LGBTI?

[MorphingDragon]

As for the other stuff, I actually find it quite annoying that so many terms need be invented, and think that a lot of the people I meet who use the more rare terms to identify themselves come across like they are just trying to be contrary and special, rather than really identifying as whatever it happens to be.

This.

I believe pretty strongly that everyone deserves to be treated as a human being, to me that generally means trying to break down this culture of everybody labelling each other, so I honestly find it astonishing that some people go out of their way to tag themselves with obscure labels, and honestly it does just feel like some people are trying to be attention seeking for the hell of it.

'Pansexual' is an example of this to me - someone decided that 'Bisexual' didn't cover all the genders and everything in between, so decided that a new word was needed - instead of just taking the currently existing one (which, in my opinion is quite sufficient), some people will argue til they're blue in the face at how different they are from Bisexuals - Further segregation which seems unnecessary in my opinion.

That said, however, I'm not in any LGBT communities, so at the end of the day it doesn't really make a difference to me if these organisations do choose to keep adding letters to their acronym to try and be more all encompassing - As I say, if it was me I'd go the other way and start taking labels away to allow people to truly be integrated into the community, instead of trying to decide what exact label it is they are, in an already confusing world.

We have the terms because they are needed to effectively differentiate between different orientations. Most of the terms aren't because someone decided to be PC, but because there is a reason to have the different terms.

For example Bisexual and Pansexual are completely different things. Bisexual refers to physical sexual attraction of varying levels to both sexes. Pansexual refers to attraction to things not necessarily physical, such as personality or intelligence.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

But let's not add a "P" on there for "pansexual" because - and no offence to anyone that does identify as pansexual - I think it's a mildly pretentious way of saying "bisexual, but with a greater focus on love", since pansexuals likely will be dating both males and females either way, so there's no real need to make another technical term; otherwise, we'll have to start counting "bicurious", and potentially even more vague/ambiguous terms, despite the fact that sexuality is a sliding scale anyway and we could (and probably have) made up about a million necessary and/or unnecessary labels for these things.

Actually, pansexuality is distinct from bisexuality not because it is presumed to be "bisexual with a greater focus on love", pansexuality as a term exists because of the growing number of gender identities available. You yourself are promoted the greater awareness of Intersex people, who have a completely different biological sex from people considered male or female, and some of them will not identify with an identify in the male/female binary. Pansexuality is the explicit inclusion of sexual attraction people of any biological sex or gender, not just males and females.

There are some people who consider themselves bisexual because they feel distinct attraction to two genders, but no more (Not all bisexuals are explicitly interested in males/females; some may be attracted to males and a single non-binary identity, though I don't think that is particularly common). Just because some people use pansexuality as a more pretentious way of calling themselves bisexual does not mean that all pansexuals feel this way.

I have seen distinctions where some say that bisexuals feels attraction to men differently to how they feel attraction to women, but pansexuals feel "genderblind" in their attractions, but I am neither bisexual or pansexual, so I couldn't really confirm this on a personal level. I think the biggest indicator of sexuality is who you are (and are not) attracted to though.

This is what I immediately wanted to comment on after reading the initial post, but I was surprised and glad to see I was beat to it. That post pointed out the differences and then went right ahead and contradicted itself by suggesting that there aren't actually any.

In everyday life, it's generally easier to say bisexual to most people just to get the point across, because that's what's most widely recognized/understood by everyone. Strictly speaking though, it's inaccurate. I find individual people attractive regardless of their sex/gender based on all the usual things people like about each other. In theory the possibilities are endless, but in reality I'm kind of picky and have my preferences just like anyone else does.

I haven't really noticed a difference in the way I feel toward members of different sexes/genders, other than that I'm more or less likely to be attracted to them in the first place sometimes depending on which they are, kind of like how someone might prefer blondes or brunettes but be perfectly fine with either depending on the other qualities of the individual.

 

[Samantha Burt]

I think we can all agree that the most progressive acronym is obviously QUILTBAGSAVITORIFRIBULOUS.

