GSA: Short, Sweet, Clear, Inclusive term?

[Cavouku]

It's been itching at my head for a bit, and I was compelled to address the masses.

At my old high school, there was a sort of "club", more like a school-organized society, called the GSA. At first, this was the "Gay-Straight Alliance". Eventually, as more people of different gender identities and sexualities wanted to be included, it became known as the "Gender-Sexuality Alliance."

I feel that the acronym is even capable of being applied to what has traditionally (but perhaps somewhat incompletely) been known as the LGBT(Q, others) community.

Could "Gender+/Sexuality Atypical" be considered an appropriate term?

What do those within those confines feel (particularly about the [variable] word "Atypical")?

What do those outside those confines feel about using the term, and perhaps the use of it to refer to such a panoramic group?

Is it good enough to replace the current shorthand (LGBT[Q, others]), or is that simply too ingrained?

As always, civility is appreciated. But I genuinely feel the forums are getting a lot nicer lately, believe it or not.

CAPTCHA: just dance

Or you can dance. Dancing is an option.

 

[WolfThomas]

I think it works well, though being a straight person I'm not sure how some people would find the atypical part. Alternative is another word that might work (or have more issues I don't know).

I think it work in that it's inclusive as you say, whereas LGBTQ seems to keep gathering letters which in turn confuses some people.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's nothing inherently wrong with the term, no, but it doesn't specify who it's actually for. You can't say "everyone who isn't cishet", because "everyone" has very different meanings for different people.

There's a good reason why LGBT keeps adding letters. I don't see why people find it so annoying, myself, assuming that they are arguing against more letters in good faith, and without prejudice against people represented by them.

 

[Cavouku]

There's nothing inherently wrong with the term, no, but it doesn't specify who it's actually for. You can't say "everyone who isn't cishet", because "everyone" has very different meanings for different people.

There's a good reason why LGBT keeps adding letters. I don't see why people find it so annoying, myself, assuming that they are arguing against more letters in good faith, and without prejudice against people represented by them.

...I'm sorry (literally the captcha, but also me), but I'm not certain where you're standing... You like LGBT+, don't mind the extra letters, but also... don't mind people aruging against more letters? I suppose there's nothing inherently contradictory in that stance, but it seems tricky for me.


Still, appreciate the contribution.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's nothing inherently wrong with the term, no, but it doesn't specify who it's actually for. You can't say "everyone who isn't cishet", because "everyone" has very different meanings for different people.

There's a good reason why LGBT keeps adding letters. I don't see why people find it so annoying, myself, assuming that they are arguing against more letters in good faith, and without prejudice against people represented by them.

...I'm sorry (literally the captcha, but also me), but I'm not certain where you're standing... You like LGBT+, don't mind the extra letters, but also... don't mind people aruging against more letters? I suppose there's nothing inherently contradictory in that stance, but it seems tricky for me.

I mean that I don't mind extra letters (though for convenience, I'll usually write LGBT personally), and I can't see any good reasons for others to get worked up over extra letters.

 

[Cavouku]

I mean that I don't mind extra letters (though for convenience, I'll usually write LGBT personally), and I can't see any good reasons for others to get worked up over extra letters.

That's fair. I think some people get a little worried if they feel they're not being sufficiently inclusive, and some are maybe upset about being left in the dark on what is or is not included. The first time I saw LGBTTQUA I was a bit lost. I asked the guy who wrote it on the board what the extra letters meant, but... he was participating in a day of silence in recognition of the transgressions amongst that very group (which is why it was on the board in the first place). He later wrote it down for me, and after doing my best impression of a pharmacist, I deciphered it (LGBT+Transsexual [differing from Transgendered], Queer, Undecided and Asexual).

Even that isn't quite wholly encompassing. I saw an amusing anagram that turned into "QUILTBASKET" once, but I forget how exactly it was set up.

I'm not saying any of that matters much, just that I both understand your position, and the position of those who are somewhat uneasy with the LGBT+others shorthand.

 

[Queen Michael]

There's nothing inherently wrong with the term, no, but it doesn't specify who it's actually for. You can't say "everyone who isn't cishet", because "everyone" has very different meanings for different people.

There's a good reason why LGBT keeps adding letters. I don't see why people find it so annoying, myself, assuming that they are arguing against more letters in good faith, and without prejudice against people represented by them.

