Isn’t “someone who doesn’t label oneself whereas other people do” a label? :)
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.
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.
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.
You're missing the point of the article by discussing given labels.
Queer is not the same as LGBTQ+ (queer is more overly political). My identity is both given and self selected.