(That's "Quilt-Bagsa-Vitori-Fribulous)

Which stands for:

Queer/Questioning, Undecided,Intersex, Lesbian, Transexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay, Straight, Amorphous[footnote]Those who are amorphous blobs and are not strictly either gender. Or necessarily human.[/footnote], Vicarious[footnote]Those who only have sex vicariously, through other people. Not the same as voyeurism.[/footnote], Isotopic[footnote]Those who reproduce through the exchange of molecular particles[/footnote], Transexuormers[footnote]People who can change their sex back and forth at will[/footnote], Orwellian[footnote]Those whose true love is crushed by a totalitarian regime that allows for no emotion[/footnote], Reproachful[footnote]Those who are having sex, but aren't happy about it.[/footnote], Igneous[footnote]Refers to a small group of rocks that have gained the ability to reproduce sexually.[/footnote], Fictitious[footnote]Those who do not actually exist, and thus have no gender.[/footnote], Romantic[footnote]Those who have an overly-idealistic and nieve view of sex and relationships.[/footnote], Idiots[footnote]Those who are too stupid to reproduce without measurably damaging the human race, and thus cannot legally have sex with anyone[/footnote], Bears[footnote]Self-explanatory[/footnote], Ursine[footnote]Also self-explanatory. Not the same as Bears.[/footnote], Liquids[footnote]Refers to beings made of liquid that can reproduce sexually[/footnote], Omnipotent[footnote]Refers to all gods and god-like beings how have grown beyond the need for sexual desires.[/footnote], Unknowable[footnote]Refers to beings of unknowable horror that nonetheless have sexual desires, even if nobody is sure exactly what they are.[/footnote], Spider-Monsters[footnote]Refers to horrible monsters that reproduce by laying eggs inside their helpless, screaming victims.[/footnote]

You guys are all bigots. ALL groups should be equally represented.

Thank you for the fantastic early-morning chuckle. Wish I could be arsed to remove all those footnotes.

Can we just call it "non-Hetero" and be done with this? I know that some people like to be different, but for some reason you're grouping all of them together.

I'm okay with this. It's certainly much more efficient in my opinion.

 

[Starik20X6]

I've never had to use any form of those acronyms in conversations, so do what you like to it.

 

[lord canti]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but what is a intersexual?

 

[Cowabungaa]

I'm rather new to the LGBTI community as I've only very recently been coming to terms/realizing my non-straightness.

I must say that the intersex label fits more snuggly than anything else, that or being gender-neutral, as I don't really identify myself as a man. Sure biologically I am but personally I don't really feel like one of them. Never really felt at home amongst men either, more so amongst females, and I can't really stand it if I'm expected to behave or be a certain way just because I have a penis.

So yeah I'd like the Intersex label to be there. Though I agree that too many labels can be too silly. But do mind the difference between sexuality and gender identification. Non-hetero is nice and general for sexuality but not so much for gender identification.

 

[Nieroshai]

Dammit, let's focus on just being decent humans. Humans who have sex in their off-time. Or don't.
I'm not LGBTVIWTFBBQLDSLOLUGOTAIDSN00BROFLMAOZEDONG.
I'm human.
I just also like both genders. And playing video games. And learning trivia and errata. And breathing.

 

[Angelowl]

I'm rather new to the LGBTI community as I've only very recently been coming to terms/realizing my non-straightness.

I must say that the intersex label fits more snuggly than anything else, that or being gender-neutral, as I don't really identify myself as a man. Sure biologically I am but personally I don't really feel like one of them. Never really felt at home amongst men either, more so amongst females, and I can't really stand it if I'm expected to behave or be a certain way just because I have a penis.

So yeah I'd like the Intersex label to be there. Though I agree that too many labels can be too silly. But do mind the difference between sexuality and gender identification. Non-hetero is nice and general for sexuality but not so much for gender identification.

Is this were I explain that intersexual isn't a identity as much as a medical term for various androgynous syndromes and malfunctions? Kind of like transsexual is a medical term foremost. What you describe is called intergender, as in gender neutral. "Sex" refers to biology and the term intersexual usually require a medical diagnosis.

With that said I have to support your viewpoint. Be who you want to be and do what you want to do, not letting one be limited by arbritary rules. I try to live someway like that myself.

 

[elvor0]

-snip-

For example Bisexual and Pansexual are completely different things. Bisexual refers to physical sexual attraction of varying levels to both sexes. Pansexual refers to attraction to things not necessarily physical, such as personality or intelligence.

