How Useful Are Labels Really?

(Inclusive) labels can be a good thing! (S)

“Oh, I don’t see straight people and Not Straight™ people, I just see people”

Every time I hear this phrase, I feel a bit put out. Usually it’s accompanied by an encouraging smile, as if to say “don’t worry, I’m definitely not homophobic”, and I do, absolutely, genuinely believe that these people that say this really don’t see different orientations – I’m sure they do only see “people”.

But, on the other hand, that’s not actually helpful.

Before I start ranting away, I want to assure everyone that I’m not having a go at people who don’t identify with any particular label – there’s a marked difference between “I don’t identify with any label” and “in my view I don’t allow people to identify with any label”. There are people who don’t think a label fits them, and that’s great, all the power to you if you prefer being label-less! It is important, however, to remember that some other people find that a label is very helpful to have, for many different reasons, and that ignoring someone if they deliberately say "I identify as [insert label here]" is kind of rude, so really I’m not looking at people who do or don’t have labels, in particular. I’m looking at people who deliberately ignore that other people do have labels.

It's more than a simple annoyance, dear reader - it's actually fairly dangerous for the MSAGI community. From a personal perspective, it may be very useful or comforting to have someone say that they don't see labels - it can be an assurance that they will not judge you as a person for your identity. Several authors on this site have expressed frustration with the lack of fluidity in labels. However, in terms of things like law and policy making, it isn't so helpful to only see people - regardless of how limited labels can be.

You see, law needs to be black and white. It's not enough for a judge to say in a court case "I'm not seeing any difference between this same-sex couple as a similar opposite-sex couple." You know why? Because, all too often, law specifies things that can make it very difficult for people to find justice. For example, when talking about pension rights or survivor benefits for a widow or widower in a same-sex couple. Currently, and especially in places which don't recognise same-sex marriages, both of these things are less for people in same-sex couples than people in opposite-sex relationships. 

As a more extreme example - extreme, but unfortunately the case in many countries- seeing people rather than people of different identities can result in higher levels of homophobia. After all, reason some people, "I see them as people, so why wouldn't anyone else?" Refusing to accept different labels can mean that people don't think about the potential repercussions of being a MSAGI person in a certain situation. 

Also, let's look at what has happened in the past when we had a label-less society. Oh, yes, that's right - before labels existed in the UK, there was high intolerance of MSAGI people. In the US before "homosexual" and "heterosexual" became known, there was the same bigotry against something people don't understand.

In fact, there was still as much intolerance after labels for minorities were created as before. There were two things that changed this fact - firstly, if you have a label, and someone else has that same label, then boom: you have a community. From there it’s possible to find more people with the same experiences as you, or even to begin to change the views of other people about that label - labels can also evolve or split into more specific labels, which can somewhat approximate the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identity. Secondly, by creating a label, you create a community. But by creating an antonym to that label - majority to minority, heterosexual to homosexual, monoamorous to polyamorous, cisgender to trans*, allosexual to asexual, etcetera - it actually normalises the label of the minority. 

That’s why, even though a lot of people are against these so-called "made up labels" like allosexual and cisgender, they're actually very important in the search for equality. I know some people are certain that having labels for everyone can divide people - and to a certain extent I do think that is true - but if you have an anti-label to the label that describes your gender identity or sexual orientation, then it stops being a case of "there’s [insert label] and then there's normal people" and becomes a case of "there's [insert label] and then there's the majority, who are [insert antonym label]". You see? It stops people from making the tacky mistake of thinking that just because one label is describing a majority, then that is the "normal" state.

And then this post segues semi-gracefully into the topic of heteronormativity. Heteronormativity is the socially constructed idea that does actually come from the idea that the majority sexuality and gender identity (heterosexual and cisgender, just in case you hadn't guessed!) is the "normal" state of being, and that automatically anyone who does not fall into both of these categories is somehow abnormal - clearly, this is not the case, but heteronormativity is still prevalent in society! It is the reason almost all characters in films, books and TV shows are heterosexual and cisgender. It's the reason adverts - particularly adverts for things like perfume, in the UK - feature a conventionally attractive person of the opposite gender to the target market. It's the reason there is little to no education on minority sexual and gender identities. Heteronormativity – the idea that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are somehow very different, aside from the obvious - was part of the reason why Ana María Jiménez Ortiz, a member of the far-right Mexican party PAN, recently said "A marriage should only be considered amongst people that can look at each other in the eye while having sexual intercourse, something that does not happen in homosexual couples." (I have some awkward news for her).

Why is heteronormativity relevant to people not seeing any labels, I hear you ask? Well, dear reader, it’s quite simple. If everyone on earth went by the philosophy that labels aren’t needed, then it would become implicit – in law and society – that everyone on earth is cisgender and heterosexual. Let’s not forget that, in most countries, labels have not existed for thousands of years and, quite to the contrary of what people who are against labels think, things did not start getting better for the MSAGI community until they put a label on themselves.

Maybe one day it will be sensible and safe enough to drop labels completely and allow gender identity and sexual orientation exist in the complete spectrum that they should be - if everyone wants it to be that way! Until then, it makes more sense to just let people who want their label to keep it.