Language is a convenient shorthand which allows us to rapidly make ourselves (usually not mis-) understood.

I’ve run into the atheist-who-could-be-convinced-by-er-y’know-evidence one. One solution I tried was to call myself an agnostïatheist (not sure if the etymology of that works!) to emphasise that my position may not fall into the category the listener understands by ‘atheist’. Perhaps making up words rather than adopting pre-existing terms with preconceptions pre-attached is one way forward, though made-up words can sound anything from absurdly pedantic (like agnostïatheist) to silly (as made-up words often sound: I give you jabberwocky).

The other problem is that there are a lot of idiots who do not go to the bother of understanding a position more nuanced than a cursory inspection indicates to them.

I’m afraid that I am one of the people that would classify someone else’s use of a label as wrong, in certain situations. Language, to me, is a way of defining and quantifying our experience of the world and so when wishing to pass on our experiences to an unexperienced party the terms must be either commonly understood or clearly explained. e.g.; If A is telling B about C then A must use terms that mean the same to A as they do to B (though not necessarily those that C would either use or agree with), however if B is talking directly with C then the terms used are inconsequential as B is ‘experiencing’ C directly and not relying upon an interpretation through a common language with common definitions.

Better example? An English-speaker describes to a Russian-speaker the English countryside through an interpreter, or the English-speaker takes the Russian-speaker to the English country side: if the terms used are precise, clear and agreed upon then the first option can work but the second option will work without such a caveat.
***
Perhaps the term for an atheist who could be persuaded by reasoning could be scientist?

However, I’m sticking to my position that a lot of these labels are for the convenience of others, not a form of self-expression.

F’rinstance, if I choose to describe my relationship structure as ‘polyamorous’ rather than ’slutty commitment-shy ho-bag’, that’s ok because people will still understand what I mean. If I decide to self-identify as ’single’ despite my two boyfriends, other people will have inaccurate expectations about the amount of free time I have, my possible receptiveness to a monogamous relationship etc etc.

Similarly someone saying they identify as a woman, or not, might lead you to ask better questions about how your sex life might go, or how they would prefer to be referred to. If you can manage not to make assumptions in the first place, hurrah, but often labels are cues to others to think before they put their foot in things. Telling other people who you really are is difficult and sometimes using unexpected labels might make them question assumptions they’ve made about you. As long as you’re not expected to use someone else’s invented language the whole time you’re with them, it can be appropriate to relax the strict definitions you have in your head for the words they are using, if it facilitates understanding of what the person actually means by their use of them. It’s all about trying to understand each other.

Matt, yeah, I think there are situations where people just use the wrong words. Self-identity is a toughie though because it can be very personal. I think telling someone e.g. “you can’t call yourself a lesbian because you sleep with men” would be said by someone with a fair understanding of the word ‘lesbian’ but a failed understanding of how people work.

Overall, I think people should take the time to explain themselves properly instead of getting offended when their unfamiliar labels are misunderstood. Also, people should take the time to ask the right questions to get underneath what someone means when they use such a label.

Take time for people, people.

I think the smallest heap has 4 grains, 1 on top of 3. I think it’s about shape, not quantity. But I’m probably not looking at the problem the right way! Of course everything has fuzzy boundaries, few things moreso than language.

Incidentally I really like ‘Jabberwocky’.