Right. And Pansexuals are the only people who can be attracted to people for traits other than physical looks? I tend to find I fancy people once I get to know them, rather than at face value. Yet I don't fancy both sexes, what does that make me?

QUICK I NEED A NEW WORD TO DESCRIBE MY SEXUALITY! I only fancy girls, but like, I like them for reasons beyond their body! No. No that doesn't make me straight, it makes me....spiri-sexual. Yeah. That's what I am, and none of /you/ are. Look how unique I am!

We don't need a term for every single little subcategory. Otherwise I /should/ have my own sexuality. Any different from that? Otherwise where does it stop? Everyone has different things that make them tick, or what they're attracted to, we can't give them all names, otherwise it looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_subgenres

And that's not even a complete list, those categories have sub catagories beyond subcatagories.

I mean look at it, it's silly right? Folk Metal. Bam, done. But no, someone decided we needed to divide it into 10 different categories, even though the only difference between them is totally inconsequential. Metalcore. Bam, done. But nOOOO, one band uses slightly odd time signatures, and they become Mathcore. Mathcore becomes Death Matchcore. Which becomes Death Mathcore fusion. See where I'm going with this?

 

[GameChanger]

Let's just call them "people" 'kay?

 

[MorphingDragon]

-snip-

For example Bisexual and Pansexual are completely different things. Bisexual refers to physical sexual attraction of varying levels to both sexes. Pansexual refers to attraction to things not necessarily physical, such as personality or intelligence.

QUICK I NEED A NEW WORD TO DESCRIBE MY SEXUALITY! I only fancy girls, but like, I like them for reasons beyond their body! No. No that doesn't make me straight, it makes me....spiri-sexual. Yeah. That's what I am, and none of /you/ are. Look how unique I am!

By that definition you are Pansexual, ironically discrediting your own argument. No one is trying to go around making lots of terms for sexuality. I mean really, we don't need terms like homo sapien; Animalia is perfectly adequate and there's no reason to add more.

We need these terms (Ignoring slang) to concisely express our ideas, just like the music hipsters need the terms to concisely express theirs. Not to mention you discredit people like Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey - people who spend years studying human sexuality and identity, making terms you don't even know about so they could accurately express their ideas and research.

Also comparing music to sexuality is an inept metaphor. People don't make 5000+ names for sexuality as the explicit nature of it makes it more clear cut than the nuances of music. There are clear definitions accepted in the medical and academic studies in sexuality.


Wikipedia even has a convenient list for them as well. I can confirm that they match with my own psyc books.

Asexual Bisexual Heterosexual Homosexual Androphilia and gynephilia Pansexuality Polysexuality Intersexuality Third gender Two-Spirit

 

[Relish in Chaos]

For example Bisexual and Pansexual are completely different things. Bisexual refers to physical sexual attraction of varying levels to both sexes. Pansexual refers to attraction to things not necessarily physical, such as personality or intelligence.

But then again, couldn't you say that about most people? It's not as if everyone dates solely based on physical attractiveness in appearance. Non-pansexual people like personality and intelligence too (and it?s not as if pansexuals are asexual, except when they find someone they love for themselves). I mean, for example, I'm attracted to femininity, so even if it's a transvestite or transsexual or a female bodybuilderr, as long as they look feminine enough I wouldn't mind dating or having sex with them. If anything, they might have "the best of both worlds". However, I identify as heterosexual, because rigid masculinity doesn't attract me in most situations. So what does that make me? Heterosexual, like I identify as? A bisexual in denial? A "pansexual" heterosexual?

Even though these labels are pretty stupid in retrospect (sexologists such as Alfred Kinsey pretty much proved that sexuality is a sliding scale anyway, arguably meaning that most people aren?t 100% heterosexual), the reason we have them is for practicality. Why introduce yourself to someone as "pansexual", when most people don't even know how it's that different from bisexuality? I might sound ignorant here, but it's not as if a heterosexual man couldn't find an intersexual person attractive if they looked feminine enough. It?s not that I?m denying anyone?s pansexuality like how people try to claim that bisexuals don?t exist and that you?re either straight or gay. It?s just that I don?t think there?s enough of a distinction to justify another separate label being made; one which isn?t even used by that many people, even in the LGBT community itself, in the first place.

