I am not advocating for an all out abolishing of labels in that Great Straight White Cis Male tradition that is eager to consider itself EVERYMAN and is the de facto antichrist for every counter-culture out there.
I think I might have a somewhat nuanced position here, sorry! If you’re gonna point me in the direction of articles like this and this—thanks, momolikesthings—we are already on the same page, word for word.
Also, I am speaking from a queer position—again, sorry to disappoint! I’m truly baffled by the academic-flavored, abstract functional distinctions between bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, etc (I could be any/all of those, who knows?!)—and the need for that level of segregation within the queer space. I understand that the proliferation of labels is somewhat subversive wrt binaries we’re trying to undermine, but it is not as subversive as it thinks it is. The super fine standardized breakdowns are only useful when people are put into tables and it’s weird to be super concerned about which slice of the queer pie chart one is in. It seems like an identity notation invented for easy tagging in centralized blogging platforms. I guess that can be cool, if you’re into that sort of thing, ehhhhghghh…
I am also trying to say that the fashion in which this tradition defends what constitutes the SELF is flawed as fuck and from the gate modeled on ancient busted patriarchal conceptions of sexual preference/gender identity as an inherent property—as opposed to something one acts out, something one demonstrates in their day-to-day existence. These tags anchor their legitimacy in that kind of a priori inherent Truth which is only being unveiled and as such is unassailable, unmovable, permanent. It just moves the goalposts of true freedom in interpersonal relationships. And it demands a certain compliance of behavior with identity which is a direct heir to the patriarchal binary traditions.
Recently someone described themselves to me as Slightly queer; I like men even when they’re women, which is pithy and fun and infinitely more descriptive than, um, whatever that would be in queertaxonomese. At the point where it matters, i.e. interpersonal level, these kinds of nuances and many many many more will be conveyed.
Individual power to define one’s own identity and group belonging is of paramount importance and I have no interest in taking it away so as to level the entirety of mankind into one mold. On the double-plus contrary. This is why I see this attempt at constraining and mapping out what queer can mean as dumb.