Is using terms like 2SLGBTQQIA+ insensitive?
Is using terms like 2SLGBTQQIA+ insensitive?
So I've recently been trying to use the term "2SLGBTQQIA+" over "LGBTQ" as it seems more inclusive, and includes first nation peoples beliefs on sexuality and gender, as well as including and differentiating "queer" from "questioning". It's not perfect (still combines A for ally and A for Asexual) but I think ally could just be included in the "+" portion. Regardless, It seems that people unfamiliar with this term just think I'm being a smart ass or a bigot. When truly I want to know what the limits of what "the community" feel is appropriate. Thank you to anyone who can shed some light on this for me.
Remember Rule #1.
Cis, hetero, straight or whatever it's called nowadaysIf you can't play nice, you can get out or risk comment removal.
No, rule #1 is, "Be nice & have fun -- Doxing, trolling, racism, and toxicity are not welcome in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. In addition, site wide Lemmy.world rules also apply here. "
"Cis", "hetero" and "straight" are all perfectly acceptable and intelligible terms. Though I'm alarmed you don't seem to know exactly what they mean.
Why so fragile?
My apologies. Was just trying to be all-inclusive. I get confused about the terminology. Anyways, just play nice.
In hindsight I can see how someone could take this as inflamitory but that wasn't my intention. This was the wrong forum to ask about such a sensitive subject. Just curious what others thought about the expansion of an acronym and how it is used. How can I add an appropriate warning?
I realised I forgot to actually help you out in my original reply. I've been around since the acronym only had 3 and 4 letters in common usage, there was still unfortunately debate at the time for some LGB about whether T made sense to include. Over time more groups of people felt generally aligned to the concept of being outside the strict roles and expectations of Male and Female, straight and gay, but they didnt feel really described by the words the acronym contained, and letters started to be added.
When it hit 7 letters, it was clear to me that the whole acronym was founded in very Abrahamic gender and sex constructs and continuing to add letters was just making it difficult to remember in entirety.
LGBTQIA as a term didn't include other cultural definitions of gender and sex, even though plenty of other cultures legally recognised one or more groups outside of what they translated into English as "male" and "female". Obviously the Canadian government has been promoting adding "2S", but as far as I know that's a description you'll only find in Northern America. It still doesn't include the Thai third gender, the 2 extra Samoan genders, and a bunch other cultures that didn't have a long Semitic cultural history.
This is why I say LGBT+. 5 syllables and characters is long enough to be understood but also short enough to be remembered. Most people I know right now seem to say LGBT+ or LGBTQ+, and the plus sign is generally understood to include all other identities. I have never experienced someone taking offence to not having their letter said - or if they were offended, they didn't say anything.
When sociologists decide on a single more inclusive word that includes the most people in the global gender and sexuality diversity spectra, I'll use that. Until then, I'm sticking with LGBT+ to say "outside major gender and sex roles", and I think the rainbow 6 stripe flag should be turned into a gradient. The new flag iterations are not doing much for me in terms of aesthetics, to be honest, even if I 100% support the intent.
I hope that's helpful for you to decide what term you use, and it is understandable to ask the question because there's a lot of legacy and variation in its history. Plenty more than even this lengthy post.
Personally, as a member of the community, I just go with LGBT+ or LGBTQ+ (or in my own language LHBTI+)
You can keep specifying further and futher, but the acronym just becomes so unwieldy that noone knows what you are talking about anymore.I've tried to have talks before about that with some filks and only ended up confusing myself further. At some point it just needs to become some all-encompasing term, preferably in words rather than initials, but I haven't heard one yet. Something like alternate lifestyles and genders but without the alternate part since that has an implied abnormality to it. Unfortunatly with as many groups wish to be represented (and some that people expressly aim to exclude for good reason) it seems impossible to cover everyone so simply. If it where to stay as initials though, I'd say the LGBTQ+ seems sufficient with the + being something of a catch-all.
I appreciate your opinion. while I'm fully supportive of anyone being / loving whoever, however they want. I was trying to think harder about how LGBT+ is communicated. one part of my brain loves the unwieldily ever expanding acronym, but it seems to piss people off. Also makes discussion more difficult. Yet on pride month 2SLGBTQQIA+ was what was plastered in the break rooms and lobby.
The more definitive you make it the more divisive it becomes.. i immediately start analysing what you used and picking out what you chose to exclude.