...I'm sorry (literally the captcha, but also me), but I'm not certain where you're standing... You like LGBT+, don't mind the extra letters, but also... don't mind people aruging against more letters? I suppose there's nothing inherently contradictory in that stance, but it seems tricky for me.

I mean that I don't mind extra letters (though for convenience, I'll usually write LGBT personally), and I can't see any good reasons for others to get worked up over extra letters.

I think they're feeling that "I learned the correct acronym, and now it's wrong and I'm not supposed to use it!? This is like how the proper term for 'black people' changes every twenty years or so, except this happens at least every other year!"

As you can probably tell, I can sympathize, though I don't bother getting upset over it. I do think it's contraproductive, though, because there's no chance of the new acronym catching on if people know it'll be replaced in six months anyway.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

My university society a few years back switched to LGBT+ to be more encompassing. Personally I'm more fond of GSM, as MarsAtlas explained, these days, since it is all-encompassing like LGBT+ but doesn't explicitly mention some subset of it.

Even that isn't quite wholly encompassing. I saw an amusing anagram that turned into "QUILTBASKET" once, but I forget how exactly it was set up.

I think you mean QUILTBAG:

-QUeer/QUestioning
-Intersex
-Lesbian
-Trans*
-Bisexual
-Asexual
-Gay

 

[Twintix]

Ach, why make it about sexuality at all?

I suggest you change the meaning to "Great Sex for All".

Because everyone deserve to have awesome sexy times.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

I've also seen Mogai

Marginalized Orientations, Gender Alignments, Intersex

The problem with the proposed GSA in the OP is that it excludes intersex (which refers to a host of medical conditions related to assigned sex), unless you want to say that intersex is atypical, which I can imagine some intersex people may find insulting. I've heard similar concerns toward Mogai, but I don't remember what exactly they were (though I believe they have to do with the marginalized portion).

Could fix it by changing the A into an I, GSI but you run into a similar issue with LGBT where it doesn't roll off the tongue and more letters may be added to it as need be.

 

[happyninja42]

You should rename your club the "People Who Like People" club, and just be done with it. xD

GSM, Gender and Sexuality Minority, seems to be rising in popularity within the queer community. Its inclusive of just about anything and unlike the term "queer", we don't get people questioning its use constantly.

Just curious, but how is "Gender and Sexual Minority" inclusive of just about anything? It would, by definition, exclude the majority in it's term. Which, if the point of the club is to foster cooperation across all the groups, and a group that started out as the Gay-Straight Alliance would suggest cooperation, that would seem to be a contrary name. I mean just looking at that name, at first glance to me as a hetero male, felt like I wouldn't be welcome in it. Because I'm not a gender or sexual minority.

 

[Cavouku]

I think you mean QUILTBAG:

-QUeer/QUestioning
-Intersex
-Lesbian
-Trans
-Bisexual
-Asexual
-Gay

THAT was it, yes, thank you.

GSM, Gender and Sexuality Minority, seems to be rising in popularity within the queer community. Its inclusive of just about anything and unlike the term "queer", we don't get people questioning its use constantly.

I gotcha. I'm fine with that, in that respect. Really, the last word can be whatever the groups involved consider to be least demeaning, so I'm on board with Minority if that's the desired route.

I've also seen Mogai

Marginalized Orientations, Gender Alignments, Intersex

The problem with the proposed GSA in the OP is that it excludes intersex (which refers to a host of medical conditions related to assigned sex), unless you want to say that intersex is atypical, which I can imagine some intersex people may find insulting. I've heard similar concerns toward Mogai, but I don't remember what exactly they were (though I believe they have to do with the marginalized portion).

Could fix it by changing the A into an I, GSI but you run into a similar issue with LGBT where it doesn't roll off the tongue and more letters may be added to it as need be.

I admit, Intersex individuals had come to mind, but I wasn't really sure how to deal with their inclusion. While I feel that intersex individuals makes sense as to group in, as people who seem (at least from my angle on things) to face similar problems of identity and/or discrimination and misunderstandings, it's also true that we're dealing with three different groups, ultimately.

But then, if I'm bunching G and S together, adding I makes sense. However, I refute the claim that GSI does not roll off the tongue. It's like CSI, but with a G. That should sail smoothly. Just think about different cities naming their local groups like that. GSI: Miami. GSI: New York... GSI: Boise?

