Note taken! And clarification given:

[I have stronger opinions and much more thought and energy vested in our other conversation, but I will reply to this one first because it shall take less time. A reply to the other is pending within the next few days.]

Labels can be used within the context of discussion with no harm done, but this is best accomplished when the participants of that discussion have already established the nature of the diversity within the diverse-relative-to-broader-society group of people to whom they are referring.

The danger lies in that when one begins using labels in any other context, they start to carry unintended connotations and biases that distort the message received by the [new] audience relative to the speaker's original intent.

I don't see where my aversion to usage of labels would have any bearing on my opinion of B4U-ACT. In fact, if I remember correctly, they use relatively neutral language (or at least what you relate about them does) such as MAA instead of "pedophile". If MAA is a great moderately neutral term that can describe a group of people concerned with a common issue, then why can't AAM (adult-attracted-minor) serve perfectly well for them also? Or perhaps YAA and AAY, since the word "minor" carries connotations also.

Yes, those are labels also, but they are made up of three relatively neutral words that have indisputable meanings. Ideally, any discussion employing these terms takes a few moments to establish that other characteristics of YAAs (or AAYs) can not be assumed.

My personal experience leaves me with few examples of labels having positive impacts, and several poignant examples of labels and label-related thinking having negative impacts. But I strive to remember that my experience is not in any way representative of all peoples', and so I acknowledge that there may be present and historical situations where labels are having positive impacts for people.

So, I retract any support that I may have unintentionally assumed or communicated for a general anti-label position, but retain my support that umbrella labels for folks like all of us here at GC, or for any number of diverse young people who incidentally happen to be primarily attracted to older persons are not useful or helpful. Instead, I believe that a society which truly accepts "diversity" does not merely tolerate differences while putting up categorical divisions between people, but understands and relates to the world using a very broad and complete understanding about the full range of human desires and expressions. People will understand such phenomena as romantic love and sexual love across a very broad range in multiple dimensions - psychology and neuroscience will show us that it really is the same parts of the brain and the same chemicals at work regardless of whether the lovers are same or different in gender, skin color, physical maturity, emotional maturity, intellect, and other areas. Sure, the actual manifestation of various loving relationships may show any manner of differences in the details - which may even be correlated with certain physical characteristics of the participants, i.e. some at this board have suggested girl lovers are inclined to certain positive parent-like ways of communicating and demonstrating love - but because we understand that the essential underlying forces in love and relationships are all aspects of simply being human, we don't have any need to mentally or physically compartmentalize subgroups. The only group is "us", and it's "humans who love", which is darn near EVERYONE, given a proper chance.

Of course, there remain some people for whom expression and receipt of love remains a challenge, or for whom other aspects of human nature conflict with this, and as a result there are many instances of relationships that don't go well and have negative consequences for one or both participants. Humans are far from perfect, and that will always remain true. As far as I know, such cases are equally distributed across all of the labeled subgroups of sexual orientation. Not having those labels can remove the temptation to associate one set of negative actions by certain troubled individuals with an entire group merely because they happen to share a label.

(If my thinking is not coherent or balanced here, I apologize - but thank you for responding as it has encouraged me to develop my thinking on this subject further than I might have otherwise!)