The rhetoric I described is absolutely being weaponized against people. If you follow the reason behind the arugment that someone is “normal, not cis”, then you would then conclude that trans and nb people are not normal. Anyone who accepts that argument would likely conclude that not only are trans women not “normal women”, and trans men not “normal men”, but that they are not actually real women or men.
As for gen z being infatuated with labels, I will admit I don’t understand many of them, but I’m fine with them if they help people communicate their identity better. I wouldn’t claim that any labels are redundant or just attention seeking without any actual evidence or reasoning behind it.
I’m taking issue with your first example, not your second. There’s a world of difference.
But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels […] what they’re almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated.
It is being weaponized in that way too. For example, Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro went on rants about asexuality recently, claiming that labels such as demisexual had no basis in reality and described experiences that are common to everyone. If you follow their argument, people become unable to use labels that communicate their preferences and experience.
Even when it isn’t being weaponized, I don’t think you should claim certain labels are unnecessary unless you’ve engaged with the reasoning behind the people who use them and form a reasonable argument that isn’t “back in my day people didn’t have so many labels.”
“Some people are weaponizing that language” is a VERY different statement than “anyone who uses that language is almost certainly weaponizing it”. You’re alienating allies by accusing them if being enemies.
“Some people are weaponizing that language” is a VERY different statement than “anyone who uses that language is almost certainly weaponizing it”.
I never said that. In fact, I ended my last reply with “Even when it isn’t being weaponized”. I said people who say things like “queer people are obsessed with labels” and “I’m not cis; I’m normal”, which are both disparaging comments, are more than likely doing so in response to encountering identities and experiences outside of cishetnormativity. It’s one thing to say that there are a lot of labels used, and you find some of them either dubious or unneccessary, and another to say that people are obsessed or making up labels for attention.
Whenever people say that someone’s choice of labels is simply attention seeking or naive, how often are these people actually listening and engaging with the person’s reasoning for identifying with the said label, and show give actual evidence for said attention seeking? In my experience, the only argument I’ve seen being used against labels that people identify with is “I’ve never heard of it nor do I understand it, therefore it’s not real.” Claiming that “queer people are obsessed with labels” is a broad generalization that comes of as a knee jerk reaction.
You’re alienating allies by accusing them if being enemies.
All I’m asking is that people think whenever they feel the need to dismiss others and gatekeep identities from people. In my experience, this seems to be based more on people’s gut reactions rather than science, facts, or logic, like they claim it is.
Whenever I’ve seen people disparage certain labels like non-binary or demisexual, they never seem to have actually listen to someone with said identity and engage with their reasoning. It’s far more common for them to decide that they’re attention seeking, deluded, or mentally ill.
And if people are going to be allies, there are going to be times when they need to examine their behaviour. Any self-proclaimed ally who says that “I have nothing against queer people, but why are they so obsessed with labels?” needs to re-examine their arguments just like anyone who says “I have nothing against women, but why are they so emotional and sensitive?” or “I have nothing against black people, but why are they so violent?”.
“But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels, or “I’m not cis; I’m normal”, what they’re almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated.” - Umechan
I think younger queer people are obsessed with labels, and I am not taking issue with non cishet people being recognized and validated. And I’m pretty confident that’s a frequent and normal mindset. You keep taking about other, more radical, obviously trans or homophobic statements, but we’re not talking about any of that. Just labels.
It’s one thing to say that there are a lot of labels used, and you find some of them either dubious or unneccessary,
Yes, and that is the one thing I am saying. Not “I’m not cis, I’m normal”. Not “people are obsessed or making up labels for attention.” Not “I’ve never heard of it nor do I understand it, therefore it’s not real.” Not “they’re attention seeking, deluded, or mentally ill.”
I don’t know who you’re arguing with here, but it ain’t me.
I had a whole rant about how I’ve been involved in the queer space since I was seven, and how insulting it is to be subtly called a bigot, but it’s not worth it. You want to argue with a bigot and by god if you can’t find one you’ll pretend I am one. This is a pointless discussion.
“But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels, or “I’m not cis; I’m normal”, what they’re almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated.” -
That statement doesn’t mention anything about weaponizing language or rhetoric. The two examples of language I gave there are very problematic. Even for the less malicious example of “queer people are obsessed with labels”, I really don’t think people should use them unless they can really back up what they’re saying with evidence and concrete examples. Making blanket, derogatory statements about a certain group of people, like “queer people are obsessed with labels” is problematic, and people should examine their thinking if that’s what they claim.
I think younger queer people are obsessed with labels, and I am not taking issue with non cishet people being recognized and validated.
I’m not going to change your mind, but I’d suggest you’d examine why you believe that, how much of it’s based in reality, and maybe engage with people with embraced a certain label and consider why you would want to gatekeep a label from them. No one’s perfect, and as I said before, there are plenty of labels and identities that I don’t understand. We can however try and engage with people’s beliefs.
Yes, and that is the one thing I am saying. Not “I’m not cis, I’m normal”. Not “people are obsessed or making up labels for attention.
You did however say “But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels […] what they’re almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated. This statement I think is incorrect.” So even if you’re not claiming that people are obsessed, you argued that it’s not likely that they’re probably taking issue with being confronted with gender identities/expression or sexualities outside of what they’d consider normal.
Maybe you disagree, but I would say “queer people are obsessed with labels” is a broad and disparaging generalization, and I believe it is at best a knee jerk reaction, and at worst an attempt to weaponize anti-queer sentiment. If your position is that you find some of the labels unnecessary and dubious, then that is a much more reasonable position, even if some might argue that you should try and educate yourself more. My original argument was in no way aimed at people who hold your position, so unless you believe that claiming “queer people are obsessed with labels” is not a problematic statement, there is no need to conflate this position with yours. I did not address your position in my original comment because I do not have to address ever potential position someone might have every time I make a comment.
I had a whole rant about how I’ve been involved in the queer space since I was seven, and how insulting it is to be subtly called a bigot, but it’s not worth it. You want to argue with a bigot and by god if you can’t find one you’ll pretend I am one. This is a pointless discussion.
I’ve at no point in this discussion called you a bigot. You brought up disagreements with my comments, and I addressed them. The examples of weaponizing and marginialization I mentioned are absolutely real, and the intended consequences of them them are clear.
The rhetoric I described is absolutely being weaponized against people. If you follow the reason behind the arugment that someone is “normal, not cis”, then you would then conclude that trans and nb people are not normal. Anyone who accepts that argument would likely conclude that not only are trans women not “normal women”, and trans men not “normal men”, but that they are not actually real women or men.
As for gen z being infatuated with labels, I will admit I don’t understand many of them, but I’m fine with them if they help people communicate their identity better. I wouldn’t claim that any labels are redundant or just attention seeking without any actual evidence or reasoning behind it.
I’m taking issue with your first example, not your second. There’s a world of difference.
This statement I think is incorrect.
It is being weaponized in that way too. For example, Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro went on rants about asexuality recently, claiming that labels such as demisexual had no basis in reality and described experiences that are common to everyone. If you follow their argument, people become unable to use labels that communicate their preferences and experience.
Even when it isn’t being weaponized, I don’t think you should claim certain labels are unnecessary unless you’ve engaged with the reasoning behind the people who use them and form a reasonable argument that isn’t “back in my day people didn’t have so many labels.”
“Some people are weaponizing that language” is a VERY different statement than “anyone who uses that language is almost certainly weaponizing it”. You’re alienating allies by accusing them if being enemies.
I never said that. In fact, I ended my last reply with “Even when it isn’t being weaponized”. I said people who say things like “queer people are obsessed with labels” and “I’m not cis; I’m normal”, which are both disparaging comments, are more than likely doing so in response to encountering identities and experiences outside of cishetnormativity. It’s one thing to say that there are a lot of labels used, and you find some of them either dubious or unneccessary, and another to say that people are obsessed or making up labels for attention.
Whenever people say that someone’s choice of labels is simply attention seeking or naive, how often are these people actually listening and engaging with the person’s reasoning for identifying with the said label, and show give actual evidence for said attention seeking? In my experience, the only argument I’ve seen being used against labels that people identify with is “I’ve never heard of it nor do I understand it, therefore it’s not real.” Claiming that “queer people are obsessed with labels” is a broad generalization that comes of as a knee jerk reaction.
All I’m asking is that people think whenever they feel the need to dismiss others and gatekeep identities from people. In my experience, this seems to be based more on people’s gut reactions rather than science, facts, or logic, like they claim it is.
Whenever I’ve seen people disparage certain labels like non-binary or demisexual, they never seem to have actually listen to someone with said identity and engage with their reasoning. It’s far more common for them to decide that they’re attention seeking, deluded, or mentally ill.
And if people are going to be allies, there are going to be times when they need to examine their behaviour. Any self-proclaimed ally who says that “I have nothing against queer people, but why are they so obsessed with labels?” needs to re-examine their arguments just like anyone who says “I have nothing against women, but why are they so emotional and sensitive?” or “I have nothing against black people, but why are they so violent?”.
“But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels, or “I’m not cis; I’m normal”, what they’re almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated.” - Umechan
I think younger queer people are obsessed with labels, and I am not taking issue with non cishet people being recognized and validated. And I’m pretty confident that’s a frequent and normal mindset. You keep taking about other, more radical, obviously trans or homophobic statements, but we’re not talking about any of that. Just labels.
Yes, and that is the one thing I am saying. Not “I’m not cis, I’m normal”. Not “people are obsessed or making up labels for attention.” Not “I’ve never heard of it nor do I understand it, therefore it’s not real.” Not “they’re attention seeking, deluded, or mentally ill.”
I don’t know who you’re arguing with here, but it ain’t me.
I had a whole rant about how I’ve been involved in the queer space since I was seven, and how insulting it is to be subtly called a bigot, but it’s not worth it. You want to argue with a bigot and by god if you can’t find one you’ll pretend I am one. This is a pointless discussion.
That statement doesn’t mention anything about weaponizing language or rhetoric. The two examples of language I gave there are very problematic. Even for the less malicious example of “queer people are obsessed with labels”, I really don’t think people should use them unless they can really back up what they’re saying with evidence and concrete examples. Making blanket, derogatory statements about a certain group of people, like “queer people are obsessed with labels” is problematic, and people should examine their thinking if that’s what they claim.
I’m not going to change your mind, but I’d suggest you’d examine why you believe that, how much of it’s based in reality, and maybe engage with people with embraced a certain label and consider why you would want to gatekeep a label from them. No one’s perfect, and as I said before, there are plenty of labels and identities that I don’t understand. We can however try and engage with people’s beliefs.
You did however say “But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels […] what they’re almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated. This statement I think is incorrect.” So even if you’re not claiming that people are obsessed, you argued that it’s not likely that they’re probably taking issue with being confronted with gender identities/expression or sexualities outside of what they’d consider normal.
Maybe you disagree, but I would say “queer people are obsessed with labels” is a broad and disparaging generalization, and I believe it is at best a knee jerk reaction, and at worst an attempt to weaponize anti-queer sentiment. If your position is that you find some of the labels unnecessary and dubious, then that is a much more reasonable position, even if some might argue that you should try and educate yourself more. My original argument was in no way aimed at people who hold your position, so unless you believe that claiming “queer people are obsessed with labels” is not a problematic statement, there is no need to conflate this position with yours. I did not address your position in my original comment because I do not have to address ever potential position someone might have every time I make a comment.
I’ve at no point in this discussion called you a bigot. You brought up disagreements with my comments, and I addressed them. The examples of weaponizing and marginialization I mentioned are absolutely real, and the intended consequences of them them are clear.