In defense of labels.

[Violetgray]

This thread is kind of inspired by another thread, and by a tendency I see on this board, that is a general aversion to labels. I suppose that I can understand this to some degree, as most people who don't like labels are offended by the labels that they are given. This is especially true with gender. Being given any label at all reminds some people that they aren't what they'd like to be. True, there are some things that no modern label applies to, but if a label is given it's not necessarily a bad thing. But have you noticed that one ever rejects a positive label?. If someone approached you and said "I'm sorry to bother you, but I just had to tell you that you are a paragon, a vision of beauty and femininity unparalleled by most of the civilized world." would you turn to this person (who I picture wearing a tuxedo and having a thin mustache for some reason) and say, "Don't you label me!" Probably not. I often hear people ask "Why must we label everything?" Here's why:

Imagine that you are climbing a rocky mountain. In order to do that you need crevices and footholds. Without them, (lets say it's some weird rectangle-shaped mountain with sheer surfaces) you would fail to climb and mostly likely you wouldn't even try.

It's the same thing you see, labels are our footholds when climbing the mountain of understanding. By asking someone not to label you, you are asking them not to define you and therefore not to try to understand you. Even if their initial label is incorrect it's a point of reference to work with. For example, how many transgendered people were alone and in despair, thinking that they were the only one with these identity issues until they discovered the internet and saw the term "Gender Dysphoria?" This label led them to see that they were not alone and even if it didn't describe them fully, it was a starting point from which they could learn more.

Labels are like fire. Fire as a tool is quite useful, the backbone of civilization. That tool can be harnessed for less then admirable purposes, (Arson, Witch Hunts, my uncle's nasty-ass fried chicken) but that doesn't make fire bad. If we don't like a label we're given, we can request a different one that we're more comfortable with or we can help by setting an example and changing the context, or what it means to be a (insert label here.) I had more to say, but its 1:05 a.m. and I have to work tomorrow.

Take care!

[Genifer Teal]

I agree that labels can be good. The problem I see is there is not enough agreement on the labels. This leads to misinterpretation. People often have a different understanding as to what a certain label says about you. In that case a label that misleads someone may do more harm than good. I'd rather somone ask a few questions and I'l explain exactly what I am like.

Gen

[Nadia-Maria]

Everyone are different.

That cause them to behave and react differently from each other.
It 's very difficult to understand someone who may react wholly differently the way we do. (We often tend to presume them to behave more or less wrongly, whereas it's not the case).

Labels are a first attempt to understand more accurately the differences between people.
Getting a better understanding of our differences would help people to better understand each other.

OK, Genifer, there is a need to better agrement about the definitions of any label.

[Ze xx]

Everybody has labels and everybody gives other people labels. It's how we work things out. Yes, even the most liberally minded of people will give someone the wrong label, but it's only the very narrow minded and sad that don't change the label when they know better.

We all have more than one label, and they will sometimes contradict. Someone will have labelled me 'friend' while someone else may have labelled me 'enemy'. Someone will have labelled me right wing, while someone else will have labelled me liberal. The labels we are given depends purely on other peoples perceptions of us. They are usually nothing to do with how we see ourselves.

If you started a thread on here (and I've no doubt it's already been done) on 'what does it mean to be a woman?' just how many different answers would you get? This would show how a small section of the population label women.

Like you said Violetgray, we use labels as a tool, but that doesn't mean that the labels are bad.

[Satrana]

you that you are a paragon, a vision of beauty and femininity unparalleled by most of the civilized world.

Excellent point, nobody complains when the label is positive. Decrying labels has nothing to do with the labeling system itself which we all use it to understand the relationships between everything in our environment. Labeling is intrinsic to our brain functions, we would be lost without it.

The problem comes when people feel they are being insulted and the one using the labels refuses to amend their label definition to take into account the new information you are providing them. But then again why should they if you are their only source and obviously have a self-interest?

So the real issue lies in the fact that society does not care to educate itself and keep itself updated to ensure that the labels we use represent the most accurate picture we can presently muster. If everyone read scientific journals then this problem would be significantly reduced. Some hope!

The other issue is that there are social conventions based around religion and politics that instruct their followers on the definitions of labels and in doing so deliberately misconstrue their meanings for their own selfish ends, ensuring biases and prejudices continue to flourish.

[deja true]

Yup...a sometimes troublesome thing labels are...

Been reading the various postings and news articles about the Oregon mayor who, as far as I can see, has only called himself a "guy who likes to wear womens clothes".

