Open Forum: LGBTQAIZ5123?

[queerunity]

Labels for the community have been evolving and continue to evolve to this day. It started with "Gay" which included same-sex attracted males and females, then it branched out to include "Lesbians" as their own separate label. Over time other movements like the "Bisexuals" and "Transgender" populations joined in under the acronym "GLBT". The acronym was thought to be biased towards the "G" and hence the more popularized acronym became "LGBT". Now we see movement to change the acronym so that perhaps the "B" or "T" come before the "L" or the "G" in the sequence of the letters to be more reflective of an inclusive community.

Just when you thought the whole "LGBT" or is it "GLBT" drama was settled we now have new movements boarding the sexual/gender minority bandwagon. "Queer" people who reject the notion that sexuality is fixed and who don't attach binaristic labels want "Q" added to the ever long list of letters in the acronym. People who are "Questioning" their sexuality or are curious want the "Q" to represent the term "Questioning". "Intersex" people don't want to be lumped under the "Transgender" umbrella and want the "I" added to the list. "Asexuals" want to be recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation and have "A" added to the list. "A" has also been representative of those who consider themselves "Allies" to the community.

So we already have a long and varied list with letters overlapping for different communities who want representation. Confusing huh? Well there are also movements by "Polyamorous" families, fetish groups, "Pansexuals", "Two-spirits", and others who want to be part of the acronym.

How far do we go with the acronym, is the label "LGBT" fair and inclusive? Or should we come up with a new term to describe all of these sexual/gender minorities. Is Queer too broad and open so that if we use it nobody will know what we are talking about? Share your thoughts on this ever growing and evolving debate...

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/06/open-forum-lgbtqaiz5123.html

 

[White Eagle]

I suggest the acronym of
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
and tell them take it or leave it!!!!

 

[hopnung]

I belong to the G community.

I am not Lesbian, Bi or Trans.

Why must we be linked up?

I understand why they're "grouped" but why not just refer to an individual by their "title" instead of being a member of the "LGBTASLJG@$FWDFCH@#FD()U!" community?

Aren't we all supposed to embrace our individuality anyways?

 

[Zingerific]

As much as I'd like to dismiss this as a tempest in a teapot, I can't. Words are important, language is powerful, and terminology does effect the way people think about issues.

Having said that, I don't think there is an easy answer to the ever-increasing acronym. I seriously doubt there will ever be a consensus of any sort; most likely, the issue will resolve itself over the course of time.

And of course there are the overly pious and sanctimonious out there who will bemoan "labels" and condemn those who use them. Unfortunately, eshewing labels isn't a way out. Anytime thought moves from the particular instance to the abstract or general, people will talk of groups and categories, and thus labels will be used.

Why must we be linked up?

That's a good question, one that should be asked more often. My first answers are 1)the shared experience of being a sexual minority offers common ground, and 2) a broad coalition increases political power.

Aren't we all supposed to embrace our individuality anyways?

Sure, but being an individual is not the same as being a hermit. Individuals interact with one another and belong to common groups as well. I think it would be a mistake were one to, in the pursuit of individuality, lose sight of the common humanity we all share.

 

[Jihiro]

This whole 'bash labels' thing is really ass backwards. Giving a name to something is what language is all about...admittedly thought, trying to make a name for the group as a whole by listing each of the individual types is a bit much. We don't list every species of cat when calling a cat a cat. 'Homosexual' does equally well at describing both gays and lesbians (granted you understand the scientific meaning of 'homo' and 'hetero') Bisexual does just fine describing bisexuals and Transgender describes people who want to 'cross' (trans) genders scientifically accurately. People who want to whine because "Omg lyke blanks arent first in LGBT?!?!" need to settle things like adults. Alphabetize them so that no one group gets this apparent preferential treatment. BGLT works just fine. Or better yet stop using such a stupid name for a group and come up with an actual word. Use Latin and you can't go wrong.

Update: Now that I've had time to contemplate better groupings for us I suggest we go by Libertasexual from the Latin word Libertas meaning "freedom, liberty, independence", suggestive of our belief people should be free to love (and have sex with) whom ever they choose. People who believe that only males and females should love (and have sex) should be called Cogosexuals. Cogo means "to compel, restrict, confine". That way straights who think like us can be included in such (as well as gays, lesbians, bis, transgenders, and whoever else thinks love should be free) For those who don't know French (me included xD) I'll end with a translation of my quote. "Love is the child of the Bohemian. It has never, never known any law."

 

[queerunity]

i think we need a word and its gotta be different than queer,

the rainbow community? lol

 

[Zingerific]

We're only minorities BECAUSE of the use of words and terms.... Words are mostly just used for weapons against someone or a specific group, and the more power we give them, the more power they have to divide and belittle us.

I can group people in all sorts of ways that do not necessarily result in oppression, say the broccoli eaters and the non-broccoli eaters. Now, if what you're saying is true, the mere act of distinguishing these groups and assigning them labels will create discrimination. But clearly not every act of labeling results in legally sanctioned discrimination, as it does in the case of sexual minorities. Something more is going on.

Terminology effecting the way people see things is an absurd idea and often only used in a discriminatory manner.

I don't understand where you're going here. Above, you stated that minorities are such only because of words, leading me to conclude that your position was nominalist, in that the words themselves create the minority; but here you claim that the idea that terminology effects people's view of things is absurd. Am I misunderstanding you?

I can't think of anything major adversity in history that isn't rooted in the insistence of categories.

I'll go further: I can't think of anything not rooted in categories. The use of categories is hardwired into us. You might as well argue against the cycles of the moon or the rising of the tides.

