A query about the term LGBTQI

dulpit

Hey,

I was listening to radio today, just caught a tiny bit of a piece about the pope's visit and how it related to gay families. One thing I noticed was that the guest kept saying LGBTQI, the host just went with LGBT.

It got me wondering, what is the correct term to use right now? I don't fully understand the difference between say the L and G and the Q. I'm also not certain why the L and the G are different/separate.

I'm just curious as to what is best term(s) to use, is there a standard and so on? One thing I've noticed is that older people (I'm thinking of my parents generation) have a tendency to get annoyed by the increasing letters, especially if they're not particularly tolerant in the first place...

Sound!

Annasopra

LGBT is still probably the most commonly used phrase

There are many varients
LGBT+, LGBTQI, LGBTQIA+

There isnt per se a correct term to use. I think if you use anything that includes LGBT at a minimum its perfectly acceptable.

Heebie

The various terms mainly have to do with deliberately including groups that "fall under the umbrella" of the shorter acronyms.
Some groups within the larger "gay community" often are marginalised by the gay community in similar ways to how LGBTQAI+ people are marginalised by "the mainstream community" or whatever you wish to call the society we happen to be living in.
The difference between L and G is to ensure women are separately acronym'ed.
Q is sometimes considered to be for people who identify as "queer" and have no desire to be thought of any other way. Most of the time it means "Questioning".. people who aren't really sure.
I think I might be for intergendered people, who are distinctly different from Trans people, in that trans folks feel they were born in a body that doesn't match whom they are.. intergendered people don't consider themselves one or the other, but somewhere in between. I think the A might be for Asexuals.
I'm not sure where Pansexual people would be represented, and I've never seen a P used in there.
Of course, if you ask 100 people you're likely to get 50 answers.

I hope to live to see a day where "person" "people" and individuals' names are all the labels were need.

robyntmorton

Personally I tend to just use LGBT or LGBT+, not because of wanting to exclude anyone, but more for the fact that if you have to spend longer wondering if you have everyone and everything included in the acronym than it takes to complete whatever you're using the acronym in, you're doing it wrong. LGBT is well known, and while I am all for inclusiveness, sometimes simple is best.

One eyed Jack

dulpit wrote: »

One thing I've noticed is that older people (I'm thinking of my parents generation) have a tendency to get annoyed by the increasing letters, especially if they're not particularly tolerant in the first place...

I don't think that's an observation could be solely confined to your parents generation

The terminology and etymology of language used is constantly evolving. To take a well known example - the Stonewall Riots. Some academics have suggested that the leaders of the riots were transgender rather than how they would describe themselves, as queens, transvestites. One of the leaders of the riots, Sylvia Riviera, this to say about labels -


People now want to call me a lesbian because I'm with Julia, and I say, "No. I'm just me. I'm not a lesbian." I'm tired of being labeled. I don't even like the label transgender. I'm tired of living with labels. I just want to be who I am. I am Sylvia Rivera. Ray Rivera left home at the age of 10 to become Sylvia. And that's who I am.


To give you another example, the term SGL, or 'same gender loving' is used primarily in African American communities as a modern day rejection of what are considered 'Eurocentric' labels -

Recent studies indicate that African-American disadvantaged youths are less likely than Euro-American youths to self-label as gay male, lesbian, or transgender youths.


There are many other examples, such as MOGAI and GSD.

One elementary school in Canada caused consternation when the media got hold of their efforts to advertise a course they were offering for teachers -

Canadian elementary school teachers attend 'LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP' inclusiveness training session. Would you understand the title?, but snopes.com was quick to get to the source and set the record straight... so to speak, for the very reasons you identified in your opening post -


Yes, the poster is genuine. The intent of the title was to draw workshop participants (teachers) by acknowledging that keeping track of diverse LGBTQ identities can be overwhelming, especially as our students are continuously identifying new ones. In our union, we use LGBTQ as an umbrella term for all marginalized sexual and gender identities.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think that's an observation could be solely confined to your parents generation

The terminology and etymology of language used is constantly evolving. To take a well known example - the Stonewall Riots. Some academics have suggested that the leaders of the riots were transgender rather than how they would describe themselves, as queens, transvestites. One of the leaders of the riots, Sylvia Riviera, this to say about labels -


People now want to call me a lesbian because I'm with Julia, and I say, "No. I'm just me. I'm not a lesbian." I'm tired of being labeled. I don't even like the label transgender. I'm tired of living with labels. I just want to be who I am. I am Sylvia Rivera. Ray Rivera left home at the age of 10 to become Sylvia. And that's who I am.


To give you another example, