Trill Take: Labels Defeat the Point of a Spectrum
Hot take: classifying genders and sexualities into strict categories defeats the purpose of a “spectrum” or concept of “fluidity.”
Identity is interesting. Firstly, it exists purely in the mind. Sure, there are biological and physical factors that can define an identity, but the thing we call identity is relative. Simple example: in India, my father is considered tall, whereas in America, he is considered short. What is the purpose of identity? It can be helpful in order to create more inclusive societies (ex. affirmative action) but it can be divisive as well (ex. political extremes). I am not trying to invalidate your identity. I just want to present the question: are you enclosing yourself in a box without realizing it?
Many people think that we define our identity, but what about when identity defines us? When we identify with something, we tend to conform to it — mold ourselves into that category as neatly as possible. Let’s take bisexuality as an example. The term “bi” implies two, and the default way for us to think of that is in a 50/50 ratio. There seems to be a large group of people who realized that they deviate from conventional straightness, but they also do not believe they are exclusively gay. Because of how sexuality is labeled, they now conclude that they must be bi or pan. Now, once you label yourself as something, you tend to align your behavior with it as well. It’s a common psychological concept. We even saw this in the Stanford Prison Experiment, where students were assigned as either prisoners or guards, and changed their behavior and mental state accordingly. So going back to sexuality, we now have these people who feel the need to be the perfect definition of bi, but in reality, they have a preference for one gender over the other, just not 100% of the time. An example would be male-leaning bisexuals. Instead of 50/50, the ratio could be something more like 98/2.
This brings us to the good old spectrum. “Sexuality is a spectrum.” When you think of the word “spectrum”, do you imagine a line going from left to right? Oftentimes, when we are taught about spectrums, that’s the image we see. In my high school government class, they taught me about the political spectrum: a bar that went from left (progressive) to right (conservative). Many people tend to apply that to gender and sexuality too (ex. straight to gay or female to male). But what if we turn that line into a circle instead?
Of course a circle still has boundaries, but this is simply for visualization purposes. Even our infinite universe is often depicted as a circle. The border simply signifies different extremes. To me, a person could be anywhere on this plane, yet our labels cause us to stick to the borders. When people ask me what my sexuality is, I say “I don’t know. I’m just not straight.” Do you want to hear a hotter take?: I don’t think anyone is 100% straight. There is too much love to explore and too many people we haven’t experienced yet to assume any label.
So when did we get tricked into subscribing to labels? Colonialism is one thing to blame. Before colonialism, many Eastern and indigenous societies had very different ways of looking at gender and sexuality. The East in particular holds a philosophy of “oneness” in which they see any binaries or forms of dualism as an “earthly illusion” as opposed to a reality. In Hinduism, Lord Shiva was often painted as half man, half woman. We also see the “yin and yang” in Chinese culture. The point that this illustrates is that dual energies, such as feminine and masculine or light and dark, are both meant to be embraced. So whether you were a man or a woman, you were aware that you had both masculine and feminine energies. After colonists infiltrated these societies, they imposed Western standards onto the people, disallowing indigenous men to wear skirts and telling women how to be beautiful. This impact is still felt today. For example, Asian American men often feel emasculated because they are seen as more feminine in the Western gaze. However, if you look back in many of their home countries, Asian men are still valid and complete men regardless of “feminine” traits. Let’s take K-Pop as an example.
Many cis, straight, Western men do not understand the appeal for K-Pop men. The most common insult hurled at them is “they look like girls!” Despite this, many non-men adore these K-Pop stars. One big reason is that they appeal to a more “female-centered” gaze. Straight men in the West, however, learn what women want through other males, and thus appeal more to a “male-centered gaze.” Many K-Pop communities also joke around about their K-Pop idols being gay. Hot take: this conception comes from Western gatekeeping of straightness. Of course, a K-Pop idol could be gay, but because of the way Korean men interact with each other, many Western stans jump to conclusions of homosexuality. K-Pop men tend to be more touchy, open, and emotional with each other — traits that are seen as “feminine” or “gay” in the Western gaze. While it’s totally possible that a K-Pop idol is gay, we shouldn’t disregard the the difference in how gayness operates in the East versus in the West.
Though that was a more heteronormative example, it comes back to show how relative everything is — especially gender and sexuality. I don’t think you ever need to label yourself, especially if you’re confused about your identity. In fact, I think the reason identity is confusing is because labels are inherently unnatural because they force us to fit into a box. Of course, labels have helped many people understand and celebrate themselves and their preferences, but remember that you are valid for simply being a human being.
