Is LGBTQ counter productive

retroactive

(LGBTQ: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning/Queer.)

-Transgender has nothing to do with sexuality. Questioning and Queer merely represent a tentative link with LGB.

-The acronym ignores other forms of sexuality such as Asexuality, Pansexuality, Polysexuality and Pomosexuality.

-The acronym also appears to be growing. Are they taking over the alphabet one must wonder? But what of furry-fandom and pedophilia? if LGBTQ are getting overly inclusive who will they stop including? The T represents a non-sexuality rights group so why not include fetishes.

-The gay pride parade celebrates LGBTQ in all its forms, but does it represent 'positive discrimination'? Is their an element of us and them? Does the parade compound the sterotype of the flamboyant gay?

While i'm in favor of gay rights, my opinion (as required) is that the LGBTQ movement seeks to be over inclusive while compounding a stereotype of the flamboyant gay. The net result being an unavoidable 'us and them' culture.


(Moderator 'Hotlips' told me to post this here and not Afterhours)

hare05

Have you ever considered searching the last few pages before repeating old threads?

This is the 4th in as many weeks I think. All your answers are within those threads. Discussed, agreed upon, signed in triplicate, lost, replaced, signed again and then pushed off the front page. We really should add it to the FAQ...

foggy_lad

Well I for one am not LGBTQ I'm Irish.

deirdre_dub

retroactive wrote: »

-Transgender has nothing to do with sexuality.

Yes it does! How is it possible to have gender issues without also having sexuality issues?

Questioning and Queer merely represent a tentative link with LGB.

Questioning is usually a precursor to being LGBT.

-The acronym ignores other forms of sexuality such as Asexuality, Pansexuality, Polysexuality and Pomosexuality.

I believe those are what "queer" refers to.

-The acronym also appears to be growing. Are they taking over the alphabet one must wonder? But what of furry-fandom and pedophilia? if LGBTQ are getting overly inclusive who will they stop including? The T represents a non-sexuality rights group so why not include fetishes.

So long as they don't exclude you or those important to you - right? Or - who gets to decide who is excluded/marginalised?

-The gay pride parade celebrates LGBTQ in all its forms, but does it represent 'positive discrimination'? Is their an element of us and them? Does the parade compound the sterotype of the flamboyant gay?

For some, yes. For others, no.

While i'm in favor of gay rights, my opinion (as required) is that the LGBTQ movement seeks to be over inclusive while compounding a stereotype of the flamboyant gay. The net result being an unavoidable 'us and them' culture.

So I'm guessing that flamboyant gays are one of the groups you would like to see excluded - I guess the alphabet soup you would like to see is LGBxF or something?

Chuchoter

Every week we explain to some new person why T is in the acronym. You are not some freethinking maverick to come up with this, you're just incorrect. In any case, gender is a lens through which you see your sexuality, so of course its related.

Questioning normally isn't in the acronym. If its in there there should be two Qs.

Queer, to my understanding, also represents all the other sexualities you list and then some.

Of course there is an element of us and them. Go learn about how minorities work, if you're routinely excluded from society, eventually people will band together and form their own communities. Its not down to us to do absolutely everything to placate straight people so they're not worried about us being too flamboyant.

diddlybit

retroactive wrote: »

(Moderator 'Hotlips' told me to post this here and not Afterhours)

This made me laugh. He's sitting somewhere going "Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha, the can of worms is open again, look at my power." :pac: (Completely kidding all, I'm more certain that he obviously thought here was more apt, which it is, but the image of a omnipotenet AH mod using new posters to rile everyone up here was a lot more appealing. Hot Lips has probably got the Monty Burns finger tap down too.)

Everthing in your post has been addressed in here over the last week in various threads and also there's some in AH this week (Happy Pride to the AH'ers too), so you can get another perspective there too. Paedophilia isn't dicussed here, but there's some interesting threads on it in Humanities (against charter for some reason.)

Anything else you can ask, but ask nicely.

wonderfulname

You could have checked the forum before you posted!!

