12
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

To frame this precisely: do you think that distinctions between cis-homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality, trans-homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality, and other gender-specific or gender-exclusive sexual orientation labels are necessary, or should we keep it minimal, or even abolish labels completely?

And just to make everything clear, I have to disclose that I'm NOT part of the queer community, though I try to be as allied as humanly possible (I have three trans friends [two gay trans males, one lesbian trans female], one demi-pansexual genderfluid friend, etc., and I support and help all of them in everything I can). So, precisely because of this, I want to learn and know more about your ideas, feelings, experiences, philosophies, and beliefs. As I know the queer community isn't a monolith, I want to hear as many voices as possible so I can form more well-founded and well-informed opinions, questions, and actions. I equally support your rights and oppose all reactionary conservatives.

That said, and back to the question that opens this post as its title, I ask this because I've noticed that it is (or could be) a problem in queer discourse, semantics, and semiotics, and I want to know how different people try to solve it.

For example, I have mixed feelings because, on the one hand, I think that creating more specific labels could help both as a recognition of the different experiences and identities that constitute the queer spectrum, and in making communication clearer, respectful, clever, and less prone to errors, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or conflicts (for example, I only like cisgender women, and I'm a cisgender male, but if I say that I'm heterosexual, I feel that it's not clear if I like cis women, or if I like trans women, or if I instead like both kinds of women, without further explanation that's not always possible, or a more specific term, and that could lead to a conflict of expectations). But at the same time, on the other hand, it feels like it over-compartmentalizes and over-atomizes something that's not completely discrete (although it's also not completely continuous), and can lead to division, or even to other kinds of exclusion and discrimination both inside the community and outside it.

I know this is not an easy problem, so what are your thoughts on this?

Please, keep this respectful, civil, and on-topic. To all the moderators of this space, I kindly ask you in advance that if this results in a conflict or a fight, please lock it.

Love and peace.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Nemo@slrpnk.net 39 points 1 month ago

How about: The labels are available for those who want to use them to describe themselves, but they're optional and we don't label other people unless they've told us what labels they prefer?

This all-or-nothing crap serves no one.

[-] AskewLord@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

because that's not how things work. people can't self-police that well.

people use the labels or don't use them, and their use/non-use invites conflict. because human beings fundamentally want other people to be like them and are validated by others doing so, and feel invalidated by those who do not.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] missingno@fedia.io 17 points 1 month ago

Labels are an approximation. There will always be people who don't neatly fall into those labels. We can invent more labels to improve coverage, but no matter how fine-grained we try to get there will always be outliers.

But just because they're an approximation doesn't mean they can't be useful. Many people take comfort in labels, even discover themselves through labels. No reason to take them away from the people they're helpful to.

As long as we accept that labels aren't perfect and don't force them on people who don't want them, it's okay for labels to be imperfect.

[-] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm understanding better (at least a bit 😅) now. Thanks!

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Everyone is unique.

Labels are pointless.

We need to normalize "singular they" again.

Any group that's isolated, regardless of whose choice, will eventually create smaller groups. It will keep going untill there are thousands of labels with a max of a dozen people. It's has absolutely nothing to do with gender or sexuality.

It happens with religion, hobby enthusiasts, athletes, literally anything.

The human brain is designed to chop up populations into demographics since we can only handle so many individuals. If you "fill up" with people all of one demographic, it becomes worthless and you need to subdivide it.

The solution is integration and everyone mixing up together. Then people experience a wide enough variation of people, that they understand no one trait determines a person.

After that it just seems weird when some people insist everyone gets defined by hyper specific labels about one small aspect of who they are as a person.

[-] AskewLord@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago

fundamentally disagree. People are not unique. They want to be unique, for sure, but they are far more similar than they'd like to admit, and micro-labels are a great way to creation 'ego preservation' to feel like one is more unique than actually is, and that someone makes one more valuable and special, internally. And for people with fragile egos, these labels are highly important and they require other people to acknowledge the identity label.

And when they are common enough parlance people will force them on you, whether you agree or identify with them or not. But at that point it's mostly them projecting their own label-insistence onto you.

