How do you refer to the lgbtq+ "community" least excludingly?
How do you refer to the lgbtq+ "community" least excludingly?
As the title states really. I need to refer to this diverse group of people, who somehow have gotten put in the same box labeled "sexual minorites".
I'm a boring CISHET vanilla white male, so I don't really know. I want to include as many as I can when I refer to "lgbtq+ people". I've been studying various flags, trying to find the one flag I need. But I can't really figure it out.
Is lgbtq+ the preferred term, or what should I use? Is a flag better? I don't want to hurt someone by not including them.
I just use "the LGBTQ community"
If that offends anyone, they're that 0.00000001% of attention-seeking twats that get upset about anything for the sole reason of making any issue about themselves, no matter what
They are also the loudest, mind you
Like I give a fuck
I hear you loud and clear. I'm probably adding the "+" as well, but I also realize that some people just want to be offended. If I can get people to be offended that I don't oppress lgbtq+ people, then that's fine. But I don want to accidentally hurt people by being ignorant.
I'm going to open this in a way that is probably not lending credit to much, but I'm a CIS straight white male.
I'm also Aromantic.
I'm a tiny part of the A at the end of LGBTQIA+, and I have no strong opinions on being left out! I love that we are included at all!
I hit the big supportive events in my community, and occasionally visit a couple of the gay bars while sporting my Aro flag ring and dying my beard in various colors.
I can't remember where I was going with this comment.
Hey OP, can you elaborate on the context for which you are looking to talk about the queer community? I think that matters a bit. There are more formal and more casual descriptions that I do think are important to discuss the differences of use.
For instance, Gender and Sexual Minorities or GSM is probably the most formal you can go with. This might be appropriate for corporate DEI, but you will get absolutely roasted on social media if you refer to gay people that way. (It's very clinical, not really something the community uses, but it's a wide umbrella)
LGBT(QIA+) is a little old school nowadays, a mouthful, and always feels a bit like you're always going to be missing some letters. If a cishet ally used any variety this, I'm not going to be offended and I'd appreciate that they're trying- it's clear that the intention is there and it's better to signal support imperfectly that be silent imo. This one usually comes up most frequently around Pride Month as there's a lot more visibility on our community from those who are not in it.
The queer community is probably your best all-purpose use but may not work 100% in formal situations as "queer" has historically been a pejorative. Boomers tend to look at you funny when you use it, and some younger folks who don't think that slurs can ever be reclaimed can sometimes be put off as well. That said, it's probably what the majority of the community uses as an umbrella term. This is the one I'd use when chatting with friends. "Gay" can also be used as a substitute for "queer" in this context as many folks will also use that as an umbrella term, but this can be confused with discussing just gay men, so you may have to know your audience.
I had a presumed cishet friend in high school who just used "homosexual". I wouldn't recommend. All of the formality of GSM, none of the inclusion.
Other things I would not recommend: alphabet mafia (unless you're on tiktok), anything that is still generally considered a slur (some folks are reclaiming the f-slur, t-slur and d-slur but I would consider that a deeply personal choice of self expression and not something for cishet folks to use at this time, unless personally invited to use to describe only that person), and lastly, using any of these broad identifiers to refer to specific people who have shared their specific label with you (ie don't call someone a queer woman when they have told you they identify as bisexual, or a queer man if they said they are a trans man, etc. Some people do identify as queer though, so if they have said as much you can use that specifically then).
That's a lot of minutia but I think the important thing is, the community generally knows when you are trying your best. Even if you accidentally offend someone, just asking what they would like to be referred to in the future is probably all you need to worry about.
Thanks for your elaborate reply, of which I disagree with nothing!
I have been editing my post for the entire day, and one thing I was debating with my self was how much context to provide. One thing is I want to solicit replies, not bore people to death. Another thing is that if I go through with my idea, some may be able to doxx me.
But "on with the context" I hear you think :-) I work with young people mainly. We're talking 16-25 year olds primarily. Lately I've become aware of how my older coworkers (not that I'm young either, but the others are older) approach especially trans people. Some of the other young people we work with will echo this. And I've had it! I've decided to become a bit more aggressive in my opposition to this "oppression light" that I see. I wanted to get those "respect my trans homies, or I'll identify as a fucking problem". I like the message and the trans people I've consulted seem to agree that it's pretty funny ... BUT! I can't wear the word "fucking" on my clothing, and I don't want to limit the message to only include trans people.
So I'm trying to figure out, how to display something to the same effect, but with more minorities included. Being the dumb fuck I am, I wanted to make sure that I don't hurt people, by being ignorant of the meaning of some term or excluding someone. And just asking the usual lgtbq+ people in my circles would not give me a representative answer. I might get some t-shirts made, it may be badges, or something entirely different IDK, I'm working on it.