The reason I was wondering why ?I? for ?Intersex? isn?t in the acronym is because they are distinctly different from transgendered people, and most people know it. Not all intersexual people are transgendered/transsexual, and not all transgendered/transsexuals people are intersexual. At birth, it appears that the doctor just does a 50/50 on what they and their genitalia looks like, then assigns them either male or female.

But, since I?m not in any LGBT communities, what do I know? This barely even affects me. I have a habit of thinking too much about things that don?t, or probably never will, affect me in real-life. But I like to research stuff like this, and I?m currently studying A-Level Sociology.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I've always wondered about this. I mean, of any group of people, it would seem that intersex would have the most things stacked against them. These days people accept that a man can be attracted to a man, a woman can be attracted to a woman, people can be attracted to people of both sexes, or that someone can have their sex surgically changed. But intersex people have such a low profile that most Americans at least automatically assume that there are only two physical sexes and everyone must neatly fit into one or the other. I've never met anyone who actually was intersex, but then how would I know, because how many people let that be outwardly known? And certainly intersexuality has been a feature that has been mocked in the popular culture- not only that but there was a practice of doctors surgically altering children in order to eliminate intersex features up until fairly recently.

I mean, hell. Just look at the bullshit people like Caster Semenya [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya] and Lady Gaga had to go through because people refused to believe that your physical sex could be anything but binary. Or maybe the bigger motivation was because it's so fun to speculate about celebrities having deformed genitals, because taking famous people who have achieved more than us down a peg makes us feel better about ourselves.

So if any group needs organization to raise awareness and get protection, it's intersex people. But I see precious little support for them. And I wonder why. Is it because intersex people are so rare that they can't get enough people together to make their voices heard? Or is it because intersexuality is so stigmatized that people are afraid to openly admit it? Especially since from what I gather most intersex people are not cases that might have been called "hermaphrodites" in an earlier time (i.e. people with both genetalia), but people who simply have ambiguous genetalia. How many men with micropenis for example, are willing to stand up and proclaim it to the world?

It's a pity to see so many Escapists reflexively opposing the idea of recognizing and supporting intersex people. A pity, but not at all surprising.

I agree. Perhaps they don't get enough support (or we don't hear enough about it) because they seem to be an even smaller minority than transgendered people, and it's understandably embarrassing for someone to proclaim that they have a micro-penis or an enlarged clitoris (for the latter, unless they're a female bodybuilding porn star, and even that's a niche category). That's why I think that, if there needs to be any letter added onto the acronym, then it should be "I" for "Intersex". (Although I think the main reasons so many Escapists are reflexively opposing this idea because they believe it encourages even more segregation, and/or the acronym is already a growing clusterfuck of alphabet soup. But I disagree; it's about raising awareness about these people and their issues, and it's not as if they don't accept straight and/or cis male/female people that support their causes. It's like having a go at shelters for abused women because men get abused too - without considering that women would feel more anxious with men there if they've been repeatedly beaten up by a man.)

This topic was partly inspired by a programme I watched a while ago, about this intersexual person who was born female, but because of her ambiguous genitalia, I think the doctor might've done something or another and assigned her as male. When she was growing up, she took on the persona of a predominantly masculine-looking gay men, but later decided to get surgery to become female (and she looked just like a cis female too - which might, at least partly, be because she was already biologically female in part in the first place). But I think she might've had problem with her new vagina lubricating and/or something else, because of what the doctor may or may not have done to her at birth.

 

[Darken12]

Wow, I go to bed and wake up to a bunch of people pissing on the LGBT[...] community. How out of the ordinary.

I get the rationale behind the "why do they need so many labels? can't they just be normal? isn't that what they want in the first place?" thinking, to which I reply "Ha ha, no."

Labels are necessary. Not mandatory, but necessary. If you don't want to embrace a label, that's absolutely fine, but identity requires identification. In order for a person to construe their sexual and gender identity, they need to be able to identify it and communicate it accurately to others. Labels help you do exactly that (though again, they aren't mandatory. If you can convey your sexual and gender identity without them, feel free).

