Those labels

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Mendalla

Mendalla

Happy headbanging ape!!
Pronouns
He/Him/His
As various communities hold their Pride events over the course of this month, this article caught my eye:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lgbtq-queer-sexual-diversity-pride-labels-acronym-1.3661094

Lots of discussion about the "LGBT" acronym and its many variations (LGBTQ, LGBTQ2) and about if it is really the best way to represent the diversity that is covered today.

I have to say, I rather like what RuPaul said:

RuPaul said:
"Descriptions really are for other people to help them understand you — and to help them put you in a box, I personally don't need a description. I just am. It does help other people understand it. I've always been someone who says you can call me whatever you want — you can call me 'he,' you can call me 'she,' you can call me 'Regis and Kathie Lee.' I'll answer to anything because what the truth is it's the intention behind the words that make the difference. If you're coming from a place of love, I can feel that."
Click to expand...

For those who don't know RuPaul or have forgotten:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuPaul

440px-Rupaul.jpg
 
Of course, labels aren't just a problem in the LGBTQ (or whatever) community.

There are religious labels, political labels, socio-economic labels, and so on.

Labels may be helpful in associating individuals with movements but the problem (as I see it) is that, all too often, we try to make the label define the person when, in fact, it is only one of many descriptors (to use a library science term) we can apply to that person.

Me: UU, agnostic, pantheist, straight (mostly), husband, father, brother, son, manager, moderate, Epicurean, diabetic, ...

Every one of those labels applies in some way, but none of them on its own defines me as a whole person.
 
I agree regarding labels, Mendalla. I find that people often want a label when they are defining their camp or trying to determine if I am for them or 'against them.

Maybe that is why I was always on the fringe.
 
@Mendalla I think you've described labels quite well. They are a descriptor. That can be incredibly beneficial at times.
More and more I see the push against labels, and it's not something I agree with, as there are definite uses. As long as people are aware of the limitations, I think there are few downsides to a correct label. It's the narrow-minded views about a label or a mislabel that lead to almost of their negative aspects.
 
Is it difficult to label some things if they can be noun, verb, adjective, or ad-veer-bi-al ... when attempting to delimitate something infinite as lambda ... light coming from everywhere ... even dark positions ... unseen as angels like Gabriel?

Word is like that but limited without the use of metaphors to describe eternal things ... thus understanding of word is expansive ...

Webster even defines intellect on such matters as out there ... thus one has to be beyond one's elf to learn anything beyond what the authorities bagged as god ... so they could control and redact to their desires ... metaphorically corrupt?

Nonetheless word can be fun if you get right into the etiology and sublimity of understanding lost due to time and obvious screw-up of how the indigenous person within communicates with the surface, or superficial facetiae. These could be plural to no ends ... de ontological in sizable proportions ... deontological sized?

It has to be worked into the philosopher's stone somehow ... so the Mason carved it in ... some chiseling required to whittle it down to a few icons or phrases! Men of letters may assist by carrying it across the void ... as wrote ... rot ... some say chit, or we bitz!

What's void? That is that aria between nothing and eternal ... beginnings of the goings on ... happens often with adolescents with nothing to do ... they grow into radicals about screwing up social concerns ...

Yet we push on to automate everything especially war machinations ... thus the baffling struggle because we know no better way ... due to one way theology ... I chose the ↔ as empiric ... the experience of looking both ways before crossing that way ...
there could be benefits on the well-rounded horizon ... inclusive of the Celtic Cross ... why Scotch is so well distributed as nepharious fluid! It arrests thoughts ...
 
Last edited:
I've recently adjusted some of my language in regards to labels. I often referred to "my autistic brother" but have realised that it isn't fair to have the descriptor/label/pigeonhole come before the mention of relationship. When I say "my brother who has autism" instead, it is more like I'm acknowledging that his (dis)ability is a part of him that is relevant to the conversation -- but it's not his only defining characteristic.
 
ChemGal said:
It's the narrow-minded views about a label or a mislabel that lead to almost of their negative aspects.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. I do think it's a human tendency to look at certain labels and see the person through that lens and not just the narrow-minded do it. I know I have to struggle against it sometimes with labels that have a stereotype (or at least a popular conception) attached.
 
Mendalla said:
I'm not so sure about that. I do think it's a human tendency to look at certain labels and see the person through that lens and not just the narrow-minded do it. I know I have to struggle against it sometimes with labels that have a stereotype (or at least a popular conception) attached.
Click to expand...
Sure, that tendency exists. It's still a narrow-minded view though.
 
I accept the label "crazy" from a lot of authorities around me that say my questioning of eternal things is not acceptable (thus denied) and yet I go on posing questions that few can comprehend because of the distance between our perspectives ... when considering the mortal or limited interests (curios) of much of the paradigm ... "m" ... the root mean square ... broad based thinker on a ped*estal d'ah? No tales added to the strings ...
 
HEAR HERE HIER!


http://philosophtly.blogspot.ca/2008/04/stereotypes-are-useful-tools.html?m=1

Reality seems to be indeterminate (not true or false or real or imaginary but rather we dont know...or both real in some sense and not real in some sense and neither real or not real in some sense and meaningless in some sense...)
A superposition of states
That we try to put order to
Helps with real communication
And then of course we can become fans of our labels protective even...violent even...
 
How to, (or even whether) to describe a person's disability or handicap is a challenging question. My brother who had many challenges described himself as handicapped. In his view he wasn't disabled - he still had abilities! He claimed that everyone has handicaps - some have difficulties with vision, some with reading and comprehending, some with balance and co-ordination etc...
A friend describes herself as autistic not as a person with autism. In her view this describes her more correctly as saying she has autism implies that it has taken over her life and activities. Personally, I doubt we will ever get a way of talking that will never upset someone or other!
 
KayTheCurler said:
How to, (or even whether) to describe a person's disability or handicap is a challenging question. My brother who had many challenges described himself as handicapped. In his view he wasn't disabled - he still had abilities! He claimed that everyone has handicaps - some have difficulties with vision, some with reading and comprehending, some with balance and co-ordination etc...
Click to expand...

Which is true up to a point. My myopia definitely places some limits on me (can't do anything involving distance vision without glasses or contacts and I can't wear the latter due to sensitive eyes). However, those limits are so easily overcome (just pop my glasses on when I get up in the morning and leave them on) that I would never think to call myself disabled or handicapped. And, if I wasn't phobic about eye surgery, I could get them lasered and get rid of the glasses altogether.
 
Last edited:
My brother was legally blind and had significant problens with mobility, balance, memory and social skills. Nevertheless he considered these to be handicaps not disabilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top