It seems like in this situation, it's reasonable to just use the word "trans". I really appreciate how much thought you're putting in to inclusiveness, but it seems like it isn't the queer community at large who your older coworkers are struggling to accept, but specifically trans people.
I don't know all the details, but I would recommend two things:
First, you need to help trans people feel safe while they're in your place of work. They are the people who are at the center of this conversation, not you and not your older coworkers. Get a small Progress Flag and put it somewhere in your workspace where it is visible to the public and also clearly associated with you. Your goal here is to put up a little flag that says "if you're in the queer community, come to me and I will make you comfortable". These statements of inclusiveness are aimed to the public, not your coworkers--your coworkers already know that you're an ally because they know who you are and what kind of actions you do, but the general public doesn't have that luxury so this is where your efforts for inclusiveness should be focused.
Second, if you do want to buy clothes or accessories to show your older coworkers that you support trans identities and try to change their minds about doing the same, make sure you support trans artists when you do so :) don't "get them made", buy them from a trans artist who has already made them. Not only will you be financially supporting the people you want to support, but you'll also be elevating the voice of an actual trans person--which I think is what you wanted to do when you made this post.
That being said, hostile phrasing like "I'll identify as a problem" may not be the best way to change someone's mind. I don't know a lot about your coworkers, but you might be the only person to ever speak to them with empathy about empathy for trans people. You've got an opportunity here to prove wrong the stereotypes about "screaming SJWs", stereotypes that are so baked in to our society that they have even managed to enter the discussion we're having here. In a world like the one that we live in, kindness and patience are radical and powerful tools, if we choose to use them.
“respect my trans homies, or I’ll identify as a fucking problem”
LOL I LOVE this!! Maybe you could change it to “respect my trans homies, or I’ll identify as a ducking problem” or "pucking froblem".
As a 70 year old lesbian, one thing I've long believed and believe now more than ever is that the most radical thing anyone in the queer community has ever done is simply come out in their daily life. Then live their life as an out person, whatever they are out as, and to the greatest extent possible. So to you, thank you for coming out as an ally, and I hope you do so loudly and daily. It can take courage.
Queer is a great umbrella term, but it still originates fairly recently as a hated slur, which suggests queer people have more right to use it than not-so-queers. Thirty five years ago I was friends with a lesbian couple in their 60s who HATED the term dyke, and were highly perturbed when I joyfully embraced being a dyke, because "dyke" had been such a horrible slur when they were young. But now my generation was reclaiming the term.
My two cents as a trans person: The Q (queer) is an umbrella term for everyone who didn't fall under L G B or T, so adding anything after that is just unnecessary and begging for right wingers to make a joke out of it.
So "LGBTQ" is safest, but most of the time I just say "LGBT" tbh
I get where you're coming from, but what about the wide swath of people in this post, who are not covered by the term? Like aromantics and asexuals?
begging for right wingers to make a joke out of it
Who's to say I'm not kinda looking for it? Come at me, I'm angry, I sorta want a fight. I can hold my own in a debate, and if I can get you to expose your obsolete and inhumane views by attacking me, then YOU are the one who's outed.
I'm aro/ace and I don't really say anything more than LGBT or LGBT+ myself. I'm not really a fan of the whole alphabet soup acronym, it doesn't make conversation any easier. I don't speak for everyone though, some people clearly like the name including everyone. Personally I tend to even omit the + or Q after the first time of saying because otherwise it's still a mouthful.
Hello, I'm one of those queer people.
For my two cents, I find in conversations it's easiest to refer to it as the "queer community" or "gay community." If I'm feeling an acronym, the first one I reach for is LGBT. And that's me speaking as one of those q+ folks.
Now for me, I prefer to use Queer because it's sort of an umbrella term. For instance, all lesbians are queer, but not all queer people are lesbians. It's also great for people who don't like labels, because it doesn't pigeonhole someone into a specific box.
The term "queer" has a little history behind it too. When I was in middle school, being called queer was like, the ultimate insult. It was used pejoratively, and it felt bad to hear it. Nowadays we're reclaiming the word, and it loses its evilness. That all said, you can call people "queer," but don't call a person "a queer" or else you're being insulting. It's to be used like an adjective, not a noun.
For my money, this is the most inclusive flag without singling out a particular community.
Generally speaking, I don't like an overly verbose acronym. It's part of why I stop at LGBT or LGBTQ instead of going all the way to LGBTQ+, or as my government seems to want to say, LGBTQ2IA+. In my opinion, the effort to make the community more inclusive by adding more sub-communities to the acronym has the opposite effect.