Secondly, the ridiculous idea that you should be "just human" or something nonsensical like that is that it conveniently ignores societal context. LGBT+ people are still getting killed or suffering violence and prejudice even in first world countries. They are still denied legal rights and widely discriminated against. By denying them the ability to identify themselves, you are aiding the erasure that keeps them outside mainstream media (something that would help perceive them as acceptable to society), keeps their problems from being spoken about, and allows society to quietly sweep them (and what happens to them) under the rug.

Thirdly, it's none of your business. I am frankly quite tired that every time the LGBT[...] community gets discussed in a place predominantly straight like this one, it quickly devolves into the straight people complaining about the ways the LGBT+ community annoys them, or is doing things wrong, or is otherwise deficient. And I'm pretty sure those same people go right back to saying places like these are super tolerant of minorities and there's no need for things like Gaymer Con or anything of the sort.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Wow, I go to bed and wake up to a bunch of people pissing on the LGBT[...] community. How out of the ordinary.

I get the rationale behind the "why do they need so many labels? can't they just be normal? isn't that what they want in the first place?" thinking, to which I reply "Ha ha, no."

Labels are necessary. Not mandatory, but necessary. If you don't want to embrace a label, that's absolutely fine, but identity requires identification. In order for a person to construe their sexual and gender identity, they need to be able to identify it and communicate it accurately to others. Labels help you do exactly that (though again, they aren't mandatory. If you can convey your sexual and gender identity without them, feel free).

Secondly, the ridiculous idea that you should be "just human" or something nonsensical like that is that it conveniently ignores societal context. LGBT+ people are still getting killed or suffering violence and prejudice even in first world countries. They are still denied legal rights and widely discriminated against. By denying them the ability to identify themselves, you are aiding the erasure that keeps them outside mainstream media (something that would help perceive them as acceptable to society), keeps their problems from being spoken about, and allows society to quietly sweep them (and what happens to them) under the rug.

Thirdly, it's none of your business. I am frankly quite tired that every time the LGBT[...] community gets discussed in a place predominantly straight like this one, it quickly devolves into the straight people complaining about the ways the LGBT+ community annoys them, or is doing things wrong, or is otherwise deficient. And I'm pretty sure those same people go right back to saying places like these are super tolerant of minorities and there's no need for things like Gaymer Con or anything of the sort.

I agree. At first, I was like them. I didn't understand why "they would want to further segregate themselves by making up all these labels". But society needs labels to identify with. Like you said, they're not mandatory, but necessary. I mean, yeah, there are females who have sex with other females without identifying as "lesbian". But that doesn't mean that lesbians are somehow "wrong" for wanting to identify with "lesbian", when there are so many people who want to dismiss them as "doing it for attention" or "oh, you could get a man easily if you stopped dressing like a dyke".

But, back to the original topic: yeah, I think it should be "LGTBI", because there's no harm in putting another letter at the end of the acronym to give more exposure to the issues of intersexual people, who, and correct me if I'm wrong, are even more of a minority than trans people.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Wow, I go to bed and wake up to a bunch of people pissing on the LGBT[...] community. How out of the ordinary.

I get the rationale behind the "why do they need so many labels? can't they just be normal? isn't that what they want in the first place?" thinking, to which I reply "Ha ha, no."

Labels are necessary. Not mandatory, but necessary. If you don't want to embrace a label, that's absolutely fine, but identity requires identification. In order for a person to construe their sexual and gender identity, they need to be able to identify it and communicate it accurately to others. Labels help you do exactly that (though again, they aren't mandatory. If you can convey your sexual and gender identity without them, feel free).

Secondly, the ridiculous idea that you should be "just human" or something nonsensical like that is that it conveniently ignores societal context. LGBT+ people are still getting killed or suffering violence and prejudice even in first world countries. They are still denied legal rights and widely discriminated against. By denying them the ability to identify themselves, you are aiding the erasure that keeps them outside mainstream media (something that would help perceive them as acceptable to society), keeps their problems from being spoken about, and allows society to quietly sweep them (and what happens to them) under the rug.

