My vision of the queer–poly blend goes beyond just promoting, celebrating, or exposing additional identities or additional categories. Though this is a noble goal, eventually we may find that we are exhausted at adding one more letter in long acronyms such as LGBTQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual) and we may begin to find the root cause for the need to create such extensive labeling systems in the first place.
Why is it important for the exposition of modes of living and loving which run counter to dominant systems of thought? If we can begin to dig into that question, then we, as a human race, will be closer to what feminist rhetoric is after. We will begin to “become increasingly aware of the identities we privilege to the exclusion of others” (K. J. Rawson, 2010, p. 46)—and, in that rising cognitive awareness, we will become to understand how language is either in service of violence/oppression/privilege/exclusion or in the service of peace/freedom/equality/diversity. Though this may, at first, raise the cautionary red flags of those who mistrust binary systems, I offer the insight that, in some contexts, viewing the world through a binary lens might, sometimes, have productive ends. There are times for viewing things in a more fluid or unitary way. And then there are other times when a binary system allows for more clear-cut thinking. In a sense, a binary framework can allow us to ask the sometimes important question of: Are you on this side or that side? It allows us to, for a moment at least, figure out which direction we want to move in. This way or that way? That way or this? It gives us the much-needed (temporary) energy to get our bearings and move forward. Sometimes, a binary can help us cut through the myriad directions and hone in on a (temporarily) single path.