I'm a bi guy and I've never used LGBTQ2IA+ in my life. But I like it when the government does. I like to see them falling over themselves trying to be inclusive. Struggle, bitch, it's about time something was even a tiny bit difficult for those fucks.
I don't think OP needs to do the same, though. Queer community, gay community, LGBT, that all seems fine to me.
I've never seen/heard the 2 before, what is the 2?
The 2 or sometimes characterized 2S refers to the Two-Spirit community.
I'm realizing now this may only be a thing in my part of the world, which may go to show that an overly inclusive acronym is actually divisive.
I believe that one is "2 souls", which is a term that North American first nations people use, iirc.
Generally speaking, I don’t like an overly verbose acronym. It’s part of why I stop at LGBT or LGBTQ instead of going all the way to LGBTQ+, or as my government seems to want to say, LGBTQ2IA+. In my opinion, the effort to make the community more inclusive by adding more sub-communities to the acronym has the opposite effect.
The other question/issue I have with the long abbreviation is does the order of the letters matter? It's currently settled on L->G->B [...] but is that just by tradition or does it signify some other importance [order added? relative size of community? etc]. If you remembered all the characters but couldn't remember the sequence is it disrespectful to list them alphabetically or try to use the typical order and possibly transpose a couple? I would assume there's a process for deciding when to add a designation to the abbreviation, how do things get decided against and what does that mean if you feel there's something that should be included but isn't? You wouldn't want to gatekeep someone's genuinely held identity, but you can't list everything, and if you add a "everything else" then what's the point of a list in the first place other than increased prominence in relation to "everything else"?
It definitely feels like a more conversation-friendly catch-all (such as "queer") is more tenable instead of constantly adding or changing designations to refer to a nebulous collective group. At its core, basically that group is anyone that considers themself not CISHET, and any extra specificity is certainly important for identity and community building but probably not needed in typical conversations/references.
Another thought just occurred to me, how does screen reading assistive tech. deal with seeing
LGBTQ2IA+-- does it just read out every character or will it try to pronounce it like a word? Either would be varying levels of jarring to the user I'd think.Sorry for dropping this kinda stream of consciousness rant on your comment, and I don't consider myself part of the community so it's really not for me to say anyway, but I was glad to see a similar sentiment against the abbreviation reflected throughout this post and particularly from your comment.
I have a couple different opinions on the order of the letters. Normally, I'd say that order doesn't matter because it's a collective, and the order comes from the point that communities merged together. For instance, there were originally alliances of Lesbians and Gays in the 70's, but Trans often wasn't considered its own thing until sometime in the 90's. And since Queer was originally used as a slur, it didn't make sense to add it until even later when sentiment had changed.
So usually what you see happening is more letters getting added on to the end at the point of adoption. However, and I just learned this today, the government of Canada today is now using 2SLGBTQI+ as their official acronym. This breaks convention for a couple of reasons, in that Two-Spirit is represented with '2S', which means that it now has precedence and more symbols than the other communities in the group.
They say this is to represent that the Two Spirit community would be the historically oldest group in the collective. I'm not sure if I really believe that though, since these labels are about human sexuality, and that's been around as long as there have been humans. There was no 'first' sexual or gender minority in my opinion. This feels more like a do-nothing feelgood thing where a government that's failed to do right by its indigenous people pats itself on its back for being inclusive. Which doesn't mean I'm not happy to see it, it just also feels jarring and weird, and I doubt that the acronym will actually see much practical use when people are talking to each other.
Mm, problem is op is a cishet. We can use words like queer and alphabet mafia, but they are...different from the mouth of an outsider (for want of a better word)
I think there are ways OP can use queer respectfully, and there are ways they may accidentally slip into something that can sound homophobic, so, tread with caution. "The queer community" is fine, that reads to me with the same respect as "queer theory" in an academic setting. "The queers" =homophobic (unless you are part of that community and are being ironic), "are you queer?" =also bad, "my queer colleague" =not good unless that is the specific label they identify with, etc.
Alphabet mafia is best left to the Gen Z kids on TikTok, even as one of them queers myself I'd never use that in a serious setting.
It seems that people disagree with you, based on your votes. I don't get it, I am an outsider, I'm going to stay an outsider. No matter how many black friends I had, I would never consider using the N-word either, because I'm not black, I'm not a member of the community, and I don't know how it is to live your life under those circumstances.