For some folks labels are pointless, but for some they are fundamental and deeply emotional.

Personally I don't quite get the labeling thing... for me it makes more sense to just name the behaviour, but people love their shorthands, and in my own personal experience, people often use labels to skirt around naming their actual behaviors. It's a great coping mechanism that way.

[-] just2look@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago

Ok, there are some big red flags in your question, but I'll address the question first and the red flags after.

People should be free to choose whichever labels make them most comfortable and happy. There is no benefit to trying to police how people label themselves. And an 'ally' should definitely not be trying to give opinions on what is and is not the correct label.

Now to the red flags. I am going to extend you the benefit of the doubt, but these are things you should be aware of. You seem to have an issue with trans exclusionary language. Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Trying to create labels that are specifically exclusionary of trans people is harmful. I'm not trying to control who you find attractive, but making them some nebulous other is harmful.

Referring to people you claim are your friends as male and female is weird, and is going to get the hackles up on a lot of folks because that is the language frequently used by bigots.

Claiming some access to a community because you have a friend or friends in that community is a tired trope (e.g., my best friend is black). It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and generally doesn't make people trust you more.

Finally, your feelings on queer people's labels is irrelevant. People have enough to deal with without their 'ally' questioning their labels. It doesn't matter how specific or vague a label is, you will still need to communicate with any possible sexual or romantic partners. So that solves any issue of vague labels.

[-] Broadfern@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Treat each person with basic respect, and you’re fine. Labels are individual, not everyone likes them but some folks feel better with them and that’s valid too.

Putting an opinion on other people’s identities is where it crosses into problematic territories.

Just like religion; “I can’t do/am not something because of my identity” is fine. “You can’t do/be something because of my identity” is not.

Listening to your IRL LGBT+ pals will guide you right, and remember also a lot of the microlabel discourse is heavily skewed to be online. A handful of self selected randos on the internet anywhere isn’t going to be representative of a whole-ass community (myself included!)

[-] AskewLord@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Define 'basic respect'.

Because it's going to vary a lot depending on people's preferences, backgrounds, and etc.

Personally I don't see LGBT+ people as monolithic in anything... they are just people. They all have their own biases, hatreds, preferences, etc. And plenty of LGBT+ people hate other LGBT+ people for stupid reasons. I find the concept of LGBT+ as some sort of 'bloc' utterly weird, and if you look at like data about it, it isn't really a unified group in anyway.

I've never seen many commonalities in belief or behaviour of LGBT+ people. If you break it down further, yeah, sure, there are.

[-] Broadfern@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

“Basic respect” as in, how you would treat everyone else. Don’t be a dickhead, but don’t feel like you need to bend over backwards just because someone isn’t cishet either.

That’s also why I made my caveat of “I’m also just some rando on the internet don’t take my word as gospel for everybody” lolol

[-] AskewLord@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

so basically, you refuse to define the term...

everything you said is relative.

[-] Broadfern@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

…Yeah? Whatever your baseline for interacting with a peer is, provided you’re not actively antisocial. Not sure what the problem is here

[-] AskewLord@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

your words have no meaning, that's the problem.

That sounds pretty awesome actually, I now ask myself if I was just fighting mostly against ghosts haha.

Listening to your IRL LGBT+ pals will guide you right, and remember also a lot of the microlabel discourse is heavily skewed to be online. A handful of self selected randos on the internet anywhere isn’t going to be representative of a whole-ass community (myself included!)

Also, this is really insightful, I think I should do that more. I just feel that sometimes I can make them tired or bored by some many questions lol, but this could be nothing but my own insecurities.

Thanks for the response!

[-] Vanth@reddthat.com 7 points 1 month ago

What do you mean by "minimize/abolish"?

Absolutely the fuck not should we be "abolishing" any personal identity labels.

That doesn't mean you can't think some labels are excessive, even stupid. And it doesn't mean you can't tell a queer person to their face you won't use their niche label. Just like they're free to think of you as an asshole and even tell you to your face that they think you're an asshole.

