Labels, are they a good thing or not?

[MudPuppy]

The plural of ya'll is all ya'll

Of course it is. But it's spelled "y'all" - and I'll go to the mat on this one!

 

[Prillprillprill]

Well all of language is labels really. You can't take issue with that.

Yes there are new ones appearing - language changes, such is life. Language is about communication, and it's only a problem if you choose to see it in that way.

 

[Anemone]

Yes, i think that Labels do have a place, and are not always negative. However there is no denying that there has been an explosion in the use of people both labelling themselves and others.

I'm not sure that this is true at all. People have consistently throughout history used labels to identify themselves and others.

There has been an increased interest, largely on the far right, in drawing attention to this phenomenon in recent years but that is ideological at best and often downright disingenuous at worst, rather than a reflection of a change in the frequency of labelling. Increased visibility afforded by technology probably plays into this to a significant degree - it is after all much easier to target marginalised populations when they are seen.

It is widely acknowledged within certain fields, of the associated concepts of the self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping in relation to the use of Labels. Self identity is important, but applying multiple labels to yourself in order to achieve this can sometimes be damaging.

In relation to the use of pronouns, i think that people will have mixed views on that too, both in favour and against. I think where people adopt the use of plural pronouns such as we, us, they, them, their, theirs, because they consider themselves to have split or multiple personalities within one body/mind can be very confusing. Agreed

Queen Victoria famously used the singular, Royal, we and no one struggled to understand.

They and them have likewise in use as singular pronouns for as long or longer.

Keeping track of a greater number of pronouns is slightly more of a mental load than fewer but no more so than remembering names or international forms of address. Mistakes and slips will happen, of course they will just as with calling someone by their maiden name, but it is very easy to manage when not careless or disinterested.

 

[ILuvDiapers]

I'm not sure that this is true at all. People have consistently throughout history used labels to identify themselves and others.

There has been an increased interest, largely on the far right, in drawing attention to this phenomenon in recent years but that is ideological at best and often downright disingenuous at worst, rather than a reflection of a change in the frequency of labelling. Increased visibility afforded by technology probably plays into this to a significant degree - it is after all much easier to target marginalised populations when they are seen.



Queen Victoria famously used the singular, Royal, we and no one struggled to understand.

They and them have likewise in use as singular pronouns for as long or longer.

Keeping track of a greater number of pronouns is slightly more of a mental load than fewer but no more so than remembering names or international forms of address. Mistakes and slips will happen, of course they will just as with calling someone by their maiden name, but it is very easy to manage when not careless or disinterested.

You are entitled to your view, as am I. Not sure the clinical psychologists that i have discussed this with would identify as far right.

 

[Anemone]

You are entitled to your view, as am I. Not sure the clinical psychologists that i have discussed this with would identify as far right.

Most people on the far right don't identify as such but that is moot.

This seems like a really bizarre thing to discuss with multiple clinical psychologists and then omit the fact of these discussions having taken place until met with a dissenting opinion. To wit, I don't believe you.

Though you are quite correct that we have equal and inalienable rights to hold whatever opinions we may choose.

 

[ILuvDiapers]

Most people on the far right don't identify as such but that is moot.

This seems like a really bizarre thing to discuss with multiple clinical psychologists and then omit the fact of these discussions having taken place until met with a dissenting opinion. To wit, I don't believe you.

Though you are quite correct that we have equal and inalienable rights to hold whatever opinions we may choose.

If you actually bothered to read all of the posts you would see that i was referring to a younger very close friend who became very sick as a result of becoming very obsessed with attaching labels to himself in an attempt to find an identity he could relate too. He did the same with using pronouns.

He has attempted suicide on 3 occasions, and as his close friend, i have attended appointments with him, with different clinical psychologists. I know exactly what you are attempting to do here, by drawing me into an argument! However please don't presume to know me or how i think!

 

[Anemone]

If you actually bothered to read all of the posts you would see that i was referring to a younger very close friend who became very sick as a result of becoming very obsessed with attaching labels to himself in an attempt to find an identity he could relate too. He did the same with using pronouns.

I know. I read it. Of course I did. I didn't make reference to it because it is not relevant to what I was interested to discuss. I appreciate that it is important to you and I earnestly hope that your friend finds happiness but I did not feel that it was my place to pass judgment on their particular circumstances. I still feel that it would be inappropriate but I am open to being persuaded if you are for some reason so motivated.

