LGBTQQIAAP... is the acronym getting a little ridiculous?

[Clover Heart 978]

So, personally, I'm on the fence on this, but I'd like to hear your opinions.

On the one hand, the LGBT community has gotten some flack for adding more letters to their acronym. I think this is fine, but I can see where it gets confusing. Not everyone is interested in sexual orientation, so it may seem a bit superfluous to some to have to remember a 25-letter acronym.

On the other hand, if you're going to include lesbians, gay guys, bi people and trans people, why is it okay to exclude queer people, those questioning, intersex people, asexual people, pansexual people... So it does make sense that you'd want an all-inclusive acronym. Especially since the people not typically included in the acronym are forgotten about and oftentimes are made to feel like they don't belong. So it's good to have a more inclusive acronym. However, if more sexual orientations emerge, as I think is likely, where do we draw the line with the acronym?

One solution would be to stop having an acronym. Instead of an acronym, there could be a word to describe anyone who's not cis and straight. On the one hand, this could allow for much more inclusion than the simple acronym LGBT does without tacking 50 letters onto the end. By the same stroke, however, it could just as easily allow for exclusion, having people thinking that (let's just call it) Group A is only for people who are X, Y and Z, not for people who are Q, R or S. Were we to get rid of the acronym, the terminology for the replacement term is also a little touchy. People use the blanket term "the gay rights movement." However, while trans issues would fall under this umbrella, trans people don't have all the same problems that gay/les/etc. people do and vice versa. Additionally, this marginalizes the trans community to a degree. By only using the word "gay," you completely forget about all the other people within the group who aren't "gay," per se, but whom these actions/laws/whatever affect. And that only makes things all the more difficult for less visible groups like asexual, pansexual, intersex, etc. As it stands, this community is acts a bit more like like Glbtqqiaa, so would removing labels altogether and making a singular term only aim to reduce visibility of these groups more?

So, I'm a little on the fence. I think there may be a better way to go about labeling ourselves rather than an acronym, but I think it would be difficult to go about changing it in a way that would please everyone.

What do you think?

Edited January 9, 2014 by Clover Heart

[Miss Light Diamond 2,801]

I think the reason they added the Q to LGBT was because people figured that`d just cover the rest "Queer" as in...basically "not straight". That's what I thought at least...
To be honest, I do feel like its getting a little silly...when you say LGBTQ community...that's basically just covering everyone, rather then LGBTQIA...that's pushing it.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

you forgot to add the "BBQ", but yes I feel a large, continent spanning acronym can, and will put people off and may even effect support for the cause. 

[Moonlight 7,279]

I thought it was just LGBT and that's it, hmm...

But, no matter, it's getting a bit ridiculous to just keep throwing more and more letters on the end, just because some sexualities don't want to be excluded. I don't really know of a good alternative but I know most people just call it the LGBT community and be done with it. Hell, this is the first time I heard of LGBTQQIAAP, sounds unnecessarily long and confusing, it should either just be called the LGBT community or whatever each individual is comfortable with. 

[Clover Heart 978]

I thought it was just LGBT and that's it, hmm...

But, no matter, it's getting a bit ridiculous to just keep throwing more and more letters on the end, just because some sexualities don't want to be excluded. I don't really know of a good alternative but I know most people just call it the LGBT community and be done with it. Hell, this is the first time I heard of LGBTQQIAAP, sounds unnecessarily long and confusing, it should either just be called the LGBT community or whatever each individual is comfortable with. 

 

I gotta admit, I threw in a few extra letters, partially for humor, partially to make a point. However, they do all stand for an individual thing, and if you look up LGBTQQIAA, it comes up in the Google auto-text, so I guess I wasn't so far off the mark. Just clarifying. Actually, I just looked, and I guess someone did eventually throw a "P" at the end. So point validated, lol

Edited January 9, 2014 by Clover Heart

[Fluttershyfan94 5,738]

The length is getting ridiculous, I agree that we should rather find another way to describe it. But I'm not sure how that would be done, we need a new term for people otherwise it will become too long. In the end though I don't think there is any way pleasing everyone so maybe at least until we have another term we should use LGBTQ just until we have something else.

[DubWolf 16,602]

Why not just call it LGBTETC (et cetera) ? Or something that stands for "other" or miscellaneous. That is a rather long acronym that I've never heard of.

 

Also, I think some of the poll answers contradict themselves... or appear to contradict themselves (saying "no, the acronym lghsflakdfj should not be done away with, and it should be left with LBGT" sounds like we should have 2 acronyms or that it should be both).

Edited January 9, 2014 by Wingin'Wolf

[Clover Heart 978]

Why not just call it LGBTETC (et cetera) ? Or something that stands for "other" or miscellaneous. That is a rather long acronym that I've never heard of.

 

Also, I think some of the poll answers contradict themselves... or appear to contradict themselves (saying "no, the acronym lghsflakdfj should not be done away with, and it should be left with LBGT" sounds like we should have 2 acronyms or that it should be both).

 

I've heard some people say LGBT+ to include others. However, this seems to make anyone who isn't L, G, B or T an "other," which causes problems within the community.

 

I think I fixed the poll.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Clover Heart

[DubWolf 16,602]

I've heard some people say LGBT+ to include others. However, this seems to make anyone who isn't L, G, B or T an "other," which causes problems within the community.

 

I think I fixed the poll.

Yeah I did think about what being an "other" would feel like.

 

And yes, the answer seems clear now!

[Kaneki 1,072]

Being recently openly gay, I guess I should give my thoughts.

 

I think that's a bit ridiculous. Keep it simple, y'know? I'm for simplicity and LGBT fits for me and I'm happy with it. But I'll let others say their opinion, I want to keep my post simple.

[Just_Because 25]

I generally just say queer, because (imo) queer covers all non-conforming gender identities and sexual preferences. I think "queer" makes it really easy that way, because the reality is that most people aren't going to memorize a huge acronym, and even amongst those who do memorize it there will be people who won't understand certain identities.

 

I'm gender fluid and bisexual, but I usually just say I'm queer unless someone asks for more specific details. It's different for everyone though, and some people are more comfortable identifying with something specific, so it makes sense that they would want that specific term to be included in the acronym.

[Appetite4Democracy 451]

I'd first like to point out that LGBTQQIAAP is an initiaism, not an acronym. Acronyms are pronounceable.

 

There's been a big debate on whether or not it should be changed to GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities), but where LGBT is too exclusive, GSRM is too inclusive. Many people have tried to call pedophilia, incest, and beastiality "sexual/romantic minorities" and associate it with the likes of the LGBTQQIAAP. I feel that there's got to be a better term. Perhaps making an acronym (pronouncable) instead of an initialism. Maybe something like MoGIROaSO (mow-jee-row-ah-so) (Minorities of Gender Identities, Romantic Orientations, and Sexual Orientations). The up-side is that it excludes pedophilia, beastiality, and incest (which nobody can legitimately claim to be romantic or sexual orientations). The downside is that it sounds ridiculous.

 

Really, though, I'd just stick to LGBTQQIAAP, at least for the time being. 

 

More importantly, EVERYONE should know what these letters stand for. Most people only know what the first four or five mean.

 

Hell, most people don't even know what Pansexual and Asexual mean. And that sucks.

 

You say, "I'm pansexual" and they ask why you want to fuck frying pans.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Appetite4Democracy

[Just_Because 25]

 

 

Many people have tried to call pedophilia, incest, and beastiality "sexual/romantic minorities" and associate it with the likes of the LGBTQQIAAP.

 

There seems to be increasing evidence that pedophilia may not be a choice, in the same way as homosexuality or w/e. There was a recent study done with evidence for this, and a bunch of articles were published about it, such as this one: http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4285469-is-pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-/

 

I'm not trying to say that sexually abusing children is OK! I think child sex abuse is one of the worst things in the world, and it needs to come to a complete stop! But it seems that there are people who are attracted to children but choose not to act on their urges, hence the difference between a pedophile and a child abuser.

 

I'm not at all attracted to children, but if more studies are done and it turns out that pedophilia is akin to homosexuality then I think we should start accepting those who have those sexual urges, but do not act on them. Anyway, the article explains this better than me.

[Serbon div 386]

Calling it the gay community is fine.

[Nerdy Luigi 2,064]

I believe every sexuality other than Straight should be included.

Simply, because the Asexuals, the Pansexuals, Questioning, (what does the I stand for, Indifferent?), all should be included, this because of the fact they are all sexual minorities (I am part of the original four letters, and also P-curious. (Aren't abbreviations nifty!?)

This may be biasing me slightly, but probably not. We should include everything under the metaphorical rainbow.

[Clover Heart 978]

I believe every sexuality other than Straight should be included.

Simply, because the Asexuals, the Pansexuals, Questioning, (what does the I stand for, Indifferent?), all should be included, this because of the fact they are all sexual minorities (I am part of the original four letters, and also P-curious. (Aren't abbreviations nifty!?)

This may be biasing me slightly, but probably not. We should include everything under the metaphorical rainbow.

 

The "I" stands for intersex. 

 

I feel like the current abbreviation doesn't even cover everything. There are a bunch of gender identities that go unmentioned, for starters. I think everyone should be included, but I think it would be impossible to add enough letters to make everybody happy. And even if we do that, the thing would end up being ridiculously long and not worth anyone's time to memorize, defeating the whole purpose. I want everyone to be included, so I think coming up with a better term would probably be best.

 

You say, "I'm pansexual" and they ask why you want to fuck frying pans.

Ikr? Pisses me off to no end.

 

I'd first like to point out that LGBTQQIAAP is an initiaism, not an acronym. Acronyms are pronounceable.

 

You just don't know how to pronounce it. 

Edited January 9, 2014 by Clover Heart

[GrimCW 658]

... They need to draw a line and stick with their guns. They're becoming as bad as the feminazi's at this point (not to be confused with Feminists). Or even other fanatics like Westboro... I'll support their cause, as I do believe there's nothing "unnatural" about being who you are at heart vs what society wants you to be. But this is getting out of hand and just skews the issue when you keep over expanding yourself and essentially permitting insult by accepting terms that shouldn't be accepted.

 

 

 

I generally just say queer, because (imo) queer covers all non-conforming gender identities and sexual preferences.

 

I've gotta admit.. I have a problem with this.. Much like how "gay" has been reformed into new meaning, so has queer.. Its damaging the language all around doing this.
Queer is just "not normal", but using in this sense is really an insult to both the language and homosexuals IMO.  But thats me.. 

 

I'm not saying to stop it, and I won't. Just that it grinds my gears to see so many words being tore up and misused, forcing me to change my entire vocabulary every few years just to ensure I don't offend someone or somehow find myself accused of saying something I had no intent in saying, due to using the word accurately vs urban dictionary style.

 

Even used to correct teachers in school over this Ahh the days in detention just for quoting a dictionary....

 

sry.. didn't mean to rant. Nothing against you btw.

[ChoroChii 284]

Just call it "Equal Rights" group or something and move on. This is really sad, I don't even see much of a reason for this to even exist really. Who somebody is attracted to is nobody's business and isn't special, if we really want to stand up to the hate these groups get, why not just do it in the name of equal rights?

 

I only heard they added "Q" to it, what is queer even supposed to represent? I thought it was just a random insult to throw at gays or am I missing some sort of term/slang or whatever? and when did they add other acronyms? 

 

 

There seems to be increasing evidence that pedophilia may not be a choice, in the same way as homosexuality or w/e. There was a recent study done with evidence for this, and a bunch of articles were published about it, such as this one: http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4285469-is-pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-/

 

I swear, I want to punch something.. how has it even been proven that people choose to be gay, straight, or bi? Sure there's evidence that it's genetic but I see it like this, the reason people can't possibly see themselves attracted to a certain gender is purely because they aren't interested. Like how I like South Park but others might not find it interesting, if you don't like something, then you can never see yourself enjoying it, right? Shouldn't the same apply to gender? This could be why somebody could "discover" they are bi, they just happen to be attracted to one person and then turn out liking that gender. 

 

I knew somebody who went from straight, bi, to gay within the time span of 5 years, he had previously liked women but later had no attraction and is now only interested in men. I hate talking about this person but I feel like he's a good example for my point. 

 

If we're going to go by evidence that says these people can't help it, we'll soon be accepting pedophiles, zoophilias, and incest. I'm not saying we're going to advocate for child abuse or anything but this is what it's leading to. I, myself, support incest but if there were evidence that shows those into that can't help it, would everybody just change their mind? Probably not but come on. 

[GrimCW 658]

Sure there's evidence that it's genetic but I see it like this, the reason people can't possibly see themselves attracted to a certain gender is purely because they aren't interested.

 

But its more than that, its not a matter of interest or personal preference. Being genetic is everything here. Anyone can choose to like/hate south park, and usually have reasons for it. Some just like/dislike the content, others find interest in it where some don't. Thats more about upbringing and other environmental based affects that change our way of thinking.

 

The brain is hard wired to pickup on certain pheromone outputs and produce as such as well. This is what will attract you to a certain gender, as well as aid in how you develop both physically and mentally.

 

 When put down to it this is not a choice at all, this is forced on you regardless of how you are raised or wish to believe you should be. It can't be changed at the flip of a switch or because one pun came across as funny and caught your interest. This interest is chosen for you, not by you.

 

Its no more a choice than what eye color you were born with. Sure you can hide it, but without extreme measures you can't change it.

Edited January 9, 2014 by GrimCW

[ChoroChii 284]

But its more than that, its not a matter of interest or personal preference. Being genetic is everything here. Anyone can choose to like/hate south park, and usually have reasons for it. Some just like/dislike the content, others find interest in it where some don't. Thats more about upbringing and other environmental based affects that change our way of thinking.

 

The brain is hard wired to pickup on certain pheromone outputs and produce as such as well. This is what will attract you to a certain gender, as well as aid in how you develop both physically and mentally.

 

 When put down to it this is not a choice at all, this is forced on you regardless of how you are raised or wish to believe you should be. It can't be changed at the flip of a switch or because one pun came across as funny and caught your interest. This interest is chosen for you, not by you.

 

Its no more a choice than what eye color you were born with. Sure you can hide it, but without extreme measures you can't change it.

 

Ooh, I've never heard of this hard wiring before. I'm actually quite interested with this information now, as nobody's ever given it to me when asked if they believe it's genetic. So, we're naturally attracted to a certain hormone? How does that work?

 

Why do people suddenly change their attractions, then? and why can't they realize it right away? 

[Shanks 10,811]

Aye aye aye what a clusterfuck, I have a radical suggestion how about we just forget these stupid acronyms altogether. When we get right down to it people are people, some of those people are gay, bisexual, transgendered, pansexual, asexual, questioning or whatever but it just seems like these different kinds of terms and labels just do is to reinforce the differences which in grand scheme of things don't mean jack diddly squat which actually stalls progress on these matters. No acronym could possibily encompass all of human sexual orientations/proclivities so it an exercise in futility to try to make one.

[GrimCW 658]

Pheromones is hard to explain outright.. but heres a snippet from the wiki on that subject.

 

 

 

A pheromone (from Greek φέρω phero "to bear" and hormone, from Greek ὁρμή "impetus") is a secreted or excreted chemical factor that triggers a social response in members of the same species. Pheromones are chemicals capable of acting outside the body of the secreting individual to impact the behavior of the receiving individual. There are alarm pheromones, food trail pheromones, sex pheromones, and many others that affect behavior or physiology.

 

Depending on your physical gender your expected generally secrete and pickup on certain ones, and during the development in the fetus, its a 50/50 shot  what gender your going to be, and it can sometimes go both ways but in different parts of the body. The brain may go one way partially, but then the rest goes the other. You can literally be born in the wrong body so to speak..

 

 

 

 

Why do people suddenly change their attractions, then? and why can't they realize it right away? 

 

 

Often this is due to society saying "you should do this, or that" and as such we try to convince ourselves that thats how we should be and act. As a result people will often ignore or deny their natural selves, and be inclined to act "normal" even if it feels wrong to them. Often trying to convince themselves that "thats not who I am" for whatever reason.

 

The constant hatred toward people who act certain ways is a major reason, and one example close to home is how many "bronies" are "closet bronies" for this reason. They fear the backlash from those they care about, and are close too. As such they refuse to let out that they like pastel colored little ponies.

 

Simply put.. Peer pressure...

 

In a number of cases it can become a matter of preference and/or "kink", that I won't deny. But for many it simply is not a matter of choice.

Edited January 9, 2014 by GrimCW

[Treble Bolt 1,122]

For some reason, LGBTQQIAAP reminds me of QUOP....seriously, that's the first thing  I thought of upon seeing this.

 

Other than that, I will stay on the fence about the deeper issue at hand because it's all just a wording to define a group of people, and i'm not okay with that no matter who you may be talking about. I think labelling people is just stupid. We are who we are, so isn't it better to just stop at someone's name and leave it at that. That's why there's so much bullying, discriminating, and hardship because everyone wants to be better than someone else and will label others to make their supposed superiority known. 

Edited January 9, 2014 by Treble Bolt

[ChoroChii 284]

Pheromones is hard to explain outright.. but heres a snippet from the wiki on that subject.

 

 

Depending on your physical gender your expected generally secrete and pickup on certain ones, and during the development in the fetus, its a 50/50 shot  what gender your going to be, and it can sometimes go both ways but in different parts of the body. The brain may go one way partially, but then the rest goes the other. You can literally be born in the wrong body so to speak..

 

 

Ah, that makes sense. 

 

 

Often this is due to society saying "you should do this, or that" and as such we try to convince ourselves that thats how we should be and act. As a result people will often ignore or deny their natural selves, and be inclined to act "normal" even if it feels wrong to them. Often trying to convince themselves that "thats not who I am" for whatever reason.

 

The constant hatred toward people who act certain ways is a major reason, and one example close to home is how many "bronies" are "closet bronies" for this reason. They fear the backlash from those they care about, and are close too. As such they refuse to let out that they like pastel colored little ponies.

 

Simply put.. Peer pressure...

 

In a number of cases it can become a matter of preference and/or "kink", that I won't deny. But for many it simply is not a matter of choice.

 

Oh. :l I see how it is now..

While I am not found of this for personal reasons, I am glad I was able to clear up my confusion towards the subject and will probably feel less angered towards sexual orientation now. Hopefully. So, thank you for your knowledge, I really appreciate you explaining this to me. 

[Skylar 1,641]

Personally I would prefer if there wern't LGBT labels etc, sure of course people can be classed as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and all the rest but I think using the labels can be bad  While it's proud to be who you are I think it's equally as harmful to start rallying behind the LGBT banner.  Just like what you like and thats it   I'm not straight myself exactly, but i'm in no way one of these people who go around shouting BI PRIDE!!! It kind of does my head in