strike out at, because the American MYTH is that "all people are equal under law".  Obvious bullshit, but the effect is the same.

THAT.

There's a set of assumptions that goes with a label, too. You might not know in advance what all those assumptions are goin to be, but do you really want a bunch of shit-flinging monkeys making more assumptions than they do already?

Personally, I want them thinking that I'm a rather dim loudmouth asshole who can't be bothered to think.

That way, someone else gets blamed for the horrible sneaky shit I do.  Usually it's the dumbass with the tie-dye hairdo, the ANARCHIST label tattooed on his forehead, and the cranial piercing who's desperate to show how clever he is in public.  Thanks for the camouflage, asshole!

That guy would be shot on sight here. 

Happens once a month.  There's some guy running around in the principia subforum this week.

[Juana]

Until I snapped at Roger, I was not being hostile. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

If you are discussing semantics on a forum chances are you come from privilege, its not a valid argument because this is the definition of armchair philosophy and nothing screams privilege more then that.

We are all privileged, then thousand people die a day of dehydration alone so that we can maintain our standard of living. This corrupts us to our core, layers of privilege between the different class, race and sex divides are merely an after thought on top of that.

Privilege is something that exists in the fucking West, too, at all levels, and it needs to be dealt with. If you're saying, "hey the UN is the only one who can talk about race and sex relations in America (or where ever)" then you need to remember that change happens on the ground. Roger learned something, Roger changed something about his vocabulary, because we talked about male privilege. I'm sure he's not the only one, he's just the most vocal about it. I know that I learned what my asshole behavior was through these kinds of discussions. I changed because I learned about privilege. All this shit happened on the ground.

Yes some small ground has been made, I wont argue that there is more that can be done, a larger audience reached and a greater impact wrought, because any progress is progress.
It would be negative and standing in the way of progress, messages and teaching to tell someone they are incapable of understanding based on their situation in life.
And I don't think you understood my UN comment, I don't believe the UN makes any progress at all.

Second part is not something relevant or mentioned in this thread. I also still think the gentlemen here are really not getting the fine but valid differences between empathy/getting it and living it. However, I really don't think the discussion of empathy/UR A MAN is going to be good for this thread and I would like to stay on topic for at least a couple pages.
I got that (and I agree. UN; good for establishing which side of the strait you should sail on, bad for dealing with human rights). Which is why I was kind of offended.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Second part is not something relevant or mentioned in this thread. I also still think the gentlemen here are really not getting the fine but valid differences between empathy/getting it and living it.

Please name a practical difference, other than some weird form of status.

[Freeky]

I'm asking this here because it deals with labels (I think at least) and I'm genuinely wanting to learn.

I've never really understood the whole "I'm a X in a Y's body" thing. My mind just doesn't see thoughts and feelings and actions as something that is male or female. It's just something that makes us human.

So, why does someone say they are not what their sex/gender* show? Is it based strictly on what society says you should act and think like based on your sex/gender? Or is it something else?


*These two have always meant the same thing to me, but I can see that they seem to have different meanings for other people. Don't understand that either.

Actually, I think it's more that they don't FEEL like the gender they were born with.  My daughter is in this catagory.  It has nothing to do with sexual orientation in the classic sense of the term, or in society's expectations, it's that she would have much rather had a male body.

I think the ex has said that, and some guy down at Hat's has said it too. 

[Placid Dingo]

I actually don't have a problem with labels provided the function is not to reduce a person to nothing but a label.

I think there are some legitimate reasons for labels;

To better know ones self. By coming across a label that fits me, it gives me a chance to understand myself better. This was my experience with the myerbriggs test, finding my type listed as INTP. Reading the description, it was the first time I actually understood that I wasnt socially incompetent. I'm sure that coming across a label that describes ones quirks or compulsions and provides a community of people who have experienced similar things, is helpful to many, including those with uncommon inclinations in gender or sexuality.

To form tribal connections. Either informally (a Discordian hanging with Discordians) or formally (official groups or associations) labelling oneself as part of a larger group as a social signifier.

To attract desired attention or behaviour. Easiest example is if I put straight, bi or gay on a dating profile.

To compress complex ideas. While my views on any issue may be complex, and not easily summed up by any label, I can call myself feminist, left-leaning, objectivist, deist our any other label if I want to quickly convey a set of complex or time intensive ideas in one word. This also givs these idea sets greater spreadability.

The key point for me is that labels can help if you use them, not if you let them use you, not if you become them.

