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.
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?