Read on Twitter
I've been seeing some people say that microlabels in LGBT+ are harmful, and I would like to explain why I think they're not, a thread:
To begin, microlabels are any term under an already identified umbrella. Omnisexual, agender, genderfluid, and even pansexual are all (1/6)
To begin, microlabels are any term under an already identified umbrella. Omnisexual, agender, genderfluid, and even pansexual are all (1/6)
Considered microlabels (ML). Some umbrella terms are Gay, Bisexual, and Trans. So lets take my personal identity for example. I could describe myself as trans. I am nonbinary, so that would be under the trans umbrella, making it a microlabel. You can go even further and say (2/6)
Genderfluid, which is under the nonbinary umbrella, which is under the trans umbrella. All of those terms to describe my identity are correct, but 2 of them are considered microlabels. I like to think of them as adjectives instead. For example, imagine a ball. Now imagine a (3/6)
Red ball. Now imagine a red beach ball, or a red bouncy ball. Each time I add an adjective, the picture becomes clearer, so each time I use a "microlabel" all I'm doing is making my personal identity a little more clear and understandable. There are some people who argue (4/6)
That these labels are harmful, they are transphobic/biphobic or maybe just plain confusing. I don't expect everyone to know or understand the labels I have chosen for myself, and most of the time I'll just tell people I'm nonbinary and not get into details, but I don't (5/6)
Think it's harmful for people to have a better understanding of themselves. In fact, it usually helps others with similar feelings figure out a little more too. I wouldve not explored my identity if it werent for others sharing their personal identifiers. Hope this helps! (6/6)
P.S. Gender and sexual identity are MASS spectrums. You cant expect every queer person to be able to fit neatly into a couple of catagories. It's more harmful to keep peoples identities boxed up.
