Labels are important things. They are words that tell us something about the person, place, thing, or idea they are applied to. They are a needed part of language. They make it possible to say things in a few words (such as saying "Fred is a Communist") that would otherwise require a lengthy explanation (explaining the details of Fred's political beliefs).

The anti-labelist movement has eroded the usefulness of many words, and it is moving on to taint even more. For example, when I've been in the hospital, I've told the staff I'm a vegetarian. It is very common for them to then bring me fish or chicken, because the last vegetarian ate chicken and fish. I have to explain to them that the person who ate the chicken was not a vegetarian. They were a meat eater. They were an omnivore. They still have control over their labels, if they wanted to be a vegetarian they could simply stop eating meat. Their choice is made by their actions.

Likewise, lesbians spent a long time getting it through the minds of straight men that "lesbian" meant "I'm not going to sleep with you". However, now that a great many bisexuals claim to be "lesbians", insist on being called "lesbians", the term has become meaningless. Again, no one is forcing a label on them by calling them bisexuals. They choose their labels through their actions, and if they are constantly sexually pursuing men, they are not lesbians. Again, the choice of the label lies in the actions.

Of course anything having to do with anti-labelism is going to come back to gender. Gender can be defined medically (a doctor may need to know the status of a person's body regardless of that persons self-identity) or it can be defined socially (as pertains to a person living in or working towards living in a specific gender role.) The former definition is based on physiology and the latter is based on action. Both labels have their uses, the medical label when dealing with medical professionals, the social label (defined by action) when dealing with everyone else.

The anti-labelists are arbitrary in what is acceptable to label someone. I can label Bush an idiot, even though I doubt he self-identifies as an idiot. I can call Trent Lott a racist even though he denies being one. Interestingly enough, some of the most hard-core anti-labelists will regularly violate their own position with statements such as "you cannot be pro-life and call yourself a feminist". The anti-labelist position only serves to muddy the waters for everyone, including anti-labelists themselves.

In short: People choose their labels through action not proclamation.

gacked from many:

If you've seen over 70, you have no life. Number the ones you've seen. Post your score and feel like a loser.

( movie list )

Grand total: 63

Other than the inherant bias of the person who picked the moives and the absurdity of the idea that watching particular movies makes one a loser, this survey is biased against people who have lived longer and therefore have had more time to watch movies. While still being ridiculous, it would be better if the question at top were changed to "Number the ones you've seen in the past five years.". This would probably neccisate a lowering of the critical number, but at least make it more of a gauge of recent movie watching habits.

How I would respond to the NOW Reader Survey Fall 2001 if I were a member:

In what contexts are the different terms gender and sex useful?

In a totally objective sense, the terms are only relevant when discussing reproduction and health. However, we do not have an objective existence, we have a subjective existence. In our subjective existence the terms take on much more meaning. Gender and sex describe where one fits into society, and therefore becomes more a than biological descriptions. In fact, biological sex does not have to correlate to ones gender identification in society.

Gender and sex are used for purpose of oppression and forced conformity, but don't have to be abandoned in order to become free of oppression and forced conformity. Gender and sex can be separated from oppression and conformity by accepting that one's gender identification is not related to how that person conforms to certain ideals but what fits best with what they already are inside.

In what way do gender assumptions conflict with who you are?

Gender assumptions conflict with who I am in many ways. They assume that my analytical skills are deteriorated by the fact that I have estrogen pumping through my veins. They assume that I will not stand up and fight for what I believe in, and if I do I'm just being "pushy". They assume that I cannot take care of myself without a man. They assume I even want a man. They assume too much, and I reject them.

In what ways are the terms "gender rights" or "gender studies" helpful and/or harmful?

In the perfect world, "gender rights" and "gender studies" would have no place. Unfortunately we live in a non-perfect world where there is quite a large amount of gender-based oppression. In this non-perfect world gender rights are something that need to be fought for and people need to research gender studies to find out both how we got where we are and how we can get to a more equitable state of affairs.

What aspects of this issue are most relevant to NOW and its members?

Gender and sex are at the heart of why NOW exists in the first place. The issue is entirely relevant to NOW and its members.

What are your other thoughts on this subject?

We need to work towards a world where male and female and all shades in-between are treated equitably and fairly. This is a lofty goal given the current and historic state of things, but not an impossible one.