LGBTQ+ acronym

Post Reply New Topic

What is with this always expanding alphabet soup?

Subjective Ego-Based Identities. Everyone wants to be represented, so they apply labels to themselves that no one else has so that they can feel more special than anyone else. Thus, we seem to have acquired 70 or more different labels for what amounts to personal opinions in identity politics.

I have many gay friends who believe "T" (transgender) have hitched themselves inappropriately to the LGB wagon and are trying to get recognition using someone else's banner.

Just like some LGB people have tried to add "A" (for "Autistic") to their alphabet soup to get recognition under the ASD banner.

I just identify as "gay", not alphabet soup.

The Politically Correct Police are always finding a reason to get offended at widely used terms that are not intended to be offensive and change them to something absurd every decade or so.

Let's see...straight men imposing their personal prejudices on cultures and communities outside their own...gay men asserting their superiority over the rest of the queer community...

Well, at least some things haven't changed over the last half-century.

Obviously, no one holds the monopoly on deciding what other people should think.

Exactly. A gay man is not a lesbian, bisexual or transgender person, so why should he identify as LGBT. They are separate identities. Grouping them together makes about as much sense as having an alphabet soup for minority races.

Agreed. And it's like the term "African American". I don't like that term either. It's supposed to be the politically correct term but why is it that in the US we call white people in this country "Americans" but everyone else is "African American" or "Native American"? Why can't we all just be classified as "Americans"? In countries like the UK they don't use terms like "African British". Everyone in the UK is considered British no matter what race they are. At least that's what I was told.

I never have heard of that label. It does not surprise me.

I prefer "Americans of African descent" myself. I believe that's the best way to put it. Or....if a person wants to say they're an "American of Nigerian consent," I see no problem with that.

I am an American of northern European descent.

My father's side came here circa early 19th century. They are of Dutch/German/English descent going back at least to the 17th century.

My mother's side started coming here in the very late 19th century. They were part of the "Great Wave of Immigration." They came from what is now Belarus. I don't even know my great-grandparents' names from my mother's side. My great-grandfather came here about 1890 or so, then sent for the rest of the family in 1910.

I honestly don't know when my ancestors came to the US. My mom has German and Irish on her side and they must have been around during the mid 1800's because she's mentioned that our ancestors were sharecroppers during the American Civil War and were too poor to own slaves. My dad (I use that term loosely since he never actually raised me) had Hawaiian, Filipino, and British on his side of the family.

So I'm Caucasian and Polynesian mixed, but I simply identify as being an American from the southern states.

But yeah, in my opinion anybody in this country who is a legal or natural citizen should simply be called an "American".

My mom's college professor refuses to let people call her an African American because she explained that she had not earned the right to be called an "African". She said that she had travelled to Africa many times and was very impressed by what the local women could do and that she herself could never put up with the things they go through on a daily basis. Things like digging a water well or balancing a heavy pot of water on her head to carry all the way back to her village. She said those women really go through hell to take care of their families and their communities.

I've also heard the term GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) which is a shorter acronym but still encompasses a lot of categories.

There are some individuals who try to add categories which don't fit. Whilst there is overlap between the two groups sometimes, I don't think it makes much sense to add it to the acronym. Now, in regards to the current A's in the acronym, Asexual and Ally, they can be controversial. I've seen arguments.

Should Asexuality be considered a part of the community?

Those who are for this usually argue that yes, it should, on the basis that it is a sexual minority. However, the other side disagree because they believe that a lack of sexual desire is not a sexual orientation, therefore shouldn't be in the acronym. To complicate matters, there is also an simultaneous argument regarding what falls under the asexuality category. It seems as though there are two main schools of thought on this. Some view asexuality as a spectrum, others believe that it is more binary than that.

The two arguments

Binary: you either are, or you aren't asexual. If you feel sexual attraction, then you are not asexual but if you don't then you are. Unless you haven't gone through puberty yet/ side effects of medication, etc. Romantic orientation is not separate from sexual orientation. All true asexuals have no desire to date. The term covers one label.

VS

Spectrum: Sexuality is a multi-dimensional spectrum, romantic orientation is separate from sexual orientation. Asexuals sometimes date, unless they are aromantic (a person who is uninterested in romantic relationships). The term asexual is used more as an umbrella term, and covers a lot of labels, for example demisexual (someone who does not feel sexual attraction until they have formed an emotional connection with that person).

My conclusion

I don't really mind one way or the other if asexuality is considered a part of the community or not. However, whilst subcategories can be useful during in-depth discussions on sexuality, context is important and you'll probably have an easier time using a better known term or just describing what you are trying to get across in an average conversation. If you're on a website such as AVEN (Asexual Visibility and Education Network), then people will probably know what you mean if you say that you're a grey-A who’s experienced a monoamory, and is currently looking for a squish. However, in everyday conversation that is less likely. If you’re wondering, then yes, I just looked up a guide for terms used by AVEN. Sorry if I used any of those terms wrong.

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Lexicon

Should gender identities be a separate community to sexual orientations?

I’m personally on the “No, they shouldn’t be” side. Keep the T.

Regarding the “Why lump everyone together?” question

When I was a few years younger, I used to know a guy who is bisexual but didn’t consider himself to be a part of the community. I found that to be interesting. Personally, I like the fact that a GSM/LGBT community exists. Makes me feel less alone. I can go to online spaces and discuss experiences with homophobia, and coming out, often with people who can relate.

Granted, there is a toxic side, but every community has one unfortunately. It’s also interesting to me from a historical and sociological perspective.

Whilst it is true that the experiences of a gay man differ from a lesbian, there may be some common ground. This is certainly the case with a friendship of mine. However, there’s a lot of variation, and just because someone is LGBT doesn’t necessarily mean I’ll get on with them or be able to relate to that person.

Last edited by Lost_dragon on 03 Jun 2019, 6:51 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Africans usually do not consider black Americans of African descent to be Africans.

In fact, there are many times when they are called "white person," or "foreigner" in whatever language is spoken in a region where the black American travels.

That makes sense because that would be as silly as Europeans calling Americans or Australians "European" when they come from completely different continents. They are descended from European settlers but that was a long time ago.

I see naturalplastic deleted his post but...

Interesting. Thanks for clarifying on that last part.

And yes I agree, "African American" implies that every black person is of American descent when you actually have black people living in Europe and Australia. They're not just limited to the USA or the Americas.