Identity Politics
In this day and age of "Identity Politics", there are quite a few people who say that someone should just "identify with whatever they want". And however they choose to identify is what they should be considered to be.
Frankly, this is a horrible approach. The problem is that, without a consistent definition, a term loses all meaning. The very point of a label, like any word, is to explain something about what it is attached to. If there are a dozen different explanations for the label, then the label, in effect, means nothing.
For example, let's consider the word "lion". What is a "lion"? If you imagine a lion, you (hopefully) picture a large cat, around the size of a pony when full-grown, with a tan (or white) coat, broad features, and possibly a mane (if male). These are the characteristics of the animal described by the word "lion". (Not to mention a common, shared genetic structure.)
If I were to say that my pet cat were a lion, then that would be wrong. It's okay as a metaphor, but I cannot simply declare my cat to be a lion, because "lion" has a meaning. A black house cat with a narrow face is not a lion, because it doesn't conform to any parts of the definition aside from sharing the feline family, Felidae.
We have the words "lion" or "house cat" to distinguish between them. "There's a house cat about to pounce on you" is adorable. "There's a lion about to pounce on you" means you should run like hell.
Accuracy is similarly important for the labels one uses for people. To use an exaggerated example, it would be foolish to argue that a man who wants to have sex with women, and doesn't want to have sex with men, is "homosexual". It doesn't matter how they "identify", what matters is the meaning of the word, and that meaning is that the person has a certain sexual preference.
Although this may be an extreme example, it also holds true for something with a less clear definition, such as asexuality. For many of us asexuals, we want to understand ourselves, and also in what ways we are different. For this, we need a solid line to start at, and a solid line to end at, or else what "is" and what "is not" cannot be known. This attempt at understanding is exactly why the asexual community ascribes to such extreme reductionism (as I have discussed previously).
People who arbitrarily "identify" as asexual (or trans, or anything else) without meeting a proper definition, however, simply muddy the water. I've heard about people who "identify" as asexual, and then actively pursue one-night stands in bars. While sexual behavior is not, in of itself, against the definition of asexuality, desiring it for its own sake pretty much is.
But according to identity politics, if such a person decides to identify as "asexual" because they either don't understand that "asexual" doesn't mean "not looking for sex at this moment", or simply because they want to be a special snowflake, then we should consider that person to be asexual. We should consider this house cat to be a lion, if it says it's a lion.
But then when the next person comes and asks, "I actively try to have sex and want sex, but I don't want it quite as much as other people... Am I asexual?" How should you answer? Should you answer "no" because they are well over the carefully measured line that the definition has established, or should you answer "yes" because other people who identify as asexual arbitrarily meet the same definition as the new person?
If one house cat calls itself a lion, should every house cat therefore be considered a lion? Or should they each have the choice of whether someone should call them a house cat or a lion? For one who honestly wants to know what they are, this is entirely unhelpful, and only makes everything more confusing in an already difficult period of self-exploration.
And further, it makes the lives of the asexual community more difficult when interacting with the outside world, too. The world at large frequently refuses to believe that asexuality exists. Asexuals have to constantly deal with being told "it's just a phase" or "you just haven't found the one". People talking with asexuals constantly confuse asexuality with celibacy, or even just flat-out tell asexuals that they're not asexual, as if they know better. Asexuals are even the victims of "corrective" sexual assault and rape, out of some twisted idea that they just don't know what they're missing, and that a non-consensual experience will be anything other than traumatizing.
When people who very clearly don't meet the basic concept of asexuality, let alone a set definition, decide to identify as such, it only gives naysayers more evidence. "Asexuality doesn't exist, see: this other person is 'asexual' but they still want sex!"
And yet identity politics doesn't discourage this. In fact, I've seen many people who outright encourage it! A label is an important tool in self-understanding and self-discovery, and yet a lot of those who subscribe to modern identity politics advocate simply choosing a label based on what sounds good, without actually trying to understand yourself.