[-] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What I meant was more about gender abolitionism (something that for example gender feminists as Simone de Beauvoir, Shulamith Firestone, Monique Wittig, Sheila Jeffreys, Judith Butler, Kate Bornstein, Leslie Feinberg. Alok Vaid Menon, and an important percentage of plural beings defend or at least propose themselves). It's about the linguistics of gender identity, not about identities themselves.

And I'm not saying that it should be like that, but asking if it should be or not like that, because I honestly don't know. I just want that people were less discriminated and more free, and that everyone respects everyone else, and that includes boths their identities and their expectations and limits.

[-] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Weird you addressing this specifically to the queer community without being in it yourself while simultaneously giving your own opinions a lot of space.

[-] dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

Weird thing to respond to something that is not weird at all.

[-] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

It's logically inconsistent.

If you ONLY want to hear from Group X, why would you allow someone from Group Y to frame the entire conversation and extensively give their opinion at the outset? By limiting the conversation to Group X, the Group Y interlocutor is admitting their own opinion should be excluded, yet here they are inserting it into a place of prominence.

[-] dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

I take it back. You are right, that is indeed weird.

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I don't think so. Let's change the topic and see if it sounds weird.

Lemmings who have gotten a perm, how did you feel about it? I've never gotten a perm before, so I was wondering what it's like. Here are the reasons I'm thinking about it... Here are the reasons it might be a mistake... I have X type of hair, and I think the Y style looks cool. What do I need to know?

OP isn't trying to create an official policy on labels, they're just asking how people with more knowledge than themselves feel about the concept.

[-] Seimhe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I’m curious how your LGBT friends respond when you ask them this.

Actually, I felt a bit relieved (and surprised) because they had this same question themselves and, more or less, concluded something like what I concluded: clarity and conflict prevention are first, and if queer people want a better communication and a better ambient for not only they, but also for everyone else, it's better to have labels. At the very end, humans communicate deep or complicated concepts, feelings and ideas primarily through words.

Although they said something to me too: it would be better a world where everyone just freely exists and express themselves without the pressure of labels, and I couldn't do anything else than agree.

[-] Seimhe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

But what did they think of your consideration of banning them, and weren’t they the least bit curious why you are wading into this subject in the first place?

When and where did I said that I wanted to ban them? I love them as some of the best friends I could find.

I'm only asking this because, read well, the problem of expectations conflicts.

[-] AskewLord@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You didn't. but because this is a 'hot button' issue, people are going to willfully misinterpret you to make you the 'bad guy' so they can feel they themselves are the 'good guy'.

That sounds reasonable.

Sorry if I acted overly defensive.

[-] Seimhe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Part of your question about banning the labels. This is what I’m asking about.

or even abolish labels.

The reason I ask is because I cannot imagine asking that question to my own LGBT friends.

Yeah, and that doesn't mean that I'm in favor of that and/or that I oppose to them being maintained as they are; I don't also mean the opposite. I'm just asking because I don't know.

Also, again, abolish labels ≠ abolish the identities they name or define. These are two really distinct things.

[-] Seimhe@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I understand that you meant the labels (by which they identify themselves).

Maybe I misinterpreted your post. But it sounds like to me you are asking “should these people have visibility on the internet”. Sadly, it is asked too often.

[-] LeftReddit2@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I'm old and I'm fat and I'm gay. That's all I ever really call myself in terms of labels.

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago
[-] remon@ani.social 1 points 1 month ago

But I just bought this label maker ...

[-] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago

Identity has layers. Some say they are Europeans, some say they are wimbledonians. Doesnt hurt anyone to let anyone lable themself how ever they like. Only matters that we respect and dont hate one another. We're all humans in the end of the day

[-] ianhclark510@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago

Frankly, people are always going to have questions, about themselves, about their feelings and identities,

so just as people are always changing, growing, experimenting it follows that the words, language, labels they choose are going to shift and grow and change

Also, in my experience labels are useful for putting words to biases, feelings, fragments of identity that can otherwise be hard, or scary to communicate. so when the labels someone chooses change, it can be less that they are changing as a person, but more that they’re more open to sharing a given part of themselves in a given context

So if we were to artificially limit what labels are accepted, we’re not reducing barriers by grouping like people together, we’re just limiting what any person could be willing to share about themselves in any given moment

[-] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 4 points 1 month ago

I'm straight, but y'all call yourselves whatever you want. We're all people deserving of the same love as anyone else.