So as OP I can honestly say that I'm not really considering "queer". One thing, as I've already ranted above, is that an English context its history is in a derogatory usage, and shaking that past is difficult, and impossible for me to comfortably pull off. But in a Danish context the word makes no sense. "Trans" and the various permutations of the letters are used in Danish, but "queer" never has been. I believe the closest word would be "bøsse", but that is strictly used to describe homosexual men.
I find that take very problematic. Not because of your opinion on who can or cannot use words like queer, but because you aren't giving a meaningful alternative. What language should an ally use to avoid stepping on someone's toes?
Personally, I think intent is very important in this sort of context, so I don't see issue with words like queer when used earnestly in support. Though I know my experience isn't universal, and I think OP sees that and is trying to be mindful.
I go with lgbt. Those who know all the letters, know all the letters. Those who don't will make fun of you for listing out more letters.
I'm not saying lgbtqia2s+ fuck no. It's cringe af
I agree that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have created a completely unmarketable acronym. That matters because we are still having to defend our very existence to a lot of people whose bigotry is being gathered up and weaponized politically against us.
What about "rainbow people"? I kinda like it, the letters can quickly become unmarketable cringe while still not include everyone.
Strong no to rainbow people or alphabet people from me - it's the sort of thing a homophobic person would say to be dismissive of us. I use "queer", but I think this is location dependent. Where I'm from in the UK, people don't use "queer" as an insult (but rather they use "fag" or "gay") but in other places it has a different history.
I think the main thing is that you are being polite and specifically asking for input so your heart is in the right place. If you are speaking (rather than typing), I believe people will hear that you are being sincere and not dismissive even if you use the 'wrong' word.
Final suggestion: LGBTeeple (contraction of LGBT people) because it's funny.
As an lgbtqia+ person, I say screw 2S. That's so silly.
The best term you can use is just "the queer community". It's a broad and vague word that asks no questions and offers no answers beyond "these people have sexual orientations and/or gender identities that are not exclusively heterosexual and/or cisgender". It's gender-neutral unlike the previous catch-all term "gay". It includes people who were originally excluded and unrepresented by the original LGBT acronym, such as intersex and third-gendered people. It also includes people who find it culturally difficult to put a label on what they do, such as same-gender-loving Black people who don't call themselves "gay".
That being said, it is not always the perfect, use-it-all-the-time panacea that you're looking for. "Queer" was originally a pejorative term, and although it has been reclaimed as positive terminology since the Stonewall Riot days (think of the chant, "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!"), some older members of the queer community remember it as hurtful.
In addition, sometimes it's important to be specific. Exclusively using the word "queer" to refer to the queer community flattens the queer experience to one single uniform word, when reality is anything but uniform. For example, when trans people are targeted by executive orders and bathroom bills, it's important to be specific about who those actions harm: trans people, intersex people, and so on.
For these reasons, while it is safe to use "queer" as a blanket term, some individual people don't like the term and some individual circumstances call for a more specific word.
As far as your flag question goes, if you're looking for a visible signal to signpost that you're a queer ally, you're probably looking for the Progress Flag. It's the original rainbow pride flag, but with added representation for trans people, intersex people, people of color, and those who died during the AIDS crisis.
It’s gender-neutral unlike the previous catch-all term “gay”.
Exposing my own ignorance here, but is "gay" necessarily gendered? I had thought that lesbian women sometimes identified as "gay", is that not the case? No offence meant, genuinely interested.
I don't think there's a contradiction there, a term being gendered isn't all-or-nothing. Certainly, some men attracted to men identify as gay, as well as some lesbian women, and even some bisexual folks of any gender. In that way it isn't exclusively gendered.
But if I say "the gay community", I'm guessing the image that evokes in your mind leans heavily towards gay men, compared to a phrase like "the LGBTQ+ community". Even if the speaker means the same thing by those phrases, the listener likely interprets them differently.
"Gay" is either gendered or not the same way that "guy" and "dude" are either gendered or not.
Exposing my own ignorance here, but is “gay” necessarily gendered?
The difficulty of answering that question, and the fact that both "yes" and "no" are both valid answers that individual people of every gender could sincerely give, are two of the reasons why "queer" has become more popular than "gay" as an umbrella term. The people who do think "gay" as an umbrella term is gendered prefer the word "queer", while the people who don't think "gay" as an umbrella term is gendered are not upset by the word "queer".
Another reason that "gay" isn't used as an umbrella term is because it's also a specific term. Imagine being a man and saying "I'm gay" and having someone ask you, "ok but are you gay or are you gay gay?". Sexuality and gender are already sensitive and difficult things to explore, so removing ambiguity from the language surrounding those topics will make things clearer and easier for everyone involved.