Gay Pride - Embarrassing or Empowering?

Question: LGBT how come Transgender people are lumped in with gay/lesbian/bisexual

ah now, how many more letters are they gonna add to this acronym?

Some points unique to you (well, almost):

• Queer is an umbrella term,if you really want to streamline the acronym you could cut it to Q.
• How can a group simultaneously be over inclusive AND propagate a limited stereotype? Surely an oxymoron? Did you ever consider the image is being propagated by others?
• How on earth are you unaware that the 'us' and 'them' culture was born of prejudice and that it has actually lessened severely in past years? I mean seriously, that's like blaming a kid that was bullied for the fact they're now isolated, it's not their fault,and its going to take a lot of work to fix things.

Links234

No, this kind of divisiveness is counter-productive. In the US in 2007, two versions of the employment non-discrimination act were proposed, one that had protections for transgender people, and one that didn't. Neither bill passed the senate, despite the second bill dropping transgender protections.

I'm sick and tired of this constant questioning of the validity of trans people's place within the LGBT community, and it's not a question that's on the level. If the op had any interesting in finding out why the community is grouped this way, they could just do a quick search on the subject and have the answers they need. But this kind of questioning is more about making a statement, it's an expression of an uglier side of the community that takes the form of microaggressions. And we are regularly subjected to this, in spaces where people are looking for help and support, where we are discussing relevant issues, we are bombarded with 'questions' like "do you belong here?" "why are you even here?" and the like, and it's less a question and more a statement of enmity.

I'd love to see a time when we wouldn't have to explain or justify ourselves, as if we needed permission to be included under the LGBT umbrella, or at least, people to understand what it feels like to be constantly questioned like this, for it to be insinuated over and over that your needs, interests and identity is detrimental to everyone else in the same community. we've gone over the numerous reasons why the T is included countless times before, and I think we'll all be saying it until we're blue in the face.. that we share issues of coming out, that we share goals such as marriage equality, that we face the same prejudice, that historically we've been linked.

But ignore the politics, the history, we will ALWAYS be linked because of the simple fact that a great many trans people will identify at some point or another as lesbian/gay/bisexual. many of us will transition and discover our sexuality, and for many on a journey of self discovery, being gay is just a stepping stone on the way to being trans. for that simple reason, we shall always be intrinsically linked.

and I'm just gonna leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaaGzsyZN_M

baby and crumble

My issue with the acronym is not with the T at all (I think that's fine as it is, as people have said gender has to involve sexuality and many of the struggles are the same) but I DO have an issue with the Q side of things... I don't think that S&M practioners or pansexuals, pomosexuals or what have you should be included. I hate writing that sentence though. Perhaps an alternate moniker a la 'minority sexualities' might be more appropriate for their inclusion?

I dunno.

diddlybit

zoegh wrote: »

I don't think that S&M practioners or pansexuals, pomosexuals or what have you should be included. I hate writing that sentence though. Perhaps an alternate moniker a la 'minority sexualities' might be more appropriate for their inclusion?

I think I learnt more on gender and sexuality by reading Pat Califia's work on S&M than I have reading any queer theory. The subversion of gender roles and the supression of sexual preferences in some S&M relationships is fascinating, as is the lack of focus on genitality as a site of desire. He wrote a great essay that was entitled something like "Lesbians that Have Sex with Gay Men", that completely changed my perspective on matters concerning sex and sexuality.

wonderfulname

zoegh, can you define the 'sexuals' you've thrown out there? Pomosexual for one is an oxymoron, and not even a sexuality but a viewpoint on sexuality. Pansexuals would have initially been grouped in with bisexuals, most of Q is people who would have been shoehorned into LGBT anyway but didn't quite fit. They were always there, now they just get a letter that's more suited.

I am very hesitant to start another conversation on BDSM, so I'm going to ignore that point let someone else start it...

