Specificity of labeling sexuality
27 September 2007, 8:42 PM
Cool essay from makezine.org titled "more gender more of the time" or possibly "specificity is the spice of life," by dean spade.
I don't entirely agree with everything there, and I know some of y'all won't either. But there's a lot of food for thought packed into a short essay.
At first I thought that the piece was taking the common stance that it's best to avoid labeling sexuality altogether, a stance that I usually argue against by noting that if we don't label ourselves, others will label us. But then along came my favorite bit:
Please don't understand me to be promoting 'non-labeling.' What I love is specific, detailed, stimulating, inventive uses of language to constantly re-inscribe and re-identify body and sex experiences, rather than simplistic terms that shut down conversations about how hot we all really are.
Again I'm not sure I entirely agree with that from a philosophical standpoint, but it made me smile.
Comments
ys. more labels, not fewer labels.
although there is the "so, what do you mean by saying you're X" problem. (for example, there is the quick pseudolecture that i give that is along the lines of "when i say i am bisexual i mean that i am attracted to at least three possibly more genders of people, yes, bi means two and i just said three, please bite me".)
Posted by: betsy![[LiveJournal user info]](http://www.kith.org/journals/mt-static/openid-comment/livejournal.gif)
|
September 27, 2007 9:40 PM
Bisexuals, trisexuals, homo sapiens, carcinogens, hallucinogens, men, Pee Wee Herman!
Posted by: Will | October 1, 2007 7:49 AM