Thirdly, it's none of your business. I am frankly quite tired that every time the LGBT[...] community gets discussed in a place predominantly straight like this one, it quickly devolves into the straight people complaining about the ways the LGBT+ community annoys them, or is doing things wrong, or is otherwise deficient. And I'm pretty sure those same people go right back to saying places like these are super tolerant of minorities and there's no need for things like Gaymer Con or anything of the sort.

I realize I'm quoting you twice now, but you raise a really good point. Call me "politically correct," but I'm getting pretty tired pf people who've never had to experience such bigotry telling people who have to just get over it. Honestly, that doesn't strike me as too different from telling someone who's depressed to just "get over it."

It's fucking "gaymer-con" all over again.

I guess you could also apply it to people that identify as "African-American". I'd count as "Black British" on census forms and whatnot, but even though I don't personally identify as "black" or any specific racial/national identity, that doesn't mean that others shouldn't, if it gives them pride (which, in this context, is "opposite of shame", because they likely would've grown up in a society that's shunned them simply for existing/being born a certain way).

You could probably extend to numerous other labels, like "Buddhist", "Atheist", "European", "French", "Mexican", "Latino", "bi-racial", "transgendered". The only reason I feel iffy about pansexual is because I just don't see a need for it practically in discussion (due to failing to see the practical distinction between "bisexual" and "pansexual" - correct me if I'm wrong, but "intersexual" isn't a "third gender"; it just happens to fall in between the two, if we're going by gender being a scale rather than binary), it has an air of mild pretention to me, and it potentially implies that non-pansexuals value appearance more than love, which is, obviously, incorrect - although I'm not claiming that any and/or all pansexuals think that. At all.

I'm not denying their existence - I'm just saying that I don't think we need to invent new terms for something that can be explained in a much simpler way. Like, "bicurious". What is that? We could all say we're curious about having sex with the same sex, no matter how jarring the experience may be - some people are just more open-minded (jeez, even that sounds pretentious) like to try different things. I mean, if I had a male friend and he proposed sexual activity with me, in private...I don't know if I'd necessarily say "no". But I personally identify as "heterosexual"...mostly, anyway. But I guess that's because you can only ever informedly label yourself, because you're the only one that knows your own body and sexuality. So...whatever. Don't know quite know what the completion of my point was, but I hope it's clear enough for people to understand.

 

[Nadia Castle]

My university LGBT society had to deal with this for so long despite only a couple of people being bothered. First we had to change from LGBT to MSGI (Minority Sexual and Gender Identities) which was a problem since no-one knew what the hell we were. Then when we decided to change it back a couple of people identifying as Queer didn't like it wanted it to be Queer society (no-one else did because we thought it would put people off joining). Eventually we compromised on LGBTQ, but even that didn't please some people. This was about two years of faffing. I think since I left its reverted back to plain old LGBT.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I think our local group uses LGBT+ as a fairly elegant solution. Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans + anyone else who doesn't identify with any of the usual categories.

 

[Darken12]

I agree. At first, I was like them. I didn't understand why "they would want to further segregate themselves by making up all these labels". But society needs labels to identify with. Like you said, they're not mandatory, but necessary. I mean, yeah, there are females who have sex with other females without identifying as "lesbian". But that doesn't mean that lesbians are somehow "wrong" for wanting to identify with "lesbian", when there are so many people who want to dismiss them as "doing it for attention" or "oh, you could get a man easily if you stopped dressing like a dyke".

Pretty much, yes. Especially because by saying "labels are useless! stop using them!" you are denying people the right to self-identify. Not to mention the fact that nobody is ever going to stop using the straight label, so straight people will always be able to self-identify.

But even that ignores a group... the pansexuals.

Everyone hates pansexuals (/joke).

But seriously, maybe PQUILTBAG(A) (with a silent P). Or just go for QUILTBAGPIPE like they suggested before.

I realize I'm quoting you twice now, but you raise a really good point. Call me "politically correct," but I'm getting pretty tired pf people who've never had to experience such bigotry telling people who have to just get over it. Honestly, that doesn't strike me as too different from telling someone who's depressed to just "get over it."

It's fucking "gaymer-con" all over again.