Use Latin and you can't go wrong.

Words to live by, Jihiro.

 

[Jihiro]

Words to live by, Jihiro.

Thanks! =P

I think it would be a mistake were one to, in the pursuit of individuality, lose sight of the common humanity we all share.

This was also well said.

 

[Jihiro]

I still think my new words Libertasexual and Cogosexual solves the problem (though perhaps we should shorten libertas to libersexual?). Zingerific said "a broad coalition increases political power" and that's true. With libersexual, we broaden our coalition with all the straights who think rationally. I would even bet we libers would suddenly become the majority, while the truly crazy cogos would find themselves in the minority.

 

[Sammie13]

If we absolutely gotta have a label, I like Jihiro's libersexual...it's a nice inclusive umbrella. Otherwise, my heart and gut goes with marleyisalegend on this one, the labels merely stigmatize and isolate a group of people, so why even go there? Never once have I identified myself with GLBT or LGBT or McBLT or the like....and nor do I have any plans to do so.

 

[falconfan]

Well I mean if we're looking to condense L and G can totally be replaced by H because lesbian and gay are just distinctions within the group homosexuals.

 

[construct]

Time was when "gay" covered all self-identified community folk. If I have to add one more label, I'm going to start lumping them all as "sexually incovenient." The Tarrant County Lesbian/Gay Alliance would become the Tarrant County Alliance for the Sexually Inconvenient.

I think it's important for us to own our common difference. In order for it to be "common," there must be a self-recognizable similarity. In order for there to be a "difference," it must be definable to people both inside and outside the group. In order for us to own it, we must name it ourselves. I am "gay." Other people can find their own words, and if I can understand them, I'll use them where appropriate, but I'm not going to bother myself about creating names for them.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Time was when "gay" covered all self-identified community folk. If I have to add one more label, I'm going to start lumping them all as "sexually incovenient." The Tarrant County Lesbian/Gay Alliance would become the Tarrant County Alliance for the Sexually Inconvenient.

I think it's important for us to own our common difference. In order for it to be "common," there must be a self-recognizable similarity. In order for there to be a "difference," it must be definable to people both inside and outside the group. In order for us to own it, we must name it ourselves. I am "gay." Other people can find their own words, and if I can understand them, I'll use them where appropriate, but I'm not going to bother myself about creating names for them.

Me too!



As to the GLBT, LGBT, BTLG, GQLBT, or any other group of letters to denote a broader community, I tell folks that the reason we have a "Rainbow" as our flag, is because we couldn't agree on a color.

But ask any Lesbian, or Transgendered person that I know, and they'll tell you that they're GAY.

Queer has always, to me at least, meant "different."

So I'm Queer too!

But if some "phobe" asks me if I'm Queer, I usually respond, "No, I'm Gay."

 

[frankfrank]

But we can't forget the METROSEXUALS...or can we? LOL

 

[MrWright]

Me I'm just a G but on the subject I've noticed that the term keeps expanding. Why don't we convert to one word that's all inclusive. God people and their identity crises.

 

[construct]

I'm pressed to consider what the world would be like if there were no labels or categories. No male/female, gay/straight, black/white, religious/non-religious. The bigots would have to work double-time to support their hatred.

Sure. Bigotry produces the binary categories. Then a dialectic takes over to overcome the dualism.

Stage 1. The "otherness" is noted and labeled by the prevailing group and used to "place" the "other" within society. We'll call that "bigotry," I guess.

Stage 2. The "others" find a term they like to consolidate the group, to draw visibility to the limitations imposed upon them, and to serve as a banner for a struggle to minimize the limitations.

Stage 3. As the limitations decrease, the need for the label aslo decreases.

Stage 4. Other competing labels with group different and overlapping phenomena are proposed and adopted to a greater or lesser extent until finally the original "otherness" is dissolved.

This is a heuristic model. The stages do not occur in invariable sequence, and the sequence may progress at different rates in different regions or even in different subcultures in the same region. Skipping a stage may be possible in some situations, but it may not allow for consolidation of power to occur and advance the gains. On the other hand, remaining in a stage too long may lead to complacency, and advancing too quickly may lead to backlash. Fort Worth and Dallas is either late in stage 2 or early in stage 3. Austin is in the middle of stage 3. Most of the rest of Texas is in the middle of stage 2.

 

[Jihiro]

That was a little too technical for me ^_^;

Probably well said but I failed to understand it all so I can't really say =P

 

[springboksfan]

Soon there are going to be as many acronyms and sexualities as their are races.

Geez. Go figure you'd go there.

There's only one race--human.

And I don't particularly care about the acronyms, though I do find myself thinking LGBTQ rolls off the tongue rather wall.

 

[Jihiro]

On the other hand, everyone knows we will eventually ALL be one creamy mocha color (and therefore "race" as we so like to call it) so will there be only one sexuality then? =P

 

[Centexfarmer]

No way in hell, everyone isn't that open-minded.

It doesn't matter.

What matters is how the law, and the Supreme Court recognizes us.

We can call ourselves any acronym that we want, but what matters is is how the law defines, and acknowledges "sexual orientation."

And since my family has lived in the United States dating back to the Colonial Virginia, and considering all of the marriages, and various "races" enjoyed in my family lineage and heritage, I consider myself "brown."

My point is, we can call ourselves whatever we like, but the legal argument will always be how equal we all are under the law.

That's a pretty narrow needle to be stuffing a multi-colored piece of rope through.

When the law and the Constitution only recognize a piece of thread when it comes to "all things being equal."