LGBTI?

[bananafishtoday]

I know many people have already touched on this, but frankly, the more letters go into this acronym, the wider a net it casts--sort of the opposite idea of a singling out a minority. I guess the real question is, where do you draw the line? Should we include foot fetishists or furries? What about people who have sex with dolphins? On what grounds would you bar those or include them, and what makes intersex worthy of inclusion, or for that matter, even gay? At some point you have to start defining why these people are different and deserve segregation (or recognition, depending on which lens you're deciding to look through). Personally, I'd say that all sexual tendencies involve one person loving someone else, so why bother trying to say anything other than "not considered the social ideal of perfectly 'straight'" if anything at all?

With that in mind, here is my new proposal for an acronym that's most fair:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Or--and this is radical, I'll warn you--how about people are just people and we stop our endless and pointless categorization to make it easier for us to inaccurately judge or refer to large swaths of the populace?

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

That's just great. Now we've even got The Escapist writers comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

I can see how this post might have been well-intentioned, but it's just another one to add to the "why should LGBT people be allowed their own identity?" pile.

Ha, I am far from comparing homosexuality to bestiality in the way you're implying. Trust me, there are many comments you can track down to be legitimately concerned with, so please take Jesus elsewhere. My point is that EVERYONE is allowed their own identity, but the more you amalgamate them, the more that identity ceases to be. Once you start regrouping everyone, then what identity are you really "allowing"? Who here is qualified to say who is and isn't allowed to be a part of that shared description. And as long as the answer is ~shrug~ then maybe we should move on from trying to be so technical about how we're segregating groups.

Broadly, the shared description covers people who are not straight (gay, bi, pan, etc) or who are not cis and/or do not fit into the gender binary (transsexual, genderqueer, third sex, etc.) Discussing terminology isn't about broadening definitions to the point of meaninglessness; it's about trying to accommodate a variety of granular labels that already fall under the umbrella ideas.

But more importantly, it is a community. There's a certain amount of shared culture/ideals and factional bullshit, much like in mainstream culture. Not all people described by the terms consider themselves to be part of it, and the goal is to allow all those who do to feel a degree of acceptance they don't get from mainstream culture.

It'd be nice if we lived in a world where these sorts of distinctions and designations didn't matter, but frankly, that ain't the world we live in.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

I guess that I'm fine with it, doesn't really affect me that much anyway.

QUILTBAG.

Don't really like that abbreviation, just because 'Quiltbag' sounds like a crappy catchphrase from an 80's show.

'Catch you on the flipside, quiltbag!'

In respect to the argument that seems to be going on here with homsexuality/lesbianality/transexuality/etc being too 'in your face', I'd say that gay pride festivals are actually very good, because in that situation, ostentatiousness is needed. I find it annoying if a gay person tries to substitute being gay for an actual fucking personality, but those people are incredibly few and far between, and that's more because I find anyone taking one aspect of their personality and making that their entire personality to be very annoying.

Though, I must say, I don't admire the aesthetic of gay pride parades. Why so much pink, guys? I always thought that purple was the LGBTQ colour of choice. Purple is a much nicer colour than pink.

 

[lacktheknack]

We could always call it the NCS community (Not Completely Straight) and that would probably cover everyone. If we have to go higher than QUILTBAG, I'm going to be in danger of just calling them "Them".

 

[Reeve]

It all seems a bit pedantic to me. Why do we have to compartmentalise everyone?

 

[Reeve]

It all seems a bit pedantic to me. Why do we have to compartmentalise everyone?

Yeah, why can't we just call them all "the abnormals". Would be much easier.

It seems like you completely misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that I don't think we should arbitrarily divide people into groups based on their traits - whether that's race, sexual orientation etc. Instead, can we not just accept each person as a fellow human being? To put it another way: Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

 

[Froggy Slayer]

It all seems a bit pedantic to me. Why do we have to compartmentalise everyone?

Yeah, why can't we just call them all "the abnormals". Would be much easier.

It seems like you completely misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that I don't think we should arbitrarily divide people into groups based on their traits - whether that's race, sexual orientation etc. Instead, can we not just accept each person as a fellow human being? To put it another way: Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

In a perfect world, this would work, but LGBTQ people also want to carve out an identity, and have a word to describe what they are. Words can be used to categorise and compartmentalise, but they can also be used for self-expression.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Bullshit.

I don't have to come out and say "I support... [every fucking niche label in the world]" just so they can feel warm and fuzzy and know that I'm on their side (for a start, if they were truly happy in their own skin they wouldn't need my fucking approval anyway).

So no, there is EVERY reason to assume that I include Gays, Bisexuals, Lesbians, Transgenders, Intergenders, Hermaphrodites, Pansexuals, Queers, Asexuals, [insert your goddamned sexuality label here] When I say 'I support the Gay community'.