That being said, you should always respect the way that people want to be identified. If you know a lesbian woman that identifies as "gay", then just accept it and use it while understanding that not every lesbian woman will feel the same way.
Noticed that flag on several occasions but never knew what it was called - thanks for sharing!
I personally use "queer folks" as a general catch-all. It used to be a pejorative, but has largely been reclaimed with the whole "we're here, we're queer" type messages.
I tried “you people” but for some reason it didn’t go too well.
Bunch o puffs, lezzas and scallywags.
BoPLS for short, I assume. Should I add BoPLS+ to be on the safe side?
I need to pronounce this as one word.
Is it bop-els or bo-please?
The LBGTQ : pronounced The luh-buh-guh-tuh-quah
The alphabet mafia
Or the southern version : all y'all
I find the full abbreviation to be a bit of a mouthful when speaking, so I sometimes prefer use "rainbow", for example in the context of "rainbow rights" instead. I consider it as inclusive as can be, and people understand what I mean.
I'm a cis straight man, so I may have missed something.
I liked rainbow too. But it would seem that some of the other commenters have a strong issue with "rainbow people" as it have been used dismissive towards them.
A one size fits all label seems impossible to find for this diverse group of fellow humans.
I've always thought we should use "plus" as in the + at the end of lgbt. It's short, easy, all inclusive and has a built in positive association.
Not being part of that community myself, I don't carry any weight in this debate, but I do like this suggestion a lot - the Plus community sounds kinda cool.
Only problem is that if it were written as "+", that might also be read as "positive", which might then lead to 'hilarious' jokes about HIV.
Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea, if that was what the people involved wanted of course.
I largely say queers, queer folk, queer people when talking with other queer people. Or sometimes even just gay. Like "Hey, are we gonna be the only gays at the event?" But I use LGBT when trying to communicate to a broader group of people, such as saying "This event is LGBT friendly".
Your milage may vary, but I haven't been accused of excluding anyone.
Am also a boring, (getting) old white bloke: is something like "rainbow folk" not appropriate?
I know the Wear It Purple day organisers refer to kids who are questioning/curious as "rainbow kids" (at least, that's what a trans coworker told me they called them).
Edit: honestly, it'd just be nice if we didn't have to label people at all. Y'know - everyone's a human deserving of dignity and respect, no matter where they come from, how they look, what they believe in, and who they love.
But, again, I get that I'm a boring old white bloke, and it's probably a lot easier for me to say this than it is for those folks who feel oppressed/suppressed in some way. I just wish it weren't the case.
"Queer" works.
Everyone between age 30 and 60 will accept the label immediately.
Some people under the age of 30 will get offended but they're the kind of people who like getting offended so you can safely ignore them.
Some people over the age of 60 will get offended but who cares, they're about to get dementia anyway.
honestly, it'd just be nice if we didn't have to label people at all.
Hear hear!
To be totally honest, that's somewhat my sentiment for wanting to do something. Some other commenter thanked me for my attitude ... I feel weird about that, because I think of it as respectful common decency towards my fellow humans.
I really like the rainbow word though, it's not as gringe as the letter combinations, not as potentially offensive as some of the words rainbow folks self apply, and it still get the meaning across while being inclusive of all.
GSRM
Gender, sexual, romantic minority.
I really hope he finishes the next book soon
GRRM
A Song of Inclusion and Diversity
The rainbow people. :)
Personally I prefer just "sexual minority" as LGBTQ comes with political backage that I prefer not to be associated with.
why not just use "sexual minorities"?
Gender and sexual minorities is more complete. Trans and non-binary identities are not sexual minorities.
As an alphabet person I’m trying to reclaim the term. I think it’s great!
Here's what I use:
- LGBT+ most formal (and old fashioned)
- LGBTQ+ less formal
- "people" most inclusive
I treat them as normal people and don’t refer to them at all. They’re no different than anyone else in any way and shouldn’t be excluded or included as a result of their sexual identity.
This is all fine and dandy, but if you can't name a minority group, then they are effectively forgotten. It's not true that they are "no different than anyone else" otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. When it comes to diversity and inclusion, you want to be able to identify and name the groups you're trying to include.
"L G that thing there that gets more letters every few weeks"
Personally I would just refer to them as the LGBT community.
Most of the extra letters and terms are highly specific labels or nuances most people would struggle to understand.
For example someone has spent 20 minutes explaining why they are pansexual and not bisexual. I still can't see a difference but if that is the label they want, then they are pansexual.
The key thing to remember is the LGBT community isn't a monolith. The group exists because they are/were being opressed for their sexual identity.
You will also get people who have made the group focus their core identity. They will often be loudest but not always representative of the group.
