05 Mar 2025 5 min read LGBTQ+

The Paradox of Labels: Do Identity Categories Unite or Divide?

Do the Words We Use to Define Ourselves Bring Us Closer or Push Us Apart?

Part 1—Pushing Boundaries

As humans, we use the gift of language to define and categorize, giving structure to our perceptions of the world.

We use words to describe words. This is something of a paradox as evidenced by how the meaning of words changes over time or become unfashionable, and we even borrow words from other languages to capture the Zeitgeist of meaning embedded in time and culture.

Over 2,500 years ago, even the Tao Te Ching suggested that words and labels are only representations. In verse one, the first stanza is often translated as,

The Way (or Tao) that can be followed (named, put into words) is not the eternal Way (Tao). The name that can be named is not the eternal (constant) name.

In other words, that which can be labeled and identified is limited by its definition and is only an idea. For example, just as we can categorize objects like bricks by their size, material, and colour, we also categorize and label people by their identities. However, the more categories we create and the ever-increasing variety of labels we use to self-identify, the greater the possibility of separation from what connects us all: our common humanity.

“Attribution of names is the matrix of myriad things.” (1)

No one really cares if a brick is brown, red, yellow, or white, unless someone accidentally uses one wrong colour to brick up a wall. While bricks remain indifferent to labels, people often internalize identity labels, shaping how they see themselves and others. The challenge is that an excess of self-identifying labels can deepen division instead of connection because we have to work harder to define and justify our difference—paradoxically as still belonging.

What I’m not saying is that categories like BIPOC or LGBTQ+ are bad.

I categorize myself—wholeheartedly—as being part of the LGBTQ+ community.

What I am saying is that we need to be clear and certain in our understanding of why we are seeking more differentiation and if that might be at the expense of connection and community.

Prejudiced people only see what fits their prejudices. (2)

Those who seek power and control over others understand all too well how to use labels and categories as forms of oppression, polarization, and prejudice.

It’s easy to convince a group of people with deep-seated prejudices to only see what aligns with their biases, and reject everything else outside their restrictive worldview. However, when we realize and accept that we are all one, that we share universal commonality, the diversity of labels becomes unnecessary and limiting at best. It is much harder to foster prejudice when there is less rigid separation and egocentric differentiation between identities.

The more we diversify and create labels, identities, and sub-identities, the more we must ask: how does this impact our shared humanity?

How much of our collective power do we give away if we are constantly distracted by our difference, having to label and categorize each individual?

“Therefore let there always be non-being, so we may see their subtlety.” (3)

If our goal is to create real freedom and equity for our common humanity, are we hindering progress by hyper-focusing on identity categories? Advocating for a better humanity is a collective endeavour, which doesn’t mean that we exclude people based on their identity. Only when people from diverse backgrounds unite for equitable human rights and freedoms do we see how little our identity differences truly matter.

Part 2—An Epilogue, But Not a Conclusion

The question “Do we need so many labels?” is one that can put people on the defensive.

To wit, I identify as both gay and queer, and I recognize how that can be confusing. What follows are the contemplations that were going through my mind this morning—having given myself a day to ponder what I wrote in part 1—a further exposition on the challenge of multiple labels and categories.

The proliferation of labels and categories themselves are not the issue.

We give those abstract manifestations of our perceptions meaning. We organize those orthographic symbols to represent what we perceive and think, and a method for others to understand what we are attempting to communicate.

While labels themselves are neutral, the challenge arises when they are weaponized—turned into tools of division rather than expressions of confidence, pride, and living authentically.

This becomes a vicious cycle for the oppressed.

When an overpowering group or bully pushes down, the response is either submission or resistance. The latter reinforces the boundaries and definition of identity – one that is proudly proclaimed and publicly owned. Yet, to substantiate, to empower one’s identity in an environment that’s unwelcoming or dangerous, often requires a stronger, clearer definition of self actualization:

This is who I am and that is who I am not!

You are for me or against me!

Even within a broader identity group like 2SLGBTQIA+, individuals may not experience identity in the same way.

Intersectionality reveals how layers of identity and social structures create unique challenges for each person.

A Two-Spirit person may align with some issues and challenges faced by a non-binary or trans person, but each of those named will have their own unique challenges. When a marginalized group of identities prioritizes one single identity as more important or deserving (which typically results in infighting or ‘eating our own’), we witness the precariousness of parity.

What’s worse is when political or religious dictators identify a threat to normative society via the letter of an initialism like BIPOC or 2SLGBTQIA+(because those who have so clearly identified as such have made themselves acutely visible).

How else can those on the ‘margins’ be otherwise seen, recognized, understood, accepted, and allowed to become their full selves without hiding any part of who they are?

The nature and challenge of parity

It is not the words, labels, or the identities are the problem. It is the iniquities that will always exist because of the push-and-pull and the give-and-take that is perceived by those who are considered less than ‘normal people’ and feel even more oppressed when ‘one of us’ gets more respect and parity than others.

Perhaps we must recognize the simple truth: disparity is not static, and neither is parity.

Parity is a balancing act. Human rights and equity are like a teeter-totter that rocks up and down, dependent upon the weight of each person playing on opposite sides. It is the willingness of each side to joyfully and respectfully seek balance, knowing full well that at any moment, balance is ephemeral.

The way forward is not a simplistic notion of equality; that’s an illusion.

The only viable path is the realization that equity—not equality—is the only constant. But equity isn’t automatic; it must be consciously cultivated and deliberately maintained.