Microlabel - Tumblr Posts

Microlabels aren't a thing. They are just labels. Some peoples identity’s are complicated and/or need a lot of labels to explain. Stfu about microlabels because telling me I'm over analyzing and labeling my identity because I'm more than a trans man or gay. I don't care if your saying that microlabels are ok calling them microlabels is fucking stupid. Let people live and use as many words as they need and want to describe their identity.

I say this but also any labels are an attempt to categorise queer people so that cishets feel comfortable and can understand us, and because we are forced to view everything, including ourselves through a cishet viewpoint we feel the need to label ourselves which is kind of fucked. Queer people don't need cishet approval. Queer people don't need to explain themselves

Actus-sexual: a term for those who only feel significant sexual attraction while sexually active. Often requires a defined sexual relationship to begin feeling attraction, but is not limited to that specific partner, actus-sexuals will feel attraction to other people while they are in a relationship. They will often feel less asexual while in a relationship, and more asexual when not. For me, I feel almost no attraction when not partnered, but almost allosexual when partnered. This term may be preferred by polyamourous people, but monogamous people may also resonate. Derived from the latin root actus - active, a doing

This term can also be used for aromantics, an actus-romantic may feel little to no romantic attraction unless they are actively in a romantic relationship, but their attraction can now be felt for people other than their partner.

Tgirl Moans about Labels

Despite the title, I'm going to be moaning about microlabels (and briefly, pansexuality); however, you should be aware that I DO NOT think less of people that use obscure neo pronouns or labels.

Why we use labels

Labels like "gay" and "straight" indicate the scope of your attraction. Homosexual & Homo romantic create a distinction that clarifies the nature of your attraction. They help adequately and simply communicate who we are while also allowing people of our likeness to realise there's others like them— the inclusive element.

How do microlabels get in the way

If you ask me, some microlabels border on hyper specific obscurity that either communicates information that isn't necessary (from the outside looking in), or the information that is supplementary and better falls under "your type" or personality traits.

As an example, I have a friend that was looking for a label that encompasses them, as a bi person that only liked feminine expressing (not indentifying) people. Why does that need a label? That is deadass just your type. You like girly girls and femboys.

If we make hyper-specific labels for every aspect of ourselves, we will struggle to fit in anywhere because our label becomes far more individualistic than inclusive— it gets isolating in a way.

Moreover, people change. Your hyper-specific label might be invalidated by a single event that alters the way you think and feel. Then, you're stuck trying to find or craft a whole new obscure label.

When you finally figure that out, you gotta hope and pray people discover it, recognise it, understand it, and use it.

Pansexual's take on pan

I used to identity as pansexual but decided it didn't feel quite right. Not because of me, but because of the identity itself. But why?

Pan does whatever the plot requires

I liken pansexuality to a poorly explained fictional power. The scope and nature is never outlined by the story, so to the reader, the power seems to work (and fails to work) whenever it is convenient for the plot.

Pansexuality isn't a grounded label that every member of the community views the same way— to a worse extent than terms like Gay or Lesbian (more on that later).

In high school, lgbt friends described pan as being "bi with extra steps." Others have claimed pan is just bi with a minor somantic difference. Some people say that pan is just being bi but also being inclusive for trans people. From my understanding, pansexuality was an attraction not based on sex/gender. Personally, I think that idea makes pan more of a microlabel than a sexuality.

With that last concept of pan, it doesn't actually communicate a sexuality (i.e, who and how you're attracted to someone (or not in the case of asexuals)). Instead, it communicates details about the sexuality. It's like if I asked you who your friend is, and you told me that they play Pokémon. It's nice to know that detail ABOUT them, but that doesn't tell me WHO they are.

Based on the aforementioned idea of pan. You could theoretically be sexually/romantically available for members of all sexes, or a singular sex. But, just saying "I'm pan" fails to communicate which is the case.

Gay and Lesbian

When I was growing up, Gay and Lesbian fell under "homosexual." An attraction to the same-sex. Personally, I prefer the idea that it denotes attraction to the same gender. But, that's the newer take.

As a trans girl, I don't think it's fair to tell an older lesbian she's transphobic for claiming her lesbian status as a reason not to date a trans woman— why? Because, to her knowledge, that's NOT what the label means.

In that kinda situation no one is right. The use of the labels isn't actually universal and that creates in-fighting and division.

If you ask me, the entire damn system needs to reworked.. and no I did not write this entire thing with nothing in mind.

Where is your system

As I said, I do have something in mind.

THEN SHOW ME

but, I'd like to see if this post gets me slandered or something crazy first 🥲