[The Johnny]

I think maybe tags and labels are useful in the context of a task with roles but using them for anything other than that is dehumanizing and simplifying a person.

We're building a house (task), im Jack and im "the" carpenter (role regarding task), Jill is "the" plumber (role regarding task).

When we are not building the house (no task) then im simply Jack, and shes simply Jill.

[The Johnny]

So maybe if the task is "promoting equality in society" the proper labels would indeed be "egalitarian" with "X (feminist), Y (human rights) or Z (anti-exclusion)" orientation/perspective.

[Placid Dingo]

I think maybe tags and labels are useful in the context of a task with roles but using them for anything other than that is dehumanizing and simplifying a person.

We're building a house (task), im Jack and im "the" carpenter (role regarding task), Jill is "the" plumber (role regarding task).

When we are not building the house (no task) then im simply Jack, and shes simply Jill.

So I should reject simple ways of articulating my gender, political persuasion, sexuality, beliefs etc because it's inherently dehumanising?

I have never understood this.

You can make use of labels or titles without becoming them.

Although theres an important distinction between using labels for v oneself or for another.

So maybe if the task is "promoting equality in society" the proper labels would indeed be "egalitarian" with "X (feminist), Y (human rights) or Z (anti-exclusion)" orientation/perspective.

Thing is, these labels get used because theyre short, simple ways of expressing things. If someone asks me why Twilight sucks, I'm not going to say "well, from an egalitarian human rights feminist perspective..."

[The Johnny]

I think rather than stating it as an affirmation, you could state it as a question:

"Can one make use of labels/titles without becoming them?"

Making a reference to your current project as an example, I dont label myself a discordian; "im" not a discordian, i have use for discordian thought, i emphatize with the metaphor of discordia, but "im not a".

Why? Because just as in any group or within any label, there are the "crazies", nutjobs that i dont want to be identified with, Uncle BadTouch the pedophile (or was it Clockwerk? im not sure), or some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.

I enjoy hanging out with "goths" and they are what i might consider my "brethren" or whatever, but IM NOT a goth, because in any group there are "crazies", etc.

I am male, I am heterosexual, I am tall, but if someone asks me "What am i?" am i gonna say "Well, gee, Im tall"? What the fuck would that even mean?

Ideas and representations are things that i think and i can emphatize with (or be opposed) but they are not the same thing as "being".

Im nothing, im everything - when someone categorizes there is intent that is socio-politically charged.

[Freeky]

I liked the way that was put.

[The Johnny]

Also, by fact and nomenclature, "I am" Mexican, but by fuck do i identify as one.

"16 de septiembre" is coming up when everyone celebrates their "Mexicanity"... yes, let us all REJOICE in being citizens in a nation full of corruption.

Also, im a man, as in, i have a dick, but whats the point of stating it unless someone is interested in sexy times with me? There is no point, other than if i engage in a conversation, devalue my argument with something among the lines "you just say that because privilege", a crude attribution of cause, when a female could very well be making the same argument and be attributed to "omg brainwash"; but if we know if they are female or male, it gives us a nice representation and data point to work around with, frame the debate, assume groupality allegiances, which ultimately sums up to not listening.

[Placid Dingo]

I think rather than stating it as an affirmation, you could state it as a question:

"Can one make use of labels/titles without becoming them?"

Making a reference to your current project as an example, I dont label myself a discordian; "im" not a discordian, i have use for discordian thought, i emphatize with the metaphor of discordia, but "im not a".

Why? Because just as in any group or within any label, there are the "crazies", nutjobs that i dont want to be identified with, Uncle BadTouch the pedophile (or was it Clockwerk? im not sure), or some guy that murdered a person for fame discussed recently that used to post here.

I enjoy hanging out with "goths" and they are what i might consider my "brethren" or whatever, but IM NOT a goth, because in any group there are "crazies", etc.

I am male, I am heterosexual, I am tall, but if someone asks me "What am i?" am i gonna say "Well, gee, Im tall"? What the fuck would that even mean?

Ideas and representations are things that i think and i can emphatize with (or be opposed) but they are not the same thing as "being".

Im nothing, im everything - when someone categorizes there is intent that is socio-politically charged.

Well put. However for me it is an affirmation. I do believe it one can use labels without becoming the label.

It seems odd to not identify with a group because of nut jobs. It's not like any (sane) person hates on Richard Dawkins because of Mao Tse Tung (though of course this could just be because theres much better reasons to hate on Dawkins).

Actually speaking of Dawkins, the Brights movement is a good example of a lable used to compress a complex set of ideas into something thats simple enough to spread.