[-] farmgineer@nord.pub 4 points 1 month ago

Two questions (I am also a cis-het man if that matters for disclosure):

Where are you encountering so many of these labels that this is an issue? I'm guessing online and mostly in spaces (like many fediverse products) that encourage it.

What, specifically, do you see as the problem that should be solved?

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

To each their own.

I don't use labels as I find them limiting for my true self.

But I respect people who use them, and respect their will to be used on them when they ask for it, as long as they respect me trying to avoid labels, which is usually the case, I've never had issues with anyone in the community because I refused to label my gender identity, for instance, as soon as I explain it with my little gender essay they have all understood it.

[-] dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I thinks it's all a bunch off bullshit.

There are layers in society where labels make sense. Science for example but in our day to day social interactions they do more harm then anything else.

What exactly do people with those informations other then build up prejudice? Against others or themselfs. You are gay that means you have to be like that, i am gay so I have to be lime this, I'm a woman so I have to be like this blablabla.

"I like what I like". Why does it have to be more complicated then that?

Well I guess it is because people single you out because you are, for example, gay. They imprint a identity on you and dangers meanwhile you just want to suck some dick. So it is kind of a defense mechanism to make it your identity. To build a group around it, to find safety in numbers.

So I understand that in the context of this shit world something like the labels evolved because you can't ask someone if they would like to get heir dick sucked without getting blasted in the face, but not in the good way.

But in a perfekt world it should just be "I like you. Do you like me?"

Same with gender. I feel it is just a physical thing. You wann have tits or a dick or fits and a dick? Go for it. But to be a woman or a man? Seem to be flawed constructs to Beginn with.

"I want to be a woman because woman are like that" "I want to be a man because man are like that" go fuck yourself.

Act like you want to act but don't bind that to some bullshit like gender.

It's like picking presets in a game. It's easy to just pick something that is already made and tried and known to work in a surrounding/environment but I'd rather built my own character.

I didn't meant that, either.

“I want to be a woman because woman are like that” “I want to be a man because man are like that” go fuck yourself.

I think that this is mostly correct, tho.

Take

What I actually (tried) to mean was (and I simply copy and paste it because, like, it's pointless to rewrite it if I already have it written in another place lol).

Imagine this:

I like only cis women, and if a trans women doesn’t explicitly states that she’s not cis when we’re flirting or whatever, I would feel violated when I discover that’s not the case, specially when it comes to sex, not because I had anything against trans people, because I don’t, but because a basic layer of trust in any commitment, relation or even adventure was broken.

It would be the same if I, or someone else, only liked trans women or men, and one cis woman or man did not stated that, or any other case where someone expectations and limits were not respected.

I only have to add that it is like that not because I hate trans (or non-binary, or in general non-gender-conform people), or because I like to exclude or discriminate them (although I know I might do that sometimes, I try my best not to do it). It's just because I don't like penises, y only like vaginas. And as me, there's many people both inside and outside of the queer community (actually, one of my ftm friends is himself cis-homosexual because he only likes dicks, not pussies, and AFAIK [I haven't asked her because she did exit from the closet just recently, and I don't know if it will make her uncomfortable] my mtf is also cis-lesbian, because she only likes pussies, not dicks; both of them feel revulsed by their same sex genitalia).

[-] dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh I didn't meant to insinuate anything, i just stated how I think about that whole thing in generell. The "go fuck yourself" wasn't directed at you, but people wo say women or man have to be a specific way.

To be honest, I don't care if you like dicks or not. You don't have to explain yourself why you prefer or don't prefer something.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
12 points (71.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

41984 readers
1536 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world


7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.


8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS