PDA

View Full Version : Labelling



Keliana
Apr 27, 2007, 4:59 PM
There have a been a few posts recently on the topic of transgendered/transsexualism and of course the never ending debate on the use of "shemale".

This brings me to start a new thread about labelling.

Labelling, (as defined by wikipedia) is defining or describing a person in terms of his or her behavior. For example, describing someone who has broken a law as a criminal. The term is often used in sociology to describe human interaction, control and identification of deviant behavior.

In most legal and official documents we complete in our culture, it is mandatory to identify our sex. Our culture places emphasis on this for many reasons but the underlying fact remains: labelling individuals as one or the other reinforces the dichotomies found so often in our society. These dichotomies that maintain the status quo, ensuring the oppressed remain disempowered while the privileged few benefit. As a result, the emphasis our culture places on gender reinforces systemic oppression.

For decades, the women's movement has challenged the barriers created in part by the dichotomies of female vs. male. Many feminist theorists have demonstrated the ways this duality reinforces women's oppression. The movement continues to lobby for pay equity, solutions to women's health issues, and ending violence against women--all of which are glaring examples of our culture's continuous oppression of people based on gender.

Much of our culture rests on the assumption that there has always been, and always will be, a distinct class of people called "women." This assumption not only denies the different cultural experiences of oppression experienced by women around the world; it also suggests gender has a biological foundation.

If we suppose gender is genetically determined, we fail to consider the wide scope of women's experience within our own culture. There are many examples of women and men who are excluded from narrowly defining women and men genetically: many women are infertile, many are without wombs or breasts. Many women have XY chromosomes and men with XX chromosomes. What about intersexed people? Or transgendered individuals? These are real experiences for countless men and women that must be acknowledged when we consider our definition of "woman" and "man".

Historically, feminist theory has challenged the use of the word "gender" as a synonym for "sex" because gender is the degree to which we are socialized to be feminine or masculine, whereas sex is based on visible male or female genital traits at birth. Our culture's polarized view of sexual identity, being "male" or "female", relies on assigning gender at the time of birth.

Gender is not what culture creates out of my body's sex; rather, sex is what culture makes when it genders my body. The emphasis our culture places on gender greatly influences our view of sexual identity.

We need to look beyond the labels of "lesbian," "gay," "bisexual" and "transgender" to effectively challenge oppression. Even though "bisexual" and "transgender" have been added to the LGBT Movement's noun list, they remain marginalized groups within society. Furthermore, gay pride reinforces the existence of the opposite dichotomy: heterosexual identity. By basing one's identity on her/his sexual orientation, we legitimize the concept that everyone should be socially defined by their potential contribution to procreation.

Therefore, while it is important to be inclusive, we must examine how such identities were produced because for every distinct identity added to the Movement, others remain silenced. We need to transcend dichotomies such as man/woman, gay/straight before we can make any progress in challenging the barriers we face based on gender. We need to move beyond fighting for the rights of any given equity seeking group, and create a culture where attention to the importance of diversity outweighs attention to the creation of categories.

Gender oppression is experienced by other people in our culture besides those struggling with orientation or identity issues.

Eating disorders among young women is due to societal pressures on women to be unnaturally thin. The high incidence of bullying in schools can be correlated to pressures on children to "fit in" to their gender-defined peer group. We a social movement to challenge gender as a basis for systemic oppression: "A gender liberation movement is not just about people who have died simply because of the way they expressed sexuality and gender. It's also about those who felt impelled and even empowered to kill to protect and preserve the regimes of gender."

Until we look beyond the dichotomies, the only people represented in the women's movement or the gay rights movement are those fortunate enough to possess the luxury of a simple and uncomplicated oppression.

The dichotomies upon which we base so much of our identities will continue to reinforce systemic oppression. Unless we transcend the dualities, we prevent ourselves from effectively challenging the barriers that exist for all people in our culture.

Peace and blessings,

Keliana

Cerealk
Apr 27, 2007, 6:31 PM
Great post, I really like your view on this. Althought I got nothing to add to that.

DeafF2M
Apr 27, 2007, 6:41 PM
Now, see, Keliana... this is why I like you. You post eloquent, well-thought out and rational viewpoints, which I happen to agree with. Couldn't have said it better, though.

:bowdown:

billy_campbell
Apr 27, 2007, 7:07 PM
I agree great post, I just read the book Full Exposure by Susie Bright and I was going to start a thread base upon somethinng in her book but I will add it here instead since I fell it is related.

Susie Bright: Next time someone asks you what you "are" sexually, tell them that nouns will not do. Deliver a story of the last time you were sexual,or imagined an erotic fantasy; and this description will be full of verbs and adjectives and even material that almost defies words. You may have to show it with your hands. Labels, every on of them, should be saved strictly for protest signs and sandwich boards.

:)

Long Duck Dong
Apr 27, 2007, 7:10 PM
human kind struggles with change, they like simple and uncomplicated
and one of the main issues with humans, is that they ASSUME without knowing

I'm SKINNY, so I MUST be anorexic.

I'm EMO, so I MUST cut my wrists.

I HAVE A BUNCH OF BI FRIENDS, so I MUST be ****ing them all.

I'm NOT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, so I MUST be a freak.

I'm a GIRL, so I MUST be over-dramatic.

I WEAR WHAT I WANT, so I MUST be a poser.

I'm BLONDE, so I MUST be a stupid ditz.

I'm YOUNG, so I MUST be naive.

I'm NOT A VIRGIN, so I MUST be easy.

I'm BLACK, so I MUST carry a gun.

I'm GAY, so I MUST have AIDS.

I'm ARAB, so I MUST be a terrorist.

I SPEAK MY MIND, so I MUST be a bitch.

I'm OVERWEIGHT, so I MUST have a problem with self control.

I'm RELIGIOUS, so I MUST shove my beliefs down your throat.

I'm REPUBLICAN, so I MUST not care about poor people.

I'm DEMOCRAT, so I MUST not believe in being responsible.

I'm SOUTHERN, so I MUST be white trash.

I TAKE ANTI-DEPRESSANTS, so I MUST be crazy.

I'm a GUY, so I MUST only want to get into your pants.

I'm IRISH, so I MUST have a bad drinking problem.

I'm INDIAN, so I MUST own a convenient store.

I'm NATIVE AMERICAN, so I MUST dance around a fire screaming like a savage.

I DON'T LIVE WITH MY CHILD, so I MUST be a dead beat parent.

I'm ATHLETIC, so I MUST be stupid.

I'm PREPPY, so I MUST shun those who don't wear Abercrombie.

I'm a CHEERLEADER, so I MUST be a whore.

I'm a PUNK, so I MUST do drugs.

I'm RICH, so I MUST be a conceited snob.

I WEAR BLACK, so I MUST be a goth.

I'm PRETTY, so I MUST not be a virign.

I'm CUBAN, so I MUST spend my spare time rolling cigars.

I FELL IN LOVE WITH A MARRIED MAN, so I MUST be a home-wrecking whore.

I'm a TEENAGE MOM, so I MUST be an irresponsible slut.

I'm ITALIAN, so my family MUST own a pizzeria.

I GOT A CAR FOR MY BIRTHDAY, so I MUST be a spoiled brat.

I HAVE STRAIGHT A'S, so I MUST have no social life.

I'm REALLY INTO MY MUSIC, so I MUST be scene.

I DYE MY HAIR CRAZY COLORS, so I MUST be looking for attention.

I'm INTO THEATER & ART, so I MUST be a homosexual.

I'm a VEGETARIAN, so I MUST be a crazy political activist.

I HAVE A BUNCH OF GIRL FRIENDS, so I MUST be gay.

I'm GERMAN, so I MUST be a Nazi.

I'm PUERTO RICAN, so I MUST rob, do graffiti and stab people.

My BOYFRIENDS OLDER THAN ME, so he MUST only be with me for sex

why must we be anything...... why can't we just be ourselves

FalconAngel
Apr 27, 2007, 7:53 PM
Most people assume, and quite reasonably, that labeling is bad, but it isn't really so black and white as most folks wish to see it.

While most labels that people use are often perceived as bad, they are in fact, more often than not, just used as a way of identifying personal qualities of people. He's (insert sexuality here); She's (insert racial identity here); He/she is (insert hair color here); They are (insert religion here), etc.

Maybe it's because I see things from a dual perspective that most are not really capable of "just seeing" without a slight nudge in that direction.

And while labels can be a bad thing, they can also be a good thing. It is really all about context.
How is that label used? Is it used in an angry or hateful fashion? Is it used as a way to identify you in a crowd? They could be the same label, but used in very different ways.

Just something to think about.

Cogent
Apr 28, 2007, 12:43 AM
Can't labels be useful and many times true?