But in the articles about him he has been called a transvestite, a transsexual, a cross-dresser and transgendered.

Is he any of these? Does he relate to any of these terms? Or has he consciously tried to avoid them all, knowing that each carries a negative connotation with someone in his constituency?

It's unrealistic for him to try to avoid a label, I'm thinkin', 'cos the unusual situation he has publicly presented us with demands a label of some sort so that we can try to understand him. And depending on the writer telling the story, he's gonna get one no matter what his own opinion is.

Ah, the joys of language! A social construct that is supposed to help us understand our world, but often just confuses us more!

Nuance upon nuance, regional dialects and definitions and pronunciations...

So tell me English speakers...what's a pastie? ...a fanny? ...a lift? ...a hooter?

Loves me some language, now, y'all! Ya feel me?

[amber 07]

Thanks Dega, I love quizzes:
1. pastie-with a hard A, a nipple covering used by strippers. With a soft A, a Cornish meat pie eaten by miners in the upper penninsula of Michigan.
2. fanny- Booty, butt, rear?
3. lift-an appliance put in the heel of a shoe to make you taller. An elevator in Merry ol' England.
4. hooter- could be 1 owl, or used plurally a set of breasts.

Let me know how I did?

[Violetgray]

Thanks Dega, I love quizzes:
1. pastie-with a hard A, a nipple covering used by strippers. With a soft A, a Cornish meat pie eaten by miners in the upper penninsula of Michigan.
2. fanny- Booty, butt, rear?
3. lift-an appliance put in the heel of a shoe to make you taller. An elevator in Merry ol' England.
4. hooter- could be 1 owl, or used plurally a set of breasts.

Let me know how I did?

Let's see.. being an anglo-phile but having never taken British-ese in school, I do know that a lift is an elevator, and that a fanny is a vagina, but beyond that...

as for the travesti/travesti/transvestite comparison, I do believe that that is a completely different problem, more of a language barrier issue than a labels issue. They have to know what you're saying in order to decided whether to be offended or not.

[Deanna2]

It does not matter how you dress up labels, they are a lazy person's attempt to put individuals in pigeon holes. Labels are lazy decision making. A person is an 'X' and by extension has all the baggage that goes with being an 'X'.

Speaking for myself, I am a Deanna. As far as I can ascertain Deannas have no baggage (other than being sweet, adorable and cuddly). Therefore I am an individual and you will have to make decisions about me as you find me.

[avril findlay]

A hooter is a nose. "British-ese"!!! WTF is that when it's at home?

[deja true]

...as for the travesti/travesti/transvestite comparison, I do believe that that is a completely different problem, more of a language barrier issue than a labels issue. They have to know what you're saying in order to decided whether to be offended or not.

Ah, but that's just it, V! Those furrin' words like 'travesti', didn't always mean TS prostitute, it's just a meaning they took on after a new set of circumstances presented themselves to the public, who needed a way to describe (label) them. So 'travesti', which had meant cross-dressing theatrical performer( a morally harmless being), seems to have become a morally reprehensible public nuisance...

Same with the Oregon mayor labels... he refused to label himself, except in the most innocuous way he could think of, but still he got labelled with words that may not actually apply to him... We cannot avoid them.

Given the mostly negative connotations of the word "transvestite" in American-speak these days, it's no wonder he wanted to eschew that word, even if technically that's what he really is.

Cowboy Bob in Muskogee is gonna have a completely different take (and reaction) to that word than Professor Hitchemup at Harvard Law School.



(all correct so far ...and...a hooter is also a car horn in the UK... trafficator, anyone?)

[MarinaTwelve200]

In formal scientific discusion and writing we ALWAYS define the terms we use (Lables), so that when the term is used and brought up again later in the discourse, all parties involved are on the same page, so to speak, as far as what is meant. Indeed without "labels" we cannot get an intellectual handle on given concepts ---much less talk about and discuss them.

Not to define a term one KNOWS to have different meanings to different people, is a simply sloppy, lazy attempt at communication. "labels" are really only "dehumanizing" and confusing when this key rule of communication is ignored, and we only ASSUME that another person defines the term in the same way.

[Violetgray]

Deanna you have just proved my point with this statement

Speaking for myself, I am a Deanna. As far as I can ascertain Deannas have no baggage (other than being sweet, adorable and cuddly).

