I haven't seen anyone cry out for being externally labelled, but rather for the very act of labeling itself.
Then I'll just say that our experiences are very different.
I mean, think about this. When we are talking about non-external labelling we are talking about labels people personally or communally identify with. You are saying that people complain about labels they choose themselves. There are disagreements within groups about labels for those groups, sure, but the vast majority of complaints about labels are when outside groups apply labels that those being referred to don't accept.
Now people complain about other people identifying with labels (hell, that's what you are doing), but I give such complaints far less importance than how a group or person chooses to identify. It's just another form of external groups dictating how people should identify, which is the problem with external labelling in the first place.
Encouraging people to stop basing their identity and treating everyone as separate groups instead of equal individuals is not going to happen if the people acting under these imposed groups reinforce them by accepting them with these labels, and defining their exclusion with more labels.
Different people have different experiences of the world and different needs. Insisting that they shouldn't identify with these differences isn't treating them equally, it's erasing these experiences and needs.
Looking at historical generalizations, seeing the active reduction of man to labels and bringing that into the modern world is not being empathetic, that is earning someone's pity by manipulating their emotions and insecurities. You normalize it, and build in the mind justification for 'good reason' why bad things should continue.
Wait, historic generalizations? That isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about modern labelling of minority groups in both social and legal contexts. The insistence among some people that their outgroup labels for minorities are just fine to use, regardless of how those groups see the label. The practice of lawmakers, medical officials and others defining groups and their needs without input from those groups. These things are hardly historic, even if they are slowly improving.
And honestly, if you view using a trivial injustice to bring attention and understanding to these greater injustices as emotional manipulation then I have no problem with any of that. Call me evil.
Perpetuating this shallow generalization is the basis of discrimination.
To extend the limit of your individuality to your basest attributes is to deny your individuality.
OK, where did I or anyone suggest such a thing? Has anyone ever suggested such a thing?
It is easy to define sexuality, gender and race with words. This is fine. Yet you, and far too many like you then conflate these things with labels, which are immorally used to define a person's very being.
I don't suppose you could clearly define the difference between a morally sound word that describes the shared attributes of a group of people and an immoral label that defines a person's very being for me, could you?
Our experiences are rather different. Where I have been and seen this, people say "stop labeling me." They don't say; "stop labeling me," then label themselves. If you have never met, known or been someone who's used labels to degrade themselves, or have had labels they define their character with used to hurt them, I wouldn't be surprised. Yet you do not need this to have happened to understand and empathize with those who have had it happen, this is no 'trivial injustice,' as you put it.
I don't suppose you could clearly define the difference between a morally sound word that describes the shared attributes of a group of people and an immoral label that defines a person's very being for me, could you?
There
are no words that are evil. A useful adjective adds to conversations. Where you are wrong is in that you believe it is necessary to define people with labels, and define them as labelled groups.
The easiest way to demonstrate how this is done is easy. Look at racism; what is it? You look at a characteristic possessed by a race and you make the assumption and generalization that all who constitute that race hold that characteristic.
Jewish for example, is a moderately useful adjective. Not the most important adjective in the English language, yet it still has a meaning. Calling someone Jewish is a far way away from simply calling someone Jew. Or in the more modern Western case, white people as whites and black people as a thousand variations of POC, blacks, negros e.t.c.
If someone is transgender, you would say they are transgender. Likewise, the internet counterpart cisgender. But when you use that descriptive to define someone's very being, you are reducing them to a gender, a sexuality, to differences skin deep. That is what it means to label someone.
And honestly, if you view using a trivial injustice to bring attention and understanding to these greater injustices as emotional manipulation then I have no problem with any of that. Call me evil.
This is no trivial injustice, we are all interdependent on one another. Perpetuating this shallow generalization is the basis of discrimination.