Imagine a world without any labels... on cans, on passports, on resumes, on bookselves or Dropdown menus (for music for example)... The world would grind to a halt.

So labels are very useful and necessary. Thinking people a) see beyond labels, b) use them carefully and c) make up new labels to address new ways of understanding

The cynic – or is that "realist" in me often see those who protest against labels are often guilty of the crime of lableiing themselves. The cynic asks: "How would people who define themselves as transgressive satfisfy their emotional need to attack the "establishment.""

It is quite natural for "oppressed" groups to create labels among themselves and to label others inside the group and out. It seems that all humans stuggle for power and status, and they use language to do this. The "oppressed" with their precious resentiment are no different than most anyone else... and you often see this when those on the bottom get a taste for power.

On your issue with shemales, it seems that shemales are a legitimate group and have their right to exist and their right to their admirers.

Your beef really seems to be that shemales and transgenered types get confused by the general public... which is not a problem with the concept of lables themselves but rather with poor labelling. Pehaps their should be a an illustrated book with clear labels to help us ordinary types get the picture

A flaw in your logic seems to be that even if someone is born with ambiguous genetalia, it doesn't mean that there aren't people who are clearly men and others who are clearly women... the boundaries may be blurry at the margins, but the centre may be solid.

Further, I don't think you have made the difference precisely clear between geneder, biology and sexual orientation. Gender itself may be a social or conceptual construct or it may have orgins in brain chemistry, in gentics, in personal history or in any combination there of. (I don't know what the science is, or how deeply it has addressed these issues. I am in wait and see mode here.)

An for those who blame the patriarchy or capitalism for exploiting and oppressing sexual/gender, racial, religious, economic groups... bear in mind that it is patriarchy or capitalism that puts food on the table and keeps the lights on... and lets us log on to bisexual.com

So we should be careful about slagging the hand that feeds us, unless we are comfortable with the concept that it's not money that makes the world go ground, but hypocrisy

To be sure, the "system" to to speak may carry with it the seeds of its own destruction... it's disequities may be too great or it may not be able to respond to changing circumstance. I have not doubt that whatever replaces it won't be any better, but it will be better adapted to the new circumstance

flexuality
Apr 28, 2007, 1:09 AM
Labels as such are neither right or wrong....some labels are very straight forward and useful.

I think that to label a can of beans is entirely different than labeling a person.

Beans are easy....they're just beans, nothing more....and we all pretty much agree on what beans are, so the label in that case works.

But when it comes to people, there seems to be so much "meaning" attached to any given label, that it becomes like trying to label a can containing every vegetable known...it's no longer just beans.

And different labels have different meanings for different people when it comes to trying to label what we think, feel and believe.

It's easy to label concrete "things"....but it is a whole different ball of wax to try to label ideas...or concepts....

A label implies a certain set of "rules" or criteria.....which works fine for very black and white things, objects, most medical diagnosises, etc......but it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to apply criteria or rules to concepts and ideas.

I deal with this constantly with my autistic daughter, who has NO understanding of concepts. For her, every label must have a set of unchangeable rules.

I think that things like personality, sexuality, orientation, even gender identity in some cases are all concepts, rather than concrete "things."

Yes, the labels give us "common language" and that is good, but I think we really need to keep in mind that concepts are more fluid than concrete "things" and that labels have a tendency to limit that fluidness and try to make it into a concrete thing that it can never be.

Dr.StrangeLove
Apr 28, 2007, 1:30 AM
As someone who spent the last three years studying biology, I have a real hard time with the idea of gender being divorced from sex...in the vast majority of people gender and sex are alligned, and it is very much genetic. As much as anybody can know anything about science, we know this. Most people who have female genetalia feel right identifying as female and same is true with males. This not being true for everybody doesn't change the fact that gender is genetically linked. Most, like roughly 70%, of what makes a person who they are is genetic, I won't get into how we know this unless people want me to.

The problem is that biology is not a reason to inflict cultural ideals on an individual for whom those ideals don't fit. Just because most people with vaginas and breasts also identify as female doesn't mean that having a vagina and breasts means you have to exist as a female. The problem is what is inferred by the facts or how the facts are used to dictate how people should act, not the facts themselves...no degree of reasoning can change the role genetics plays in gender, but having certain genes doesn't mean you have to live your life a certain way. But then there are a lot of reasons that I think cultural ideals should be ignored.