[Zharradan]

One of the reasons I was so happy when I first found out about this site, is that it made me realise I wasn't alone, and that there was a societal group I was a part of. It made me feel a part of something. And from other posts I believe many reacted the same way.

But all these labels could perhaps be counter-productive. In that they separate us into ever smaller groups and factions. It splits us up. And those that don't fit into any particular label just end up feeling alone again.

[Fi_Loubet]

I don't think the labels are necessarily divisive - they were certainly never intended to be. I think you'll find that many of the labels here are either user created, or user defined- and always applied by the person they're describing (we don't like to attach labels to anyone). I think the labels are helpful for members who are trying to establish a vocabulary to describe themselves.

If you don't think you fit a certain label; don't use any- but it's not going to mean you are any less welcome and valued here.

[Cerebrum]

I haven't noticed much of people splitting up over labels in this community. I bet that most people don't fit a label 100% perfectly; I see labels as a way to help others have some idea of where you're coming from. If you need a new label, then make one or don't use one.

I hereby coin the term cerebrumadescriptiviperfectiaccurativipicous to describe myself. By definition, it is a 100% accurate and perfect description of myself and can be applied to no one else.

[AVENCakes]

They're just descriptors. An aromantic has a different view than a lesbian or biromantic asexual, and it lets people know where you're coming from to be able to explain that you're attracted to X without making it sound like you aren't asexual. It's not like people go around saying "yeah, you dont' count now" just because you don't have a string of words before or after "asexual". You'll get occasional bickering- there was some arguing when aromantics felt that they were being insulted by romantics, but we work those out and it goes back to more or less normal.

[henrik]

I don't think the amount of labeling that goes on in here is nothing but helpful for people to understand each other and themselves, like the previous respondents have said.

But I'd also point out that some division is helpful and even necessary to enable the kind of conversations and community we have going on here. We don't all have to be along for the ride with every single other person in the universe if we don't feel like it. It can be freeing, in addition to being restrictive, to separate oneself from the majority and create a friendly surrounding of like-minded people. It only becomes a problem if one uses it to completely isolate oneself from the rest of the world, but I don't think that's much of a problem for most people.

[Des]

Hear hear to the OP! It reminds me of an argument I made against adding more and more letters to the alphabet soup of the alternative sexualities. If we're going to keep throwing new labels, new terms, and paradigm-shattering concepts at the majority, they're only going to be more insistent that there are only two "real" orientations. Although it may be more accurate for defining and identifying yourself, we've got to unite under one banner if anyone ELSE is ever going to take us seriously. Or you... since I'm not sure I'm part of "us" anymore. But this emphasizes the point. It doesn't matter what we call ourselves. What we call each other in front of those we want to convince needs to be uniform. Asexual, antisexual, protosexual, I don't care what label people want to use. But, intrapersonal accuracy aside, we HAVE to slap a label on it and agree to use it, or we're just going to alienate everyone else.

[AVENCakes]

Des, on Sep 15 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

Hear hear to the OP! It reminds me of an argument I made against adding more and more letters to the alphabet soup of the alternative sexualities. If we're going to keep throwing new labels, new terms, and paradigm-shattering concepts at the majority, they're only going to be more insistent that there are only two "real" orientations. Although it may be more accurate for defining and identifying yourself, we've got to unite under one banner if anyone ELSE is ever going to take us seriously. Or you... since I'm not sure I'm part of "us" anymore. But this emphasizes the point. It doesn't matter what we call ourselves. What we call each other in front of those we want to convince needs to be uniform. Asexual, antisexual, protosexual, I don't care what label people want to use. But, intrapersonal accuracy aside, we HAVE to slap a label on it and agree to use it, or we're just going to alienate everyone else.

Arguing against labels because "we have perfectly good ones" doesn't do anything- it's just trying to jam people into puzzle pieces they dont' necessarily fit into. The fact is, that all asexuals on this board are just that- asexual. Even if we then break down into our romantic and platonic and enjoy/indifferent/repulsed and antisexual/prosex after that, we're still asexuals. There's all sorts of classifications that break down each community into smaller and smaller groups in every community- but that's only when you get into the community. Overall, most asexuals still present as asexuals unless someone shows an interest, then we get into it more. Even some demisexuals present as asexual because that's mostly who they are.

I'd fully support LGBTIQAetc being broken down into Queer for general purposes. I'm fine with people who identify as queer and queer only- no matter what their gender/sexuality. But I am not fine with anyone who insists that because there's an overarching term, people can't still call themselves an androphillic pansexual trigender. Because that's who they are, and no amount of angsting over "But nobody will take us serious" will change who a person is.