While I find MOGAI amusing, I almost think that's the problem. If we end up with a marginalized group whose label starts with W, are we no longer allowed to feed them after midnight? And then when are you allowed to feed them after midnight? Timezones? It's crazy.

You should rename your club the "People Who Like People" club, and just be done with it. xD

GSM, Gender and Sexuality Minority, seems to be rising in popularity within the queer community. Its inclusive of just about anything and unlike the term "queer", we don't get people questioning its use constantly.

Just curious, but how is "Gender and Sexual Minority" inclusive of just about anything? It would, by definition, exclude the majority in it's term. Which, if the point of the club is to foster cooperation across all the groups, and a group that started out as the Gay-Straight Alliance would suggest cooperation, that would seem to be a contrary name. I mean just looking at that name, at first glance to me as a hetero male, felt like I wouldn't be welcome in it. Because I'm not a gender or sexual minority.

I'm guessing Mars' response cleared you up, but yeah, this is about using "Gender+/Sexuality Atypical (or any other appropriate final word)" to represent the global population of said people. I am not actually affiliated with the school club. I am a Uni Sophomore now. Sorry if that initial spiel leading into the topic was a bit confusing.

Maybe the problem is trying to group sexuality, gender identity, and genetic conditions in the same "tent". They're explicitly NOT really related.

I admit, you have a point. While I feel that their issues overlapse, they are, at the end of the day, three different groups. But then, as a Canadian Maritimer, I've always felt our three (four, if you go Atlantic and pack in Newfoundland & Labrador) provinces would work better as one, just for political leverage. Easier to ignore three/four little folk than one fairly large person. That said, I'm not part of any of those groups (as in GSA/I/M/?), so I don't have the final say on how much they want to band together.

#BringBackBanding. I want my combat phase as convoluted as possible.

 

[Cavouku]

J]I mean just looking at that name, at first glance to me as a hetero male, felt like I wouldn't be welcome in it.

We're not talking about a name of a school club when we say GSM, we're talking about what would be the best way to people who aren't both straight and cisgender, people who face legal and social persecution that is (generally) based in the same form of bigotry and ignorance. Its a category of people, so of course you aren't included in it (assuming you're cisgender, you only refer to your sexual orientation). Its like "LGBT" in that regard, not the name of an organization, but a category of people.

The name of the club, which is only the launching point of the OP, already exists, its called the "Gender/Sexuality Alliance", as the OP mentioned. It was a decent way to keep the initials of the school club while being inclusive towards bisexual and trans folk, among others, whom have quite often been excluded from Gay-Straight Alliance clubs (which in fact happened at the old GSA at my high school).

Aw. I'm sorry to hear about your school's club. I was aware GSAs weren't my school's innovation, so I figured the meaning of the acronym wasn't either... I mean, it still might not be, and I'm not sure when you were in highschool (or how long GSAs have been around. I am clearly not in the loop), but I hope if the reassigned term hasn't caught on more widely yet, that it will eventually.

 

[happyninja42]

J]I mean just looking at that name, at first glance to me as a hetero male, felt like I wouldn't be welcome in it.

We're not talking about a name of a school club when we say GSM, we're talking about what would be the best way to people who aren't both straight and cisgender, people who face legal and social persecution that is (generally) based in the same form of bigotry and ignorance. Its a category of people, so of course you aren't included in it (assuming you're cisgender, you only refer to your sexual orientation). Its like "LGBT" in that regard, not the name of an organization, but a category of people.

The name of the club, which is only the launching point of the OP, already exists, its called the "Gender/Sexuality Alliance", as the OP mentioned. It was a decent way to keep the initials of the school club while being inclusive towards bisexual and trans folk, among others, whom have quite often been excluded from Gay-Straight Alliance clubs (which in fact happened at the old GSA at my high school).

Ah, I see, I thought you were suggesting they change their name to GSM, not using it as a general descriptor. And yes I am cisgender.

Though I think you meant to say "We're not talking about a name of a school club when we say GSM, we're talking about what would be the best way to describe people who aren't both straight and cisgender" ? Bolded and italics by me for emphasis. Seemed like you missed a word there, and just wanted clarification on what you meant to say.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Anything to stop people from making the "LGBTQABBQ" joke constantly. It's like Blackberries, I want someone to change the name just so the stupid joke people always make of it dies in a hole.

I think you mean QUILTBAG:

Okay, this acronym is well worth any amount of annoyance people have had from the additions.