I have no complaints about including 2S in the mega-acronym for Two-spirited people out there, but the L has gone first since the 90's because of the role Lesbians played in taking care of men diagnosed with HIV during the AIDS crisis. Those who contracted HIV were often very ill and exiled from family, plus there were few medical services for this area, plus the concern around contagion - so lesbians in the LGBT+ community stepped up and became caretakers for them. It was just a small way of saying thankyou that I think is important to keep.
Wow. I didn't know that. That's honestly heartwarming and must have been awful for all involved at the time.
I've always understood it that Q was for queer and that queer was an umbrella term.
I have seen Q ascribed to both Queer and Questioning, but it seems to be only Queer these days.
LGBT is literally a acronym for the entire not straight/cis part of humanity...
My thing with all this is people know what you mean by LGBT, that's what actually matters. It's easy to remember and understood by everyone, so to me, its what makes sense to use. 2SLGBTQQIA+ without context I wouldn't have a clue (although I'd probably figure it out from context), it's too long to remember, and you couldn't count on everyone (especially older people) being able to figure it out.
Low effort troll post. Do better.
Is the government of Canada a troll?
Did the government of Canada write this post?
I don't know if it's insensitive but it does seem unintuitive. Yeah "LGBTQ+" doesn't include everything in it's name but it's a short acronym that's easy to remember and say. If I'm in the middle of a conversation I probably can't remember 2SLGBTQQIA+. At the end of the day it's just language to communicate ideas, and I think LGBTQ+ gets the point across clearly. Alternatively you can just say Queer.
One thing that language lets you do is decide whom you want to sound like.
If you use the same terms that someone else does, for the same meanings, you are at some level expressing alliance with them.
Are other people you care about using these terms?
Thank you fubo. I ask people I know who represent those letters, and my significant other said they are apart of the "alphabet soup group" as someone who is non-binary. which made me laugh. But I realize more and more that it's more a political thing I see around then something that ever really comes up much in conversation. People in real life can just say if they are trangender or gay.
If you use a word and people think you're making fun of them, they're going to respond negatively. Not because of what the word "means" but because of how it's used.
If you use a word and your audience think it sounds like the kind of thing that people who hate them say, they're going to respond negatively. Not because of what the word "means" but because of who you sound like when you use it.
Language does lots of things. It doesn't just say what you mean. It also says who you think you are, whom you've been listening to, how you understand your audience, etc.
As someone who is part of the LGBT group, I personally think it's getting ridiculous that we just keep adding letters and things to an already ineloquent shortening. We need a new name that just includes all people intrinsically in the name.
How about... Human?
I like "person" just in case we need to include non-human lifeforms at some point.
We could be invaded by an advanced alien species, or cephalopods might be more sentient than we realise, you never know!
Yes and stop troll posting
LGBT is enough, LGBTQ+ is borderline and everything more is insanity.
Being a bigot doesn't make you enlightened and enlightened people tend to turn out to not be bigots.
No, it just gets ridiculous and makes the people meant with LGBT look bad. Same with the flag.
I'm cis white male, I struggle with using any of them because, to me, it's just "people". I get that there needs to be a counter to the widespread hate of people outside the "norm" but I feel like I'm pigeonholing, or over generalizing, by using a label like that.
I get the feeling from people that fall into those categories, that they don't really care much about the specific label used but more the intent behind the speakers use of it. The main message is just "don't be a fucking asshole", plain and simple, and no one, save a few over-the-top attention seekers, will get upset over the specific words used, unless it's some kind of major faux pas, like including pedophiles.
I personally like to use MOGAI as an umbrella term - Marginalized Orientations, Gender Alignments, and Intersex - but it is not mainstream at all.
These days I use LGBTQ+ instead.
Honestly I assume anyone who isn't using LGBT has super fucked up and bigoted views about gay and trans people.
I'm with you. I even have some questions. I lost my best-friend-questioning-first-nations-friend and fault myself for not going down this rabbit hole.
I think the community is interested in the fashionable choices. Not so much the explorations and education.
If you are just looking for any ally I am. If you are being factious, it's an old joke. Probably was so funny the first time I heard it I kicked the slats out of my cradle.
Thank you for this. I hope you and your friend can patch things up eventually. I'm not good at discussing things like this at all, so I can understand when people don't take my question seriously or think I'm just trolling. In America at least I feel like the media and politics want to be focused on what makes people different and not what makes us alike.
Sadly he is gone. I hope it was a choice due to much larger looming medical challenges but I do not know.
It seems like all societal discussions in this country are centered around popular talking points and that if you are concerned with things that are outside those talking points you must be a troll.
Jesus fucking Christ.