And this hurts people in the long run.
Frankly, this is a horrible approach. The problem is that, without a consistent definition, a term loses all meaning. The very point of a label, like any word, is to explain something about what it is attached to. If there are a dozen different explanations for the label, then the label, in effect, means nothing.
For example, let's consider the word "lion". What is a "lion"? If you imagine a lion, you (hopefully) picture a large cat, around the size of a pony when full-grown, with a tan (or white) coat, broad features, and possibly a mane (if male). These are the characteristics of the animal described by the word "lion". (Not to mention a common, shared genetic structure.)
If I were to say that my pet cat were a lion, then that would be wrong. It's okay as a metaphor, but I cannot simply declare my cat to be a lion, because "lion" has a meaning. A black house cat with a narrow face is not a lion, because it doesn't conform to any parts of the definition aside from sharing the feline family, Felidae.
We have the words "lion" or "house cat" to distinguish between them. "There's a house cat about to pounce on you" is adorable. "There's a lion about to pounce on you" means you should run like hell.
Accuracy is similarly important for the labels one uses for people. To use an exaggerated example, it would be foolish to argue that a man who wants to have sex with women, and doesn't want to have sex with men, is "homosexual". It doesn't matter how they "identify", what matters is the meaning of the word, and that meaning is that the person has a certain sexual preference.
Although this may be an extreme example, it also holds true for something with a less clear definition, such as asexuality. For many of us asexuals, we want to understand ourselves, and also in what ways we are different. For this, we need a solid line to start at, and a solid line to end at, or else what "is" and what "is not" cannot be known. This attempt at understanding is exactly why the asexual community ascribes to such extreme reductionism (as I have discussed previously).
People who arbitrarily "identify" as asexual (or trans, or anything else) without meeting a proper definition, however, simply muddy the water. I've heard about people who "identify" as asexual, and then actively pursue one-night stands in bars. While sexual behavior is not, in of itself, against the definition of asexuality, desiring it for its own sake pretty much is.
But according to identity politics, if such a person decides to identify as "asexual" because they either don't understand that "asexual" doesn't mean "not looking for sex at this moment", or simply because they want to be a special snowflake, then we should consider that person to be asexual. We should consider this house cat to be a lion, if it says it's a lion.
But then when the next person comes and asks, "I actively try to have sex and want sex, but I don't want it quite as much as other people... Am I asexual?" How should you answer? Should you answer "no" because they are well over the carefully measured line that the definition has established, or should you answer "yes" because other people who identify as asexual arbitrarily meet the same definition as the new person?
If one house cat calls itself a lion, should every house cat therefore be considered a lion? Or should they each have the choice of whether someone should call them a house cat or a lion? For one who honestly wants to know what they are, this is entirely unhelpful, and only makes everything more confusing in an already difficult period of self-exploration.
And further, it makes the lives of the asexual community more difficult when interacting with the outside world, too. The world at large frequently refuses to believe that asexuality exists. Asexuals have to constantly deal with being told "it's just a phase" or "you just haven't found the one". People talking with asexuals constantly confuse asexuality with celibacy, or even just flat-out tell asexuals that they're not asexual, as if they know better. Asexuals are even the victims of "corrective" sexual assault and rape, out of some twisted idea that they just don't know what they're missing, and that a non-consensual experience will be anything other than traumatizing.
When people who very clearly don't meet the basic concept of asexuality, let alone a set definition, decide to identify as such, it only gives naysayers more evidence. "Asexuality doesn't exist, see: this other person is 'asexual' but they still want sex!"
And yet identity politics doesn't discourage this. In fact, I've seen many people who outright encourage it! A label is an important tool in self-understanding and self-discovery, and yet a lot of those who subscribe to modern identity politics advocate simply choosing a label based on what sounds good, without actually trying to understand yourself.
And this hurts people in the long run.
Comments
Post a Comment