Annasopra

Links - it doesn't seem to me that the OP is L or G or B so while you have a point, it's not actually coming from within "the LGBT community"

Everyone else - we have kind of done this topic again and again and again in the last few weeks. I can close it or leave it open - If people want a discussion fair enough - if they think it's been done already fair enough. Send me a pm anyway if you have a strong opinion on keeping this open or closing it.

baby and crumble

I don't know if I can define the other "sexuals", and part of me doesn't know why I feel that they shouldn't be included in the LGBT moniker, and again, I hate saying that anyone shouldn't be 'included' in something, but I do feel strongly about it.

I know that this topic has been debated a lot here, but I think it's being debated a lot because people feel strongly, on both sides of the fence. Perhaps merging threads, or having a megathread for this debate would be useful, I don't know...

Shakti

Links234 wrote: »

I'm sick and tired of this constant questioning of the validity of trans people's place ...
microaggressions... enmity.

Great post

I'd love to see a time when we wouldn't have to explain or justify ourselves,

We don't have to explain anything. We've been mindfcuked into thinking we have to.

wonderfulname

zoegh wrote: »

I don't know if I can define the other "sexuals", and part of me doesn't know why I feel that they shouldn't be included in the LGBT moniker, and again, I hate saying that anyone shouldn't be 'included' in something, but I do feel strongly about it.

Well lets take, for instance, pansexuals, defined as someone

not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regard to gender or activity.

Now, as was my earlier point, in an earlier, less liberal world these would have just been bundled in with the 'B'. The addition of 'Q' to the acronym actually does not really see the inclusion of any new people into what now appears to be an exclusive club of sorts, it merely facilitates those who were already members, but didn't fit quite comfortably into the well defined boxes people are just oh so fond of.

I think you should take a look at why you feel so strongly, your post reads very much like what I would expect to hear from a conservative catholic on gay people;

I don't know much about "homosexuals", and part of me doesn't know why I feel that they shouldn't be allowed do as they please in their own homes, and again, I hate saying that anyone shouldn't have 'rights', but I do feel strongly about it.

I mean, if you don't really know, surely it makes sense to inform yourself before positioning yourself strongly for or against?

Johnnymcg:This thread may be similar to others but it appears to be evolving along a different path, perhaps we should see where it takes us?

baby and crumble

You make some good points there, wonderfulname, but I'm not sure I agree with them all... I don't think you can equate denying the rights of gay people to saying that you don't feel like a certain population can be legitimately included in a label that, for better or worse, defines yourself in many people's eyes. I certainly don't think that BDSM practitioners, for example, shouldn't be allowed do whatever they want (with some legal estrictions, as with everything sexual, like consent, etc.). I never even said that I myself don't ALSO identify with some of the elements of sexuality that come under the "queer" banner above.

However, for me, the label LGBT is one that describes me to the public, when I come out to individuals. For many, many years, gay people were defined as deviants, along with those who practiced distinct sexual PRACTICES, such as BDSM/ fetishes/ furries etc (as mentioned in the OP). However, sexuality is not about sex only, it's much more. Now, I understand that BDSM is about more than sex, there is a large body of psychology etc involved.

Perhaps it's a selfish thing. I don't want to be defined under the same banner as someone who indulges in practices or attractions that I personally think are wrong or misguided. I don't think people who are into those practices should be blocked from having the right to that, in the most part, but I also don't want that to be something that people see as part of who I am. Just like I don't particularly like describing myself purely as Irish, because for many people, being Irish also equals drinking large amounts, etc. That's not me. DO you see the difference I mean?

I guess I don't want my Dad to see who is described in the same breath as his daughter based on purely sexual practices. Perhaps yes, sexualities like pansexuality, as you have found a definition for it, deserves a place- I'm not too sure about that, to me it just sounds like being human! But hey, what do I know?

I agree that it would be nice not to have labels for people, except perhaps "human" and leave it at that. However, the world is how it is. We have to work within the constructs of the society we live in within. Here, that is a western Christian tradition which at it's most basic prefers monogamous relationships which do not involve extreme sexual practices. I think some kind of venn diagram situation is needed...

