The risks can be a dilution effect, I guess. Or a fragmenting of messaging. The 'silliness' will be how it's presented, which I think we could explore but needn't really. There's a risk of someone learning each term and then snorting because eventually some term is just too snowflaky, I guess, which then paints the whole acronym. Like I said, I think of it as a defense league. But two pieces of confusion about the name have, I think, made questions available. One poster said that it didn't matter if 'others' learned the letters, implying it's some type of internal reference. But another poster talked about needing the letters because of risk of physical violence (which resonates with my view, which is probably old. These things move fast). How many of the downstream letters are easily identifiable for being targeted? How many are at risk from physical violence? And if the bigots can't distinguish between the two categories, is there perceived upside in distinguishing them?
Part of the reason I'd consider it more of an internal reference is, are there legal or social rights/privileges/liberties that the letters beyond T or Q are looking to defend that are beyond those that LGBTQ folks are looking for? The only ones that come to mind are P (for poly marriages) and I (for not doing immediate surgery/gender assignment on intersex babies). And yes, by that thinking the B is sort of internal-reference-only too. I'm perfectly happy having B, P, I, A, other A, or whatever in the tent and will fight for legalizing poly marriages and better addressing of intersex babies, but just because it's BLM I'm not going to exclude Asians or Pacific Islanders or Australian Aborigines from actions regarding police misconduct or from anti-hate legislation (and indeed "looking Chinese" has been more risky over the last couple years). I don't want people focusing on or get lost in how many letters there are, I want them to learn and remember how the assault, murder, and suicide rates are substantially higher for those who are not in cis/het/relationship majorities.
While I do wish to adhere to @Arakhor's post, I also feel the need to clarify my meaning: I did not in any way mean to equate the two movements or their goals. I only wanted to point out how "becoming silly" undermines a movement's cause, as it did with the teahadists, in answer to a question that was asked upthread. Apologies, Arakhor, if this violates what you intended to convey. Felt the need to clarify my intent.
I don't entirely see why asexual and polyamorous are included under "LGBTQ" umbrella, as those two strike me as fairly different things. I know asexual has had negative connotations given to it ("frigid", "crazy cat lady"), but it has never to my knowledge been criminalized or legally restricted. As far as poly, speaking personally, every poly relation I have knowledge of has resulted either in bitter divorce or in extremely unhealthy relation dynamics. Now, those are obviously purely anecdotal; but I don't see how it follows that one supporting equal and expanded rights for gays, lesbians, and transgender individuals are also supporting legal recognition of poly marriages.
I also don't find it a good idea to include polyamorous in this group. Asexual... doesn't make sense either, but at least in theory it can be a target for bullying.
Polyamorous has specific legal restrictions and barriers, and those can vary by region. The entire list of letters is not just about risk from physical violence, but also about the legal validation of their sexuality or relationship choices. Or, at least some. There are a couple in there that I know about, but am actually unsure why 'queer' just doesn't capture them. Polyamory is a very different set of legal challenges, though. I remember during the gay marriage debates where the slippery slopes included both marrying your toaster and polyamory. I was willing to concede on the 2nd, even if it's *much* more complicated than gay marriage, legally.
Does LGBT+ necessarily have to be used as an activist label? It does seem to me like asexual wouldn’t fit in that case, especially in the context of hate crimes and talking about being gunned down in the street, as if people are out targeting asexuals and aromantics when I think the largest number proportionally are black and Latina trans women, although it’s also difficult to tell how many of the 57 trans women killed last year were the result of hate crimes. Definitely I don’t see polyamory as being part of LGBT. If people want to fight for its legal recognition I don’t see why that can’t just be a separate legal battle. I think adding too many letters leads to the LGBT group as a whole losing its meaning and especially consider polyamory. Unless people think it should really just be about including any sort of alternative relationship and just morph into being something else. About trans, it does seem like in many traditional cultures that accepted trans people from what I’ve seen they were regarded as a third gender and not the concept people seem to have now, at least apart from some mention I’ve seen in mythology, which I can’t remember, I think there’s a Hindu god who became a woman for awhile. And there was Tiresias in Greek mythology. I’m not saying people can’t consider trans people as completely transitioning but just talking about how it may have been viewed historically compared to now.
Tiresias (or was that the other oracle? probably it's only him) did get turned into a female, but it was part of divine punishment (iirc he saw something he shouldn't have had). But ultimately he was turned by Hera into a frog, because having known how women felt during sex, he provided an argument to Zeus for the latter's... polyamory ( ), saying that as a female he enjoyed sex much more, so Zeus shoudn't be regarded by Hera as in the wrong for seeking more sexual partners (as a male, he enjoys the act less).
I forgot most of the story. I just looked at the Wikipedia page and looks like there’s a few versions. I thought he gained the power of prophecy by being both a man and a woman, since he did return to being a man, but looks like his prophecy was compensation for Hera making him go blind.
Not sure if this is already covered, but the Australian election is coming up and we have a female conservative MP (the party is unironically called the Liberal Party) attacking transwomen for participating in female sport and calling them mutilated. She backtracked and apologised, then backtracked again and recanted her apology.
Proof that it isn't just america or England that this plague of anti trans rhetoric is confined to, its everywhere
It would seem to me that regarding asexuality as a sexual preference is a bit like regarding atheism as a religion.
Once again kindly demonstrating why comparisons between completely different things doesn't automatically make for a valid point.
It is not just intersex babies that get non-consensual surgery. It seems to me that for elite sport the considerations are very similar to the questions around trans participation.
Atheism is an affirmative stance on religious faith. Quite explicitly. That's the whole meaning of the descriptor.
Asexual women have probably been pushed into relationships and marriages they weren't interested in for centuries, and shunned if they didn't comply. Asexual men probably too, but there has always been more of a societal control over women's bodies and relationships.. Personally I don't really care how many letters are in LGBTQ+ or whatever. This phrase seems to be constantly evolving. The last change I remember was the inclusion of "two spirit", but I haven't exactly been following. If the intent is to include every single non-traditional/binary type of sexuality and related lifestyles, then it seems this list will continue to grow for quite some time. It's not really a good phrase to use to identify groups of people for me though. First of all I don't even know the most recent version of this term, so would probably not even want to use it in public. I can't really think of many scenarios where I'd have to use it anyhow, so it's not really a big problem. It's also getting long and unwieldly, but that's just my personal opinion as an outsider. Like I said it doesn't matter to me what the term is, that is for the group and its members to decide, not me. If I am ever forced to refer to the movement I'm sure simply saying "LGBTQ" would be good enough.. but.. would those being excluded take offense? I have no idea. I would probably err on the side of caution and rephrase what I am trying to say without using the term. Has there been any thought to replacing this term with something more comprehensive? I don't even know what word you might use.. but.. it doesn't seem sustainable to continue adding more letters, from a marketing and PR pov at least.
