• Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Things got weird at lgbtqia+ then at lgbtqia2s+, it got too long for me.

    Then I hope it gets even longer. I don’t care about your feelings about letters, I care about queer people feeling included.

    Whether or not one or more of LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIA2S+, GSRM etc. are ‘fine’ is not so much the issue as this: are you fine? Are you okay? If you were okay, do you think you would get over Asexual and Two-Spirit people being included? They do exist, after all.

     

    This is the sort of thing that makes even centrists cringe at and republicans make alphabet jokes at.

    Explain to me why I care about the opinions of people who purposefully make the world worse. Here’s the deal: I’ll care about the opinions and morality of the majority when all children are fed. Until then, I don’t give a shit.

    • Soggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      A problem with extending the acronym to specifically include more edge cases is that it makes the omissions more obvious. Another is that having a bunch of syllables is clunky in speech. “Queer” is pretty inclusive, though many are still uncomfortable with the term as it has been used as a slur. I’ve always been fond of SAGA (Sexuality and Gendered Acceptance) because it covers everything, is memorable and meaningful, and has no baggage. And using preferred labels when they are known, also a fan of that.

      • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        A problem with extending the acronym to specifically include more edge cases is that it makes the omissions more obvious.

        Good! Then we will think about who we are omitting, and why.

        • StopJoiningWars@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You sure have a stick up yours. Imagine being so stuck up that you need to create conflict about an acronym whose entire purpose is acceptance.

          • madcaesar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’ve found people most uptight about nonsense like this, aren’t even queer. They are trying to do some nonsense virtue signaling, but end up just looking foolish.

    • magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      On one hand that guys a cunt.

      On the other I’m bisexual, some sorta genderqueer, and I only l usually leave it at lgbt. Then again I’m not butthurt about the additions I’m just a lazy fuck lol.

      Still, that guys a cunt.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think that person is a cunt.

        When speaking, I tend to summarize it as queer. Google says “Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender”, which seems to cover the bulk of what comes up in casual conversation.

        It’s one syllable, people get what you mean, and it’s generally non-offensive (unless you try).

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The line is at policing other people using long initialisms. Using a short one yourself is fine, telling others not to use long ones is a dick move.

    • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      SLook, I’m bi, I support my LGBT brother, sisters, and others, but this is a stupid fucking thing to attack someone who is otherwise an ally over.

      The obsession with labels detracts from the real discussion that needs to be had

    • p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Do you enjoy creating non-existent problems or what? Lol

      LGTBQ+ is the way to go, but sure man, enjoy staying angry I guess. That’s so funny too. I know several members of the LGBTQ+ community (my partner is a member ) and even they think LGBTQ+ is the right size, and that adding all the extra letters is ridiculous. I bet you aren’t even a member of their community based on your behavior here. You sound like a virtue signalling clown getting pissed off over something nobody in the community is remotely worried about.

      If you ARE a member of the community, you really need to re-evaluate your approach here, because you sound ridiculous. Btw, thats straight from my partners mouth on the subject.

      • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I hadn’t heard a variant “all the gay people I know think LGBT is going too far!!!” for a while. Nice to know bullshit is still popular. I’m not eating any, you can have as much as you want.

        I bet you aren’t even a member of their community based on your behavior here. You sound like a virtue signalling clown getting pissed off over something nobody in the community is remotely worried about.

        I bet you generate so little self-worth that you have to be rude to strangers to feel like you’re superior to someone.

        • minyakcurry@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m a queer person in a same sex relationship for the longest time. Honestly even hearing the term LGBT (without the plus, without anything else) makes me kinda happy. Granted I’m in a place where acceptance is barely normalised.

          I’m not even aware of the longer variants myself; I personally just use “queer” in describing myself (see above) and my friends. Even the aces I know seem to just call themselves queer and don’t really seem bothered by the lack of explicit asexual inclusion in LGBT or LGBT+ or LGBTQ+.

          I don’t think we should get really stuck on terminology, to the point where we get into arguments with strangers online. I believe labels are important for helping us understand ourselves, but only to a certain point. Either way, queerness to me is quite all-encompassing, so representation here is not an issue? Maybe you could educate me on this.

          The flipside being: I am aware that I would like to be more specific in describing myself to people, but it’s difficult to explain bisexuality to others (even queer folk!). I use queer as a shortcut. I don’t really fault them for not knowing the ins and outs of my sexuality though. I’m just queer at first glance. Wanna know more? Fantastic. Lemme tell you about the bicycle.

          I get it’s upsetting to kinda “dilute” who we are at times. But being antagonistic about it isn’t really effective in educating, imo. These people are trying. Let them try, fuck up a little, and then gently nudge them in the correct direction.

          • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            But being antagonistic about it isn’t really effective in educating, imo.

            Being antagonistic is effective in telling people that I, personally, find inclusiveness more important than listening to people who say “the acronym is too long”.

            If I want to use LGBTQIA+, or more, that’s my business.

            • minyakcurry@monyet.cc
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Hmm I’m gonna reply to this against my better judgement.

              I think you’re absolutely right that inclusivity is important. You’re still skirting around two issues:

              1. Queer is plenty inclusive (see my original comment). Is queer insufficient? I would love to know as well, as a queer person.
              2. Being antagonistic might allow you to express your thoughts, sure. But I doubt it will allow the other person to internalise anything meaningfully.

              You’re also right that it’s no one’s job to police how you use terminology. I think the rest here are taking issue with how you are communicating this (and ironically enough, policing others on terminology).

              Either way, I think it might be worth examining why the response to someone’s ignorance felt so visceral and rage-fuelled. Not saying it’s a bad thing, we could all use more inclusivity in our lives! But hopefully we could take a step back and ask ourselves why do we react a certain way? It’s a good exercise to understand ourselves a bit better.

              Have a nice day, yea. And have an upvote too! Sick of the downvotes in this thread.

              • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Sick of the downvotes in this thread.

                My downvote button doesn’t even work on my instance of Lemmy.

                Queer is plenty inclusive (see my original comment). Is queer insufficient?

                Queer is great. Not complaining about the existence and use of long acronyms is also great. I am not two spirit, I have no qualms with 2S being part of a longer acronym.