Lgbtqiapds+...

Yes. I don't believe "demisexuals" need to be included. It's normal to not be attracted to people right away, and they don't have any of the issues gay/bi people have. I also don't believe transgender needs to be included because it makes people who are uneducated about it think it's a sexuality.

 

Yea, I'm pretty annoyed by the lgbtqiabc+ acronym we keep adding to. It's already getting too long to type and say. I think we should keep it short, but I also don't want to exclude anyone from the queer community. I've actually started trying to use the acronym SAGA. It stands for sexuality and gender acceptance, and I think it really works. It is very including while still being short and to the point. I also say the "queer community" from time to time, but I know the word "queer" is offensive to some people, so I think I like SAGA better.

 

I use MOGAI, and have gotten at least one of my friends to do that same! There are more options than the whole LGBTQIABCDEFG... acronym that are much better at being inclusive (I think). I don't really remember the rest, I know SAGA but can't remember the meaning. But I'm sure someone else will list em all! XD

MOGAI (Marginalized Orientations, Genders, And Intersex) (there's also a variation that's MOGII [Marginalized Orientations, Gender Identities, Intersex])

 

I don't even know what all the letters stand for.
Also, I sometimes find it quite funny that people want to be as inclusive as possible and want to add all orientations and identities, but not cisgender and heterosexual.
I know that the original intention of this whole thing is to connect people who are not cis and straight, but nevertheless it sometimes feels like reverse discrimination to me.
I am not saying that people who use this acronym discriminate against cisgender and straight people. It just makes me feel a bit uncomfortable with the acronym.

 

Yes, I know. As I said, it's just a feeling. I didn't say that I think they should be added, for the reasons you just mentioned.

 

I'll try and find what I posted before;

Link to topic: http://emptyclosets.com/forum/chit-chat/204981-queer-all-inclusive-word.html

Maybe this movement doesn't need to include cis-het since the world already accepts that but I fear [and maybe this is stupid but a fear is a fear] that overtime [a lot of time, not overnight] people might hate on cis-het. Similar to how white is still the majority, people are starting to hate on white people. It's not happening overnight, but you see little glimpses of hatred that is pushed aside due to a minority hating on someone seemingly not counting, and then it'll switch without people noticing as it'll become the new norm [whether or not it's the majority - for biological stuff].

Maybe the following;

AGS

Acceptance/Gender/Sexuality

This means that cis-het people can still support the acceptance of what we currently call LGBT, but won't be included in gaining acceptance as they currently have that, but hopefully won't switch as it has the word 'acceptance' in it.

 

Well I don't like that straight people get to use the word straight. That implies that the rest of are crooked. As far as the GLBT+ acronym... yeah sorry I don't know what they all stand for

 

So is an lgbtqipad an iPad with a rainbow color scheme or something? I might want to get my hands on one of those.

On a serious note, I do find it somewhat ironic that the LGBTQ community spends so much time arguing about who should and shouldn't be included in their "alphabet soup". Seems to me the best thing to do is include as many groups as possible--the LGBTQ community can't afford to look non-inclusive or discriminatory.

But considering that there are people out there (as I've learned from articles linked to on this site) that do not consider white gay men to be LGBT, I think this may be a lost cause. I guess we cannot help but divide, categorize, and pigeonhole ourselves to the point of looking ridiculous.

 

Women have started to abuse men and boys. White people are ''told'' they can't have a job because they are white [this is in the law as ''affirmative action'']. Gay people have started to hate on bi and straight people. These groups [women/jobs/homosexual people] justify this to say it's to ''make up for past oppression'' but what is ''equality'' about abusing, discriminating and hating on people when that's what we're trying to stop. Also, I know it isn't all people in these groups, just a lot [or a small amount of people who talk very loud].

I'm just writing this in short because I could write for a while.

Human Rights laws might mean these groups never get put in jail for being what they are, but the hatred is still there, which means if Human Rights laws go away [without replacement] then it could.

I'm thinking 100,000 is a bit of an exaggeration. I'm thinking 200 years. My reasoning is that being obese was considered a good thing in the 1800s until medial people came in and said that was bad, so being skinny was desirable. 200 years later, people are beginning to ''skinny shame'' people. Not a lot of people do this, but it's been mentioned in television a bit, and television is very good at changing minds.

