Sure, but overdoing it and confusing labels and abstractions with the things they represent can also keep a human from being more aware of the world and their deeds in it. I gladly reject the label "women in tech", but mostly because I actually do reject the label "tech" (and all stemming from that) to begin with, that's an umbrella so huge as to be meaningless. It's like "business", yeah I know what it is, just like I know what "technology" means, for any sensible use of these words, there's a million occurances where it's just padding at best, a cloak at worst, precisely a tool to not accurately model the real world, but a platonic simplified one that is easier to navigate than the infinitely fuzzy mess reality is.
> Sure, but overdoing it and confusing labels and abstractions with the things they represent can also keep a human from being more aware of the world and their deeds in it.
Sure, abstractions are not the underlying reality, the map is not the territory, and the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. That doesn't mean that it is necessary to “reject all labels” as a fundamental requirement for inclusiveness, or even that rejecting all labels is useful or even possible given the way human minds work. It certainly means we need to understand that all labels obscure as well as explain, and understand where each is useful and where each is counterproductive.
But that's not what the blog post in question is arguing, or if it is intended to be it is not argued well.
When someone says "reject labels", I basically hear "don't think primarily in terms of them". I didn't take it as "don't ever speak it", but more "don't put it front, middle and last, 24/7". I can imagine it can be annoying/exhausting, part of feeling welcome is the understanding that it's perfectly normal for one to be there, I think.
> When someone says "reject labels", I basically hear "don't think primarily in terms of them".
I've yet to see a reason to believe that complex thought or communication is practical among humans, other than through manipulation of labels for abstractions over the underlying subject matter, so that doesn't change my objection to the argument one bit. You can recognize the limitations of the models underlying labels and be careful in choosing models (and thereby, relevant labels) that you have reason to believe are useful for the specific purpose and recognize that you're still subject to imperfect results in the best case, but labels are, ultimately, universally essential.
And that certainly doesn't mean you can't reject the utility of particular labels and their underlying model, either in general or for particular uses, but that doesn't get you to “reject all labels” much less that you must do so as a prerequisite for inclusiveness.
