Hacker News Reader

Comment by gardenhedge | Hacker News Reader

Not labeling myself was something I figured out at 15/16. One thing I've never figured out it why people label themselves.

View on HN

Isn’t “someone who doesn’t label oneself whereas other people do” a label? :)

If everyone's default state is unlabled, then no, not labeling yourself isn't a label.

It's not, though. You're given all kinds of labels as you go through life whether you want it or not. If you don't act on that, you're accepting the defaults. That doesn't mean there are no labels on you.

No, not everyone is labeled by default. Labels are used to describe or identify a person or group, and not everyone uses or identifies with labels. Some people may choose to use labels to describe themselves or their experiences, while others may not feel that any existing labels accurately reflect who they are. It is ultimately up to each individual to decide whether or not they want to use labels to describe themselves or their experiences.

>> "No, not everyone is labeled by default."

Boy, girl, man, woman. Success, failure, virgin, slut, ice queen. Creep.

I'm sure you've labeled others with at least one and possibly been labeled with one you weren't happy about that didn't fit your identity. There are so many more and you use them without thinking.

You've taken this discussion off course by discussing given labels.

If you decide to self label as a 'creep' or 'success' then it's relevant to this thread's discussion. If people just decide to label you as a 'creep' or 'success' then it's not relevant.

Everyone is labeled by default. Unless you weren't assigned a gender at birth, don't have a skin color, don't have sexual preferences, didn't have an economic situation you grew up in, didn't have a family with either single parents or multiple payments, etc etc

Labels can be both self-imposed and given. A self-imposed label is one that a person chooses to use to describe themselves or their experiences. For example, someone might choose to use the label "vegan" to describe their dietary habits because they feel that it accurately reflects their values and beliefs. On the other hand, a given label is one that is applied to a person or group by someone else. For example, a teacher might use the label "gifted" to describe a student who excels in a particular subject. In this case, the label is not chosen by the student, but is applied to them by the teacher.

You're missing the point of the article by discussing given labels.

I use the label queer as a self selected one. (Not self imposed, it's not an impression.)

Queer is not the same as LGBTQ+ (queer is more overly political). My identity is both given and self selected.

It's a factual description.

It's like tolerance of everything except intolerance.

Does that make you intolerant, ot is it semantic wordplay used to confuse and befuddled?

Edit: Just noticed, PG said it better, unsurprisingly. FTA:

> There may be some things it's a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist. But arguably that is more of a placeholder than an actual label—like putting NMI on a form that asks for your middle initial—because it doesn't commit you to believing anything in particular. A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a biblical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he's committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.

"I don't label myself" - person who labels self with not labeling self.

Labels are useful for finding community. This becomes more essential the less popular or the more marginalized you or parts of you are.

You could, in theory, make a label out of not labeling yourself but that isn't what we're talking about.

I can see how labels are useful for finding community. One potential negative of using labels to find a community is that labels can be exclusive. For example, a label like "LGBTQ+" may exclude people who do not identify as part of that community, even if they have similar experiences or interests. This can create a sense of exclusion and may prevent people from finding the support and connection they are looking for.

LGBTQ+ (and variations) are more category than label. We combine our powers because we're all too tiny to deal with all the labels and violence foisted upon us alone. Whether you can choose one of the labels is a matter of debate within the category. For most of us, it's like breathing air for the first time: "oh, I'm not alone in this. Other people feel this way, and they've fought all these battles so I don't have to start from 0." To choose it without that experience is kind of weird, but I don't personally have a problem with it in most cases.

A hundred percent this. I'm not a lesbian, but I'm going to the mat if needed to protect lesbians. We protect us.

LGBTQ+ can be used as a self-imposed label. Why not?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com