He has attempted suicide on 3 occasions, and as his close friend, i have attended appointments with him, with different clinical psychologists. I know exactly what you are attempting to do here, by drawing me into an argument! However please don't presume to know me or how i think!

To say you know my intentions exactly but that I should not presume yours comes across as perhaps a little bit conceited, don't you think?

I've no interest in drawing you into an argument, I was hoping to draw you into a discussion but you do not seem interested in one, that is fair enough.

I am curious to hear whether you had these discussions with psychologists when their attention was supposed to be on your friend or whether the discussions were separate and your attending sessions to support your friend therefore are just mentioned as context?

That is unless you wish to contend that being party to someone else being provided psychoeducation constitutes participation in a discussion; for the record I maintain that it does not. This would be a functional conversation with a clear goal far removed from your your gaining an enhanced understanding of the socio-political context of a social phenomenon: the only responsible context would have to be how it affects your friend and how they can better navigate the difficulties they are confronted with.

 

[ILuvDiapers]

I know. I read it. Of course I did. I didn't make reference to it because it is not relevant to what I was interested to discuss. I appreciate that it is important to you and I earnestly hope that your friend finds happiness but I did not feel that it was my place to pass judgment on their particular circumstances. I still feel that it would be inappropriate but I am open to being persuaded if you are for some reason so motivated.



To say you know my intentions exactly but that I should not presume yours comes across as perhaps a little bit conceited, don't you think?

I've no interest in drawing you into an argument, I was hoping to draw you into a discussion but you do not seem interested in one, that is fair enough.

I am curious to hear whether you had these discussions with psychologists when their attention was supposed to be on your friend or whether the discussions were separate and your attending sessions to support your friend therefore are just mentioned as context?

That is unless you wish to contend that being party to someone else being provided psychoeducation constitutes participation in a discussion; for the record I maintain that it does not. This would be a functional conversation with a clear goal far removed from your your gaining an enhanced understanding of the socio-political context of a social phenomenon: the only responsible context would have to be how it affects your friend and how they can better navigate the difficulties they are confronted with.

I was present with my friend during each of the consultations, and posed questions throughout, in the interest of being able to best help my friend.

Beyond that i have no intention of going into a chapter and verse monologue with you. Unless you are a clinical psychologist yourself, then you are not qualified to be giving me advice as to what is the best approach to adopt in relation to helping my friend.

Furthermore i don't need to seek either your permission or approval to engage in conversations with the psychologists, when i am present in the room. I was interested in their opinions, i didn't express an opinion as to what they had discussed with me, beyond saying that it got me thinking.

There is currently a worldwide shortage of ADHD medications, which is due to the amount of people being diagnosed as having quadrupled in recent years. I am more inclined to listen to them, given they are suitably qualified.

 

[Anemone]

I was present with my friend during each of the consultations, and posed questions throughout, in the interest of being able to best help my friend.

Good, that is very good and I am glad to hear it. So long as you did not make the limited time about yourself and your curiosity this is laudable.

Beyond that i have no intention of going into a chapter and verse monologue with you. Unless you are a clinical psychologist yourself, then you are not qualified to be giving me advice as to what is the best approach to adopt in relation to helping my friend.

There are other relevant qualifications but I shall not be getting into the minutiae of my professional background. In any case I no longer practice so I can't claim to be up to date.

Crucially I have not met you friend or made any kind of assessment of them so of course, regardless of my own background, I am in no position to say what is best in their specific case. General principles do hold true however, please do not reject good advice on the basis that it is given by someone annoying.

Furthermore i don't need to seek either your permission or approval to engage in conversations with the psychologists, when i am present in the room. I was interested in their opinions, i didn't express an opinion as to what they had discussed with me, beyond saying that it got me thinking.

Even if I were in the room you would not need my permission!
It sounds like you asked for some clarification and held your opinions to yourself in order to keep the focus on your friend a their needs? If so then this is good and appropriate, but only a discussion in the most vestigial sense compared to what I disbelieved.

There is currently a worldwide shortage of ADHD medications, which is due to the amount of people being diagnosed as having quadrupled in recent years. I am more inclined to listen to them, given they are suitably qualified.

Something of a random fact and one which principally concerns psychiatrists rather than psychologists. Why are you bringing up market failures, I really don't follow?

