The best language shifts over time. Case in point, the above picture, which I snagged from a post about Images of Early Gay Rights Movement on Sociological Images. The phrase “sexual preferences” seems antiquated and awkwardly wrong (because there may be a gaps among preference, desire, and behavior), just as there are certainly words that are cutting-edge awesome today that will seem misguided to future generations.

To this end, two similar-but-different conversations about language and my identities. I think I’ve been so smothered with identity politics that generally when people try to have conversations with me about what precisely I identify as, I mostly just want to throw up all over them instead of giving a list of identities I claim. I am an awesomely unique snowflake and I cannot be contained by words! But still, words are important, even if in that gag-reflex tripping way (obviously I am conflicted about this).

This past week, in the midst of conversations about Iowa and Vermont and DC and marriage equality (which I think is awesome, though I’d much rather see marriage separated from the law), I’ve been watching language very closely: “gay marriage” is all about the gays, while “same sex marriage” is inclusive of bisexuals. However, whenever I bring this up, I feel like I’m being stupid and nit-picky. After all, we’re talking about the big picture here. I’m sensitive to this difference because of my whatchamacallit identity, bisexual. Or whatever. It’s not really a big deal, right? Why do I feel awkward and irritating when I bring it up?

Contrast this with conversations around gender. Today Anita Wagner posted a link on her Facebook to a bi-phobic Michael Musto piece from his Village Voice blog, in which he talks shit on bisexuals (it’s not real!). See the screenshot of the comments on Anita’s link below:

So like I say in the comments above, sexual orientation and attraction to gender are not precisely the same thing. I’d argue that in most cases, gender presentation is one of the first things that sparks attraction. And gender and sex don’t always match up, not to mention the fact that the gender spectrum, even within relatively unquestioning mainstream vanilla heteros (ie: not all girls like pink), is pretty broad. To take this a step further, in the place where deliciously complex postmodern pervs like myself hone in on gender and give less of a shit about biological sex, things get interesting. I’m not so sure I care to figure out what you call that (other than a party in my pants and brain, which is about what’s up). But it makes “bisexual” seem awfully small, and Anita’s assertion that there are “many, many bisexual people who are clearly drawn to and have partners of both genders” seems wacky too. I sneer at bothness.

But why do I get seriously ornery about the words of binary in the second example, why do I feel fully entitled to be self-righteous and finger waggy, and in the former instance I feel slightly embarrassed to make a fuss? I don’t have an answer to that, but I’m looking for it in language, the structures and assumptions of it all.

So language matters, fact. In what ways? is still the question.