you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 131 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (47 children)

As a queer person, extending the acronym past what is necessary feels like pandering in the best light, and purposely trying to bait ridicule in the worst. The whole point of LGBT was to include anyone on the spectrum that was gay or trans, and the Q was supposed to include anyone who considers themselves queer, even if they don't meed those parameters. I can understand wanting to include I because intersex people are often left out of the conversation, and I even understand A because there is a lot of debate even within the LGBTQ community itself as to whether asexuals are considered queer or not. But when you start incorporating numbers, symbols, or extending past 5 letters within the acronym, you are defeating the purpose of having an acronym, creating confusion, baiting ridicule, and even making people not explicitly represented in the acronym feel excluded.

And there is already a single, all encompassing, inclusive, one syllable word that describes the community and all who occupy it: "Queer." It's easier to say, remember, and hell, even type if you are typing LGBTQ past 5 letters. But because of it being appropriated and used as a slur, there are many even within the community who are even afraid to utter it, let alone identify with it. Which is a god damned shame there is nothing inherently wrong the word, cause even in its original meaning, it meant someone who was outside the norm or otherworldly, and in literature has been used to describe characters like Gandalf, and characters in Shakespeare.

It describes me without having to explain or justify how or why. It describes how I feel as a person, how others see me, how I interact and relate to others. Its an adjective that can be verbed and adverbed. It's sharp and provocative, yet also warm and natural, like a forest green. People who have adopted and embraced the word for themselves feel the love within the word, and can extend it to others. And even for those outside the community, those who are brave enough to use it when talking in our defense come off as more decisive and confrontational, than the person who thinks adding another letter or number to the acronym will make them seem more legitimate.

It's time we stop fearing our word. It's time we recognize the difference between queer as an insult, and queer as a description of who we are, and we need to extend that to people who are willing to talk about us and our struggles or come to our defense. The word is only as evil as we are willing to reject it, and I will be dead in the ground before I let our word be the domain of queerphobes and bigots.

edit: It's late and I'm going to bed. Apparently some people think I'm a self hating queer for thinking the acronym should be dropped for an all inclusive term, and so be it. It's late and I want to get some sleep. And a lot of the people making this argument I know haven't read past the first paragraph, much less to here. Anything clarification they could want can be found here and in my other posts here. Otherwise, if they are not going to put in the effort to read, I'm not going to put in the effort to respond.

edit 2: I wanted to make a separate inclusion because I have had a chance to sleep and cool off, and I wanted to address some of the more combative posts in my replies: I get it. We as a community suffer attacks constantly, even from within the community, so I understand why so many here are on guard and skeptical of my intentions. And I'll admit, my post probably could be better written. I'm not exactly the best at articulating my thoughts. But the point of my post is not to exclude anyone from the community, but rather embrace a word that includes everyone. I would like to hear counterpoints to my argument, because maybe what I need is a different perspective on the issue. I would love to hear from people who prefer the acronym, and why they feel it maybe more inclusive. I am a flawed human being with many faults. I grew up in a conservative background, and my life up to this point has been trying to unlearn a lot of that. But I did not write this with the intention of excluding or singling out anyone. Forgive me I have done so.

  • source
  • hideshow 59 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Indeed.. all extending the acronym does is give the Far Right ammo for their unfunny "Alphabet Cult" jokes

    At some point ya just gotta say "Look if you're not straight and not cis or just think that may be the case. You're in the club"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Extending the acronym to cover everyone is becoming ridiculous. I think we just need a word that covers all the bases rather than trying to shoe horn one more letter/number/symbol/wingding that's already becoming difficult to keep track of. It doesn't bring attention to any one group, nor does it help individual groups as a whole when you're summed up into a letter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, I don’t identify as queer and plenty of my friends don’t. One of my exes did and great for him but this just seems like the wrong argument. There likely just needs to be a technical, non-inflammatory term.

    I’m glad you like it though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The most all-encompassing term I've seen is sexual minority. Basically non-cis or non-straight

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There's some argument over adopting the term GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) as an inoffensive general term.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I like it, even tho usually I include a "R" there for romantic minorities(eg people who might not be a sexual minority but are a romantic one) when discussing this with other people, but I guess it could be argued that they still fit into "sexual".

    R or not, I like that it includes everyone without any identity being shoved into a letter or a "+" along with lots of others as if they're an afterthought, not as important as the ones that get to show up as their own letters.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Can we apply this logic to the flag as well? I thought the rainbow of the pride flag was meant to represent diversity and cover all orientations…like how a rainbow spectrum of light literally covers all colours. Now specific groups are being added and people are finding ways to add another line to represent something. The flag is a mess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I tend to think of the Progress flag as a product of the times, not as a replacement for the rainbow Pride flag. We added these additional signifiers specifically because those groups were under-represented or under particular attack, not because they aren't included in the Pride rainbow.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    My biggest qualm is a qualm I have with any acronym/abbreviation. If you're going to introduce a letter that is unknown to many, then define your term. Otherwise, I'm going to assume it's a typo, or I going to not recognize it.

    All acronyms and abbreviations, or at least those that aren't commonplace, should be defined somewhere adjacent to their use, or else you are excluding people.

    Speech/text is only useful if you're using it in a way that appropriately conveys a message to it's intended audience.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I've come to realize that whatever it is that causes people to have alternative sexual preferences, I've got a little bit of it. However, I'm heterosexual, so I don't really identify with the community. I could accept the queer label, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Can we make "gay" = happy again?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (35 replies)