 

[ILuvDiapers]

The clinical psychologists we saw where part of a hospital based team, which did include psychiatrists and my friend was seen by both. However after an initial consultation with a psychiatrist, he was referred to the clinical psychologists team who work closely with the psychiatry team within the same setting, including sharing information between each other.

Throughout each of the appointments that i have attended with my friend I was there at his request. He struggles with communicating his opinions in such an environment, because he was frightened. I was happy to chaperone him, because i care deeply for him and his wellbeing.

At no point during any of the 2 hour sessions that i have attended with him, have i ever attempted to deflect the focus of attention from him to me. I was always only present to ensure he was able to express himself. Sometimes i would need to prompt him, but then sit back and allow him freely to express himself.

Though both psychiatry and psychology are different fields, within this setting they work closely, as both professions work to establish the best clinical outcome for the patient.

What might seem as a random fact, it was raised during one of the consultations by one of the team of professionals we have been dealing with.

To put this into some sort of context, we initially spoke with a lead consultant who was responsible for carrying out an initial assessment. It was his assessment that there was a direct correlation between my friends fixation with Labelling himself and the negative impact it was having on his mental health.

When i made this post, i did so simply to garner peoples views within the community, and while my friends situation was my motivation for doing so, i didn't want to expand too much on his situation, because it would be inappropriate to do so.

It is important to note, that i am not necessarily against people using labels, and in relation to my friend directly i have only ever been supportive of him and his decisions.

 

[BoyLuc]

It seems that with each new day there are new labels attached to people and things. Do you think this is a good thing or not. I find it can sometimes be a minefield navigating peoples pronouns, preferences, identities, be them sexual or otherwise.

Increasingly i feel like we are all walking on eggshells for fear of indadvertedly saying something or doing something which may cause offence. I have friends who have attached so many labels to themselves, that even they are in conflict with themselves. It seems that people are becoming increasingly overly sensitive to everything these days.

Everyone seems to be rushing to label themselves and place themselves in various camps. Why?

Why is is necessary to be anything other that your true self? I think increasingly people adopt labels because it's on trend, and they want to be a part of the latest new Label, when in reality it is not a reflection of them at all, simply a means of them feeling like they belong to the various camp they align themselves to.

I'm starting to think that peoples obsession with labelling everything increasingly creates division. Even when people align themselves to a particular label, they will then seek to divide it further into sub sections, and then more sub sections of the sub sections! Before too long the original label becomes an umbrella term, with a multitude of variants underneath it, like a spiders web.

Whatever happened to simplicity. I am what i am, and what i am is me! What are your thoughts on Labels, are they a good thing, or not?

So you labeled yourself "what i am is me" no label is a label.

"Why is it necessary to be anything other that your true self?" By referring to a label, they are TELLING you who they are which is their true self. It's shorthand.

Why do you let that bother you? Let people be who THEY want to be because that is their true self whether you like their label or their choice, it's irrelevant. It's like worrying about what someone has in their pants (which is all the rage atm) or who they choose to sleep with. Don't ask. If they want to tell you, they will. If you want to know, ask if they would share in a respectful way (who they sleep with is usually their life partner so let's not boil it all down to sex).

Labels help tell others who one is. If I tell you I'm bi, you know what that means. If you see me with a guy, don't assume I'm gay or with a women, str8.... or with both... you;ll need a label to help - maybe poly.

If people choose to be offended because of something you said, sounds like their issue. Unless they specifically tell you they prefer the pronoun to match their appearance and you simply ignore it, well, then that's your bad. Just use their name.

It also sounds like you're combining labels with respect for people - and confusing the two. I don't think they are linked or should be linked.

Sorry to call you out on this but: TBH, when someone says the things you've said, it's often because they are, in fact, generally disrespectful of people's lifestyles and have nothing to do with labels.

 

[Anemone]

The clinical psychologists we saw where part of a hospital based team, which did include psychiatrists and my friend was seen by both. However after an initial consultation with a psychiatrist, he was referred to the clinical psychologists team who work closely with the psychiatry team within the same setting, including sharing information between each other.

Throughout each of the appointments that i have attended with my friend I was there at his request. He struggles with communicating his opinions in such an environment, because he was frightened. I was happy to chaperone him, because i care deeply for him and his wellbeing.

At no point during any of the 2 hour sessions that i have attended with him, have i ever attempted to deflect the focus of attention from him to me. I was always only present to ensure he was able to express himself. Sometimes i would need to prompt him, but then sit back and allow him freely to express himself.