Yeah. A lot of people want the LGBT+ community to be invisible. They complain about our parades, about how we "shove our sexuality in everyone's faces", about how we invent unnecessary labels, about how we're all trying to be special and get attention. They want us to be invisible. If we're invisible, they don't have to acknowledge we exist. They don't have to include us in the entertainment industry or the media. They don't have to waste the time of the Congress with laws for people who don't exist. They don't have to give us legal protection from discrimination, hate crimes or people who try to "cure" us. They don't have to acknowledge our problems. They don't have to waste time educating a society to accept us, to end the hostility we cannot fight because we just plain don't have the numbers to do that.

I'm sure all these things are profoundly inconvenient for straight people, so I can see why they'd prefer we went back to the closet and kept quiet like good little oppressed minorities.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Alright, so just for the record:

LGBTI = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Intersex

And referring to people: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed

Right?

I think our local group uses LGBT+ as a fairly elegant solution. Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans + anyone else who doesn't identify with any of the usual categories.

Yeah, that's good. It's all-encompassing, and still retains the "LGBT" acronym, since acronyms like "GSM" probably aren't going to be accepted with "LGBT" being more prevalent. "LGBT+", although I think "LGBTI" would be pretty all-encompassing. I seem to think too much about acronyms.

I agree. At first, I was like them. I didn't understand why "they would want to further segregate themselves by making up all these labels". But society needs labels to identify with. Like you said, they're not mandatory, but necessary. I mean, yeah, there are females who have sex with other females without identifying as "lesbian". But that doesn't mean that lesbians are somehow "wrong" for wanting to identify with "lesbian", when there are so many people who want to dismiss them as "doing it for attention" or "oh, you could get a man easily if you stopped dressing like a dyke".

Pretty much, yes. Especially because by saying "labels are useless! stop using them!" you are denying people the right to self-identify. Not to mention the fact that nobody is ever going to stop using the straight label, so straight people will always be able to self-identify.

Indeed. Essentially, there are numerous people whose identities, or self-identifications, are a big part of their being, and how they conduct themselves in everyday life. Taking that away from them could be perceived as even more erasure in an already predominantly cisgendered and heteronormative society. And like you said, if straight people are still going to identify as "straight", there needs to be opposites: "gay". And then there's "bisexual", "trans" as opposed to "cis", etc.

I realize I'm quoting you twice now, but you raise a really good point. Call me "politically correct," but I'm getting pretty tired pf people who've never had to experience such bigotry telling people who have to just get over it. Honestly, that doesn't strike me as too different from telling someone who's depressed to just "get over it."

It's fucking "gaymer-con" all over again.

Yeah. A lot of people want the LGBT+ community to be invisible. They complain about our parades, about how we "shove our sexuality in everyone's faces", about how we invent unnecessary labels, about how we're all trying to be special and get attention. They want us to be invisible. If we're invisible, they don't have to acknowledge we exist. They don't have to include us in the entertainment industry or the media. They don't have to waste the time of the Congress with laws for people who don't exist. They don't have to give us legal protection from discrimination, hate crimes or people who try to "cure" us. They don't have to acknowledge our problems. They don't have to waste time educating a society to accept us, to end the hostility we cannot fight because we just plain don't have the numbers to do that.

I'm sure all these things are profoundly inconvenient for straight people, so I can see why they'd prefer we went back to the closet and kept quiet like good little oppressed minorities.

The only person I can think evidently flaunts his sexuality in people's faces is Louie Spence. I don't like him not because he's gay, but because he genuinely seems like he's putting it on. There was literally a moment where he started unexpectedly gyrating in front of this guy on a panel show - and then predisposed homophobes are going to watch that and be like, "See? Gay people are sex-mad borderline-rapists!"

IMO, any inconvenience that straight people get as a result of gay people is, probably in most cases, nowhere near as bad as the inconvenience gay, bisexual, transgendered, and intersexed people get simply for being who they are. Personally, despite the whole "nurture over nature" that exists with the gay/bisexual/transgendered minorities and not with racial minorities, I emphasize with sexuality/gender minorities because, as a black guy (I almost never say "as a black guy"; it sounds a bit too high-and-mighty for me), I know what it's like to have people place stereotypes, often inaccurate ones, on you simply for being born a certain way.

In a nutshell...can't everyone just get along?