Again, many members of the actual gay community don't include them, you can assume someone who happens to support the gay community does.

Or--and this is radical, I'll warn you--how about people are just people and we stop our endless and pointless categorization to make it easier for us to inaccurately judge or refer to large swaths of the populace?

Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

Because that's exactly how it doesn't work in the really real world. One of the things the LGBT community is fighting for is recognition that their problems exist. That their movement should exist, or on a more basic level, that they exist and won't be silenced..

Saying the movement shouldn't exist and LGBT should be quiet about it because there shouldn't be a problem in the first place is not particularly helpful.

 

[Reeve]

Saying the movement shouldn't exist and LGBT should be quiet about it because there shouldn't be a problem in the first place is not particularly helpful.

If you had even the most basic ability at reading comprehension you would know that I have not said that the movement should not exist or that they should "keep quiet."

It would be a massive help to you if you learned to read and comprehend correctly.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Saying the movement shouldn't exist and LGBT should be quiet about it because there shouldn't be a problem in the first place is not particularly helpful.

If you had even the most basic ability at reading comprehension you would know that I have not said that the movement should not exist or that they should "keep quiet."

It would be a massive help to you if you learned to read and comprehend correctly.

That may not have been what you meant to say, but it's what bigots say to attack the LGBT community for existing.

 

[Reeve]

[
It seems like you completely misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that I don't think we should arbitrarily divide people into groups based on their traits - whether that's race, sexual orientation etc. Instead, can we not just accept each person as a fellow human being? To put it another way: Why can't we focus on how we are all similar, instead of how we are all different?

OK, you and a lot of people in this thread need to get past the idea that "naming" is somehow destructive or harmful. We have names for just about everything that exists in this world, along with names for a lot of things that don't exist. So why the hell are you all getting so affronted by the idea of naming different types of sexual orientation?

I wasn't getting "affronted." Don't project intentions or feelings on to me that you have merely imagined.

You do realise that identifying as gay or bi doesn't automatically preclude you from also identifying as a human being, right? "Gay" and "human" aren't mutually exclusive terms.

I didn't say that it did preclude someone from identifying as a human. Don't try and put words into my mouth.

You also don't seem to understand what the word "arbitrary" means.

You don't seem to understand that there's nothing particularly special about sexual orientation. The only reason why we single it out these days (along with things like race) is because it has been (and is) a massive social taboo, for ages.

 

[Reeve]

Saying the movement shouldn't exist and LGBT should be quiet about it because there shouldn't be a problem in the first place is not particularly helpful.

If you had even the most basic ability at reading comprehension you would know that I have not said that the movement should not exist or that they should "keep quiet."

It would be a massive help to you if you learned to read and comprehend correctly.

That may not have been what you meant to say, but it's what bigots say to attack the LGBT community for existing.

I didn't say that. The fault is with you for seeing me as an opponent. Also, if you want to call me an bigot, don't be underhanded about it. Call me a bigot. But be prepared to have your mischaracterisation justly thrown back in your face. I am not a bigot. Don't presume to know things about strangers on the Internet.

 

[Abomination]

But that's exactly what terms for LGBT+ people do. They focus on similarities that people share. For a lot of LGBT+ people, belonging to a group is actually very comforting. It builds a sense of community. Do you really want to snatch that away and say, "NO! We're all one big homogeneous mass and you're not allowed to celebrate your individuality!"

So far the only "similarity" that list of letters seems to embrace is they aren't straight. I understand some want to merge together out of fear of a tyrany of the majority but this isn't a war and the more letters you add to that the more "Us vs. Them" the vibe becomes.

The entire "movement" is about uniting to have a strong enough voice to not be overcome by the heterosexual majority. The only uniting factor of the group is that they are not straight. Save them from absurdity and just call them "non-heterosexual"... or "NH" if you're obsessed over applying capitol letters to everything.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So far the only "similarity" that list of letters seems to embrace is they aren't straight. I understand some want to merge together out of fear of a tyrany of the majority but this isn't a war and the more letters you add to that the more "Us vs. Them" the vibe becomes.

The US vs Them thing? Really? What do you think it's a response thing, if not LBGT people being seen as a dangerous "Them" to be gotten rid of by large parts of society?

The entire "movement" is about uniting to have a strong enough voice to not be overcome by the heterosexual majority. The only uniting factor of the group is that they are not straight. Save them from absurdity and just call them "non-heterosexual"... or "NH" if you're obsessed over applying capitol letters to everything.

Who does that cover though? You can't say "everyone who isn't straight" because "everyone who isn't straight" is supposed to be part of "everyone", and the whole point of the movement is that that didn't work.