[IMG][/img]

Does that make sense? I think my issue is being lumped in with practitioners of sexual practices which do not apply to me, which society does not approve of, and perhaps I don't approve of and think are weird (sorry, but nobody can be 100% liberal about everything!!!). SO long as no-one being hurt, fire on ahead, and ys, be public about wha you like, if that's your bag, but don't jump into a minority which already has a hard time in the world without everyone thinking we're all into whips and chains, although some are, and that's where my grey area in the venn diagram comes into play. If all of society was able to appreciate that not everyone under a minority label was the same, then this wouldn't be an issue- people could see a BDSM top leading her bottom by a chain, and know that although they identify as queer, not all people marching in the pride parade (to use a convenient and probably highly volatile example!) secretly wants to ride other people like ponies. But if that were the case then travellers, migrants, people from the Liberties etc wouldn't have such a hard time. But humans are just that- human.

Undoubtedly my mind could change, God knows when I first started posting here years ago I felt that transgender issues had no place within the gay community... :rolleyes:

Aard

I agree with you there zoegh. The "Q" is letting all sorts of nonsense into the mix.


I want a word/acronym/phrase/moniker that says "I'm into dudes, and she's into chicks". This isn't meant to be restrictive, but really that's the thrust of the matter. It fits bi guys, pansexual girls, transmen, pomosexual metroqueers -- because it describes just part of them, not their whole "thing". Tagging on endless letters is daft; it waters down what is essentially a marketing tool. It's also a case of severe feature creep; srsly what has being asexual got to do with being gay. It isn't a pot-luck for sexual minorities. Maybe I'm having a severe case of misplaced founder's syndrome.


It's all getting more general and more specific at the same time. More general in the sense that anybody can join, and more specific in that each new member has to be keenly defined.

apache

its very complicated

i am very simple. i am a woman - i like women

Chuchoter

I have to say Zoegh, I wholeheartedly agree with you. There is a difference between sexuality and sexual practice. You can be gay and like BDSM at the same time, but it doesn't mean those things are related!

In terms of all the newfangled sexualities we have like pansexuality, although I know I'm not allowed to say this I think they are slightly hipster variations on words we already have (don't shoot me!). Even still, they are legitimate identities to the people who have them, so if we could come up with a letter to draw in all the teeny weeny new labels we have now that would be great.

Aard

crayolastereo wrote: »

In terms of all the newfangled sexualities we have like pansexuality, although I know I'm not allowed to say this I think they are slightly hipster variations on words we already have (don't shoot me!).

Oh my frickin' gawsh, yes! That's the very thing: we're NOT allowed say this! It's heresy! It's internalised hatred! It's biting hands, burning bridges, beating ourselves with a selfmade goddamn stick! We've gotta pussy-foot 'round all these ickle isms, lest the snowflakes suffer bigotry from within the community of all places sheesh.

Sharpshooter

diddlybit wrote: »

This made me laugh. He's sitting somewhere going "Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha, the can of worms is open again, look at my power." :pac: (Completely kidding all, I'm more certain that he obviously thought here was more apt, which it is, but the image of a omnipotenet AH mod using new posters to rile everyone up here was a lot more appealing. Hot Lips has probably got the Monty Burns finger tap down too.)

Mods are not Gods.:)

I closed the thread in AHs because I knew the type of responses it would receive.

If the OP wished to have a decent discussion in his thread I thought it only right to direct him here.

Apologies to the posters and the mods of the forum if I misdirected the OP.

.......................................

Mods, feel free to delete my explanation to diddlybit.:)

diddlybit

Hot Lips wrote: »

Mods are not Gods.:)

I closed the thread in AHs because I knew the type of responses it would receive.

If the OP wished to have a decent discussion in his thread I thought it only right to direct him here.

Apologies to the posters and the mods of the forum if I misdirected the OP.

.......................................