Though both psychiatry and psychology are different fields, within this setting they work closely, as both professions work to establish the best clinical outcome for the patient.

What might seem as a random fact, it was raised during one of the consultations by one of the team of professionals we have been dealing with.

To put this into some sort of context, we initially spoke with a lead consultant who was responsible for carrying out an initial assessment. It was his assessment that there was a direct correlation between my friends fixation with Labelling himself and the negative impact it was having on his mental health.

When i made this post, i did so simply to garner peoples views within the community, and while my friends situation was my motivation for doing so, i didn't want to expand too much on his situation, because it would be inappropriate to do so.

It is important to note, that i am not necessarily against people using labels, and in relation to my friend directly i have only ever been supportive of him and his decisions.

All of this is good and fine and I find no cause to challenge you on any of it.

My contention was and remains that there has not been any great change in the use of labels in society, beyond the specific labels in use changing with the zeitgeist and the improved visibility of minority experience with its attendant vocabularies.

This would not be something appropriate to spend time on in a limited duration clinical setting and would probably only serve to deflect attention away from the maladaptive pattern of attribution with which your friend is struggling. It would be a great surprise and concern for this specific discussion to have taken place in this context, as it simply would represent neither the time nor the place for explorations of macrosociology.

 

[BoyLuc]

I wish it was as simple as the natural world around us: animals don’t worry about their identities or create a whole language to define their sexuality."

Coming from a "straight male" (I could assume white) how would you know? "a bit socially awkward" Perhaps you've suffered at the hands of bullies.

Unfortunately, when LGBTQI+ people or POC, for example, are bullied, abused, and murdered for those differences, we get pretty defensive. A marginalized community often has a language to themselves. We were not allowed to exist. So, your wish is certainly ours, and extend that to any marginalized minority/community including so many in here.

How do you think male DL Little would fair if they were "out" for others to see? When one has a same gender/other gender life partner, it's pretty hard to hide or HORRIBLE to have to hide.

It is necessary to disrupt the status quo. Language is one way to do so.
This article is interesting in discussing marginalized groups and the terms such as "oppressed"
"it is important that we develop and use language that disrupts oppressive systems"
A Call for a Language Shift: From Covert Oppression to Overt Empowerment

 

[ILuvDiapers]

So you labeled yourself "what i am is me" no label is a label.

"Why is it necessary to be anything other that your true self?" By referring to a label, they are TELLING you who they are which is their true self. It's shorthand.

Why do you let that bother you? Let people be who THEY want to be because that is their true self whether you like their label or their choice, it's irrelevant. It's like worrying about what someone has in their pants (which is all the rage atm) or who they choose to sleep with. Don't ask. If they want to tell you, they will. If you want to know, ask if they would share in a respectful way (who they sleep with is usually their life partner so let's not boil it all down to sex).

Labels help tell others who one is. If I tell you I'm bi, you know what that means. If you see me with a guy, don't assume I'm gay or with a women, str8.... or with both... you;ll need a label to help - maybe poly.

If people choose to be offended because of something you said, sounds like their issue. Unless they specifically tell you they prefer the pronoun to match their appearance and you simply ignore it, well, then that's your bad. Just use their name.

It also sounds like you're combining labels with respect for people - and confusing the two. I don't think they are linked or should be linked.

Sorry to call you out on this but: TBH, when someone says the things you've said, it's often because they are, in fact, generally disrespectful of people's lifestyles and have nothing to do with labels.

It is a sensitive topic granted, however i think we should be able to discuss what is a relatively straightforward question. I really don't consider myself to be disrespectful of anyone. Quite the opposite in fact. I hate discrimination in all forms and have certainly been very supportive of my friend.

My motivation in asking this question was motivated by my friends experience. Granted his experiences around identity/sexuality and his indecision in relation to his use of pronouns have harmed him. However i have not attempted to alter his mindset whatsoever. Essentially i just want him to be happy with his choices, because right now he isn't happy, and very confused.

I have made reference to some of the views expressed to me by medical professionals, but i didn't say that they were my views or that i agreed with them. Their views simply got me thinking is all, and so i wanted to see what the opinions of those within this community were?

However all questions on all topics will always generate differing opinions. Some of which you will agree with and some you wont. I think this kind of illustrates my point about people being overly sensitive. I am always supportive of everyones lifestyle choices, both within this forum, and outside of it.