I’m taking issue with your first example, not your second. There’s a world of difference.
But when people say queer people are obsessed with labels […] what they’re almost certainly taking issue with is non-cisheteronormativity being recognized and validated.
It is being weaponized in that way too. For example, Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro went on rants about asexuality recently, claiming that labels such as demisexual had no basis in reality and described experiences that are common to everyone. If you follow their argument, people become unable to use labels that communicate their preferences and experience.
Even when it isn’t being weaponized, I don’t think you should claim certain labels are unnecessary unless you’ve engaged with the reasoning behind the people who use them and form a reasonable argument that isn’t “back in my day people didn’t have so many labels.”
“Some people are weaponizing that language” is a VERY different statement than “anyone who uses that language is almost certainly weaponizing it”. You’re alienating allies by accusing them if being enemies.
I’m taking issue with your first example, not your second. There’s a world of difference.
This statement I think is incorrect.
It is being weaponized in that way too. For example, Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro went on rants about asexuality recently, claiming that labels such as demisexual had no basis in reality and described experiences that are common to everyone. If you follow their argument, people become unable to use labels that communicate their preferences and experience.
Even when it isn’t being weaponized, I don’t think you should claim certain labels are unnecessary unless you’ve engaged with the reasoning behind the people who use them and form a reasonable argument that isn’t “back in my day people didn’t have so many labels.”
“Some people are weaponizing that language” is a VERY different statement than “anyone who uses that language is almost certainly weaponizing it”. You’re alienating allies by accusing them if being enemies.