 

I just say LGBT community, which is already a mouthful, because it's the most familiar to people. But "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender" are essentially umbrella terms. Just like how, for nationalities, we have umbrella terms and it is unnecessary in casual conversation to specify exactly what kind of "white person" one is. As if, "well I'm mostly Scottish but have 1/32 Cherokee blood and my great grandfather on my mom's side was Arabic." Unnecessary explanation. With sexuality descriptions, its important to be concise. If you want to explain details later on to someone you're comfortable with, fine, but that is unimportant for first meetings.

Though if were modifying the acronym, I'd probably combine lesbian/gay into homosexual and add asexual. So HBTA? BATH? That's it: we are now the BATH community.

 

I personally don't have a stance on the expanding LGBQT+. I get that it becomes more inconvenient or grammatically ridiculous but as a few others have said this is suppose to be a community where all peeps feel safe and included.

Couldn't let this go, you might have meant just included in the terminology only but it also comes off as discrimatory. First off demisexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation. It's on the gray scale similar to asexuality. Who are you to say what issue's they have to go through, if it deals with sexual orientation and not fitting in to the norm/cultural majority it counts.

Also no transgender isn't an orientation but people who are trans do sometimes align with a sexuality in the lgbt+ spectrum. And even if they don't what they experienced is definitely different from what the typical cisgenderd person would experience, so I'd say they should be included.

 

I think what we really need is just a new term. We can debate all we want about who should be included or what's a valid identity but if anything, what we really need to do is have something that's less of a mouthful.

I'm not a personal fan of MOGAI, even though I respect what it's trying to do. First of all, it reminds me of Gremlins. (For those who aren't familiar with MOGAI, it stands for marginalized orientations, gender alignments, and intersex.)

I've also heard that MOGAI's a bit dubious, since the guy who invented it apparently included pedophilia as a "marginalized orientation". So...yikes. Also, it's kind of debatable if intersex people should automatically be included with the community even if they're not queer identified but I'd like to hear from intersex people on what they think.

I'm a personal fan of this new acronym I've been hearing: SAGA. It basically stands for sexuality and gender acceptance/awareness. Includes everyone without necessarily listing everything under the sun. Plus, it rolls off the tongue very nicely, which is what I want from a good acronym.

I sometimes use 'queer' to refer to the entire community but queer has some limitations. For one, it has a lot of negative connotations for older generations, especially people who grew up in or before the '90s. Queer's often used as a slur.

Plus, queer can work when it comes to sexuality but I don't know how well it plays out with a lot of trans people. Sure, some trans people (including myself) are gay/bi/asexual/etc. But a lot of trans people identify as heterosexual. And we shouldn't necessarily call them "queer" just because they're transgender. They're just as straight as their cisgendered straight counterparts (unless they're not straight).

But queer also rolls off the tongue nicely. It's not difficult to explain what it means, it doesn't have a million letters thrown in. If it weren't for some of those perceived issues, I'd definitely embrace it whole-heartedly. And I do use it when talking about myself. I just dunno if it works to describe everyone in the LGBT+ community.

As far as whether trans people should even be included with the mainstream LGBT/SAGA/queer/MOGAI movement... I think, at least when we're considering history, why not? The trans community's already so small and struggling. I can't imagine we'd even be this far if it weren't for the mainstream community. I mean, I speak from my perspective as a bi trans man. I think we're stronger when we're united. We all fought together at Stonewall, we marched all over the country.

To cast the trans community out of the movement now- that seems like the ultimate "fuck you" to me.

I mean, we could literally argue that any group doesn't "really" belong in the mainstream queer/LGBT+ movement. "Oh, cis gay people don't have the same struggles as trans/non-binary people- cast them out" "Oh, asexual people don't have sex- they don't belong with other sexual orientations". "Oh, non-binary people don't belong".

And that's not only a waste of time but that's divisive. Guys, our community should be the mother fucking Avengers. We might have our differences but we're a lot stronger when we're (relatively) united and fighting together. Let's not divide up the community. Let's stay a family.

 

"Lgbtqiapds+" ?

Good, God, this sounds like a new virus or disease!

I think we have way, way too many confusing letters here...a simpler term would work better, I think. Not sure what, but this is getting crazy.