My point being that labels aren't inherently bad, because no one rejects the good ones. We all make determinations about the world around us and labels are just mental bookmarks. And the baggage that a particular label has can be quite subjective. Some people do assume negative things with the word transvestite. I don't. But I do try to influence what connotations it has with the people who meet me. I do think that once someone has met me and gotten to know me, they realize that a transvestite doesn't have to mean some guy in a trenchcoat abducting panties from Victoria's Secret.

[deja true]

...some guy in a trenchcoat abducting panties from Victoria's Secret.

That wasn't me! I'm not one of those! And I've never even been to that mall!

[curse within]

The truth of the matter is we all can not be labeled.... But a degree can be placed behind the label that is professionally givin to you or should be... That degree should fall in between the levels of extreme to minor. No such degree I know of is placed on the transgender issue (crossdressing)..

That is because I believe Doctors do not treat "crossdressing" but treat the lifestlye that tends to come with it. Being in the closet or open, people tend to believe that transgender evolves that may be true in some cases but isn't with all. Most like myself spend a lifetime fighting issues that comes with crosdressing in part, due to how soceity accepts it. It doesn't mean I am above or below those who have learned to accept it.. Crossdressing is not like having cancer or any other genetic illness it is something we all do to ourselves with out understanding why.

So my label is a closet straight crossdressing male who does not dress on a daily bases but also doesn't have a set schedule on how often or when I do dress.

[FanciJewel]

PLEASE, lable me a paragon of femininity---Fanci

[Nadia-Maria]

It does not matter how you dress up labels, they are a lazy person's attempt to put individuals in pigeon holes. Labels are lazy decision making. A person is an 'X' and by extension has all the baggage that goes with being an 'X'.

Hi Deanna,

I agree with you it's OK to be cautious with labels.

Yes, labels MAY BE SOMETIMES "a lazy person's attempt to put individuals in pigeon holes".

Obviously, it's not always the case (see the preceding posts in this thread)
Hence, as a sweeping generalization, your wording may suffer to be considered as incorrect.

However you have all rights to go on believing what you wrote above.
You are not alone in this belief.

Kisses

[Karren H]

Truth in Advertising... let's you know the ingredianted before you make a commitment!! lol

[Ze xx]

So tell me English speakers...what's a pastie? ...a fanny? ...a lift? ...a hooter?

A pastie - with a short A is a savory filling wrapped in shortcrust pastry and turned into a crescent shape. It is ALWAYS pronounced with a short A and never pronounced paRsty. They originate from Cornwall.

A Fanny - well this is something that confuses us british, as to us a fanny is specifically a lady's front bottom Seeing a US sitcom and a bloke is being told to sit on his fanny tends to raise a few eyebrows

A lift - can be an elevator or the act of offering to drive someone to their destination or cheering someone up or giving them a boost.

A hooter - can be a nose, a pair of hooters is slang for a pair of breasts, or it is another term for your car's horn.

HTH

[izzfan]

As for the whole labels thing, they are certainly useful to a limited extent - especially when I was trying to work out what exactly I was (this took me several years). However, they can be quite limiting and if I am to define myself with labels then it can get quite long-winded (as I am also bisexual, probably about 3-5 on the kinsey scale).

As for the transvestite/crossdresser thing, I personally prefer the term transvestite as it sounds more serious and mysterious, however it can have other connotations as some of the other posts have said.

Also, labels are good when coming out - it is far easier to say "I am a crossdresser/transvestite" than to say "I sometimes enjoy wearing female clothes for a variety of reasons [insert long list of reasons here] however I have no desire to transition/have SRS"

[Nadia-Maria]

Labels maybe very useful whenever the definition is rather well understood and a matter or Y/N answer.

. For example someone canbe labelled as an "english" "commuter".

. Whenever the answer is rather a continuum, it might be better to estimate your approximate ranking in the continuum using either a 3 or 5 point scale, or even the percentiles if at all possible.

As an example being either an Extrovert or an Introvert is as a rule not the right label, since most people are not far from average what means they are about as Extroverted than Introverted people.
Taking the proper test you would estimate you are maybe near the 20th percentile what means only about 20% of people are more extraverted than you.

. As crossdressing is a complex behaviour, involving various causes and motivations, and moreover addressing a continuum, it is a rather low-utility label. Depending how you PRECISELY define to be a CDer, you will find that either less than 1% or more than 90% of people can be labelled a CDer.

Hence I fully understand that many members of this forum would dismiss labels as with no interest or even being nuisible.
However it can't be generalized.

Not all labelling are wrong. We need only to refine our labelling procedures.