Mods, feel free to delete my explanation to diddlybit.:)

No worries, was definately the right decision to make, I've read threads along the same lines in AH, and don't find them pretty. Just bad timing methinks as it hit a bit of a nerve. We've had a heated discussion over the last while on the same subject so I don't think it was misdirected, it just was an unfortunate coincidence and the OP could have phrased it a little more diplomatically.

Anywoo, welcome to the other side. :pac:

apache

i hear the huge sound of a truck backing up! BEEP BEEP!

i never for a second thought that op or that mod was taking the piss.

it all comes back to when a new thread should be started or an old one should be reinvented.

there has to be guidelines there. i don't see any. i myself had difficulties in this yet no moderator came on to clarify. i was told i was being too serious with it - if there are no guidelines how do we know?

personal feelings are no good to me. protocol is important. and here is why we find ourselves in the place we are in. don't disregard somebody. answer the question!

Kanoe

zoegh wrote: »

However, for me, the label LGBT is one that describes me to the public, when I come out to individuals.

I'm a little bit worse for wear and probably not the best way to engage in discussion on the topic but the one thing that comes to mind is an interview I saw recently where someone (who I know in some respect) was questioned about her and her partners position on giving birth to quintuplets. (for a tv interview no less) Her response to "but how do you cope..it's just not natural" (birthing quintuplets is a bit of a natural phenomena) was to affirm the not natural part, it's not as she said herself, natural but it is how it is.

it's sort of how I feel in relation to all things lgbtq and I understand that people would like to "normalise" it, to make it mainstream by fitting it into what is acceptable and regular. tell yourself it's natural, that's the desire, as long as it makes you feel comfortable amongst your peers... and it becomes socially acceptable. That is perfectly natural for you to want. As long as you're still "normal"..cuz y'know those bdsm folk are a bit skewed and nothing at all like how you are.

Thing is, so does everybody else who falls under the banner.

Links234

Aard wrote: »

That's the very thing: we're NOT allowed say this!

strange how not being allowed to say this hasn't stopped you and others saying it pretty much every time a variation of this thread has come up? :rolleyes:

Kanoe

I know what I said there made sense in my head last night but I realise now that's the only place it may have made sense sorry.
This might not make much sense either but I understand the need to delineate and to differentiate but isn't the fact that the t is there represented all by it's own letter doing just that? I mean it would have just fallen under lgb category in many peoples minds previously and I can't imagine anyone having to explain to others that they are not transgender when telling them you were gay/bi/lesbian. no?

baby and crumble

links234 wrote:

strange how not being allowed to say this hasn't stopped you and others saying it pretty much every time a variation of this thread has come up? :rolleyes:

I think what that means is that I would imagine it's over 50% of the time when someone has an opinion that might just say "you know what, I think this is silly" or "i don't think X behaviour is right" you can get jumped on here by some posters who seem overly sensitive. I'm not saying that's right, or wrong, but I'd imagine that's what's meant. It's not that you can't say your opinion, but it gets very vocally bashed from some quarters.

I don't think everyone can possibly think every permutation of human sexuality is moral or right. I think the ideal case is when you have those ideas, but you acknowledge that for others, what you think is wrong, is they way they are. For example, a great number of people think homosexuality is wrong. I'm fine with them thinking that, so long as my rights aren't curtailed by it. Debate it, think about it, hey who knows, get your mind changed, but you're still allowed your opinions, no? I have a friend who thinks homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, and that I will be judged at the time of death and probably thrown into hell because of being gay. That doesn't mean she thinks I'M evil. She still calls me friend, still comes over for dinner, and still acknowledges my girlfriend as my girlfriend, and we all get on fine. Yes, she has told me she won't come to a civil partnership ceremony or celebration of mine, because of her beliefs, but she's not going to try boycott it or set me up with her brother. Do you see the difference?

Aard

Links234 wrote: »

strange how not being allowed to say this hasn't stopped you and others saying it pretty much every time a variation of this thread has come up? :rolleyes:

QED