Queer as an all inclusive word...

I think that the whole acronym thing is a bad idea. If you leave it short, it excludes people. If you make it all-inclusive, it is insanely long. The word queer is a trigger for some people because it was used as a slur for a long time and was only recently reclaimed. I really hope that a new word that is all-inclusive and not too long can become recognized by everyone in the community.

 

I heard the acronym 'DSG' from somewhere which i found to be inclusive of everyone i could think of while being very short.
It stands for "Diverse Sexualities and Genders".
So obviously it includes all of the various orientations we have as well as the gender identities and I don't think it'd be a stretch to say it includes non-binary people and asexual people.
If there's a problem with it, then i'm sorry for not noticing it but I find 'DSG' to be better than 'LGBTQIJKLMNOP...'.

 

Name it 'Our voices', then confuse a cat.

Why not?

 

Gay is just fine

 

Hello,

DSG sounds good, but some people don't want to include cis-het and saying 'diversity' would have to include it [otherwise it isn't 'diversity']. If you want my opinion though, sounds great, providing it includes accepting cis-het people. This isn't so much a problem, but a detail with the definition of 'diversity' you might have missed [if you got this then forgive me].

 

I once heard the term 'SAGA', which stands for 'sexuality and gender acceptance' or something like that and I thought it was really cool. I personally am fine with the word 'queer', but I understand that some people find the term offensive. Of course, the point Secret made still stands and it does include cis-het people, but it's still an easy way to refer to the LGBTQIA blah blah blah community.

 

Nah you're right there. MSG?
M for Minority?
D for Different?
S for Select?
I really can't think of any words. The SG part is perfect. But we just need a word which refers to the LGBTQIJKLMNOP community without including every person on the face of the earth, since that's not what we're trying to accomplish.

I like MSG but 2 things:
It reminds people that we are, infact, the minority, every time it is used...
It reminds me of a way of food advertising with how they say there's no Monosodium Glutamate or MSG

Just thinking of one word to complete the accronym is difficult.
Maybe i'm just thinking too much into this since it's 1:30 am for me :rolle:

 

Isn't that what we're trying to accomplish though? The acceptance of all genders and sexuality. I mean, 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.

 

I don't know where the heck that one came from, but one I know that has been fairly known for a bit is GSM(Gender and Sexuality Minorities).

Not that it really matters to me much in the end, because I'd rather personally keep away from this 'community' talk either way.

 

You make a good point.
I agree with AGS.

People will argue over it no matter what people call it.
We call it queer, people will get offended.
We call it LGBTQI<insert many letters here or the infamous '+' sign>, people complain it's too long.
We call it LGBT, it isn't inclusive.
Even if it's shortened down to 3 letters, people will complain.

 

Personally, I'm a fan of the terms GSM and Queer. I generally describe my identity as being queer though, just because it is so complicated to explain to people sometimes. I've personally not seen a reason to include cis-het people in the acronym. Just because they help us does not mean that they know the everyday struggles that people in the community face. They know the outsider perspective, which can be drastically different than the insider perspective.

 

The term "queer" is extremely offensive. It is no different from "faggot" or any number of slurs hurled at those of us who are gay. "Reclaiming" a derogatory word such as "nigger" or "nigga", if your ears are sensitive enough to pick up the difference, has benefited the African-American community so much. I can only imagine how hurtful the "n" word sounds to those who actually fought for those rights in the fifties and sixties. Gay works fine for me. Finding an umbrella word is such a first world problem when there is still so much to do. The more we refine who we are, compartmentalize our differences, the less unified we become. If we've become too delicate that our differences must be acknowledged, we are no longer in the fight together. What we have "LGBT" covers more or less everybody. The alphabet soup doesn't really need expansion does it? Forgive me if I have offended any of you. It was not my intent.

 

I personally don't mind the word queer. Short and to the point, but it's really controversial.
I don't see why we couldn't just use LGBT+ or something like it.

 

The acronym has become increasingly cumbersome as more and more letters keep getting added to it. I'm not a fan of the word queer. I don't really find it offensive, though it is still a slur to a lot of people, but I don't really identify with it either.

Ultimately, the name they choose probably depends on exactly what audience they are trying to attract.

 

I think the term Queer accurately describes my sexual orientation and I have no problems with using it or having HuffPost using it either. I know that some older members of the community who were hurt by that word have a very different viewpoint than me, and in conversation with those members I will refrain from using it to describe them, but seeing it used as a positive term in academia as well as increasingly in the public, I think that in another 10-20 years next to nobody will have problems with the word. The usage of the term HuffPost Queer Voices was probably used because they are trying to attract a younger reading audience and an audience that felt as if their voice wasn't being represented under "Gay Voices", and I have no problem with that. It's just something they decided as a writing staff to do. The world changes, and words can be reclaimed and disclaimed, and life moves on.

 

Im not necessarily offended by the word "queer" but I also don't really identify with it. I'm happy with people calling me gay, and I'm happy to call myself gay. I don't have a connection to the phrase queer and do not feel that it describes me (even though linguistically it supposedly does). Then again given the other phrases that people usually apply to gay people queer is just fine haha.

Having said that I hate that non-cisgendered/non-hetrosexual people are lumped into one category. We have this huge variety of sexual, and gender identities that we're trying to cram under one inclusive term. I think it feeds into a stereotypical framework that everyone that isn't cis-gendered and straight acts, feels and thinks the same way. Plus it gives the impression that everyone not cis-gendered and or heterosexual is just an "other". Like I'm all for solidarity and for recognizing the common struggles that we face but it's the idea that a single term can be used to describe a huge multitude of sexuality and gender identity that just frustrates me.

We're people, call us people. We're individuals stop trying to cram us all together into a neat little category.

 

SAGA are a Canadian rock band from the 80s. I want them to remain SAGA

I think LGBT is fine. That's what I've always used. Most people tend to know the acronym.

I abhor the term fag and queer because I've heard them used as slurs many times.

 

There are those who are in the "we're just like you" camp, who dislike the term, as well as being grouped with more "deviant" groups under the umbrella (multisexuals, transgenders, non-monogamous types), and have more privilege.

Then you have others who not only accept they're different, but revel in it: the radicals, you could say. I think I've met more women and AFAB folk who prefer the term, and think it might stem from being excluded from gay spaces in the past, when men had more of a hold on the movement.

Either way, I don't mind the term. It's more common in other countries, as well as older generations, I think. "Queer studies". I don't see it as being the same as "fag", but more like "colored" or "person of color", if anything.

 

I like this term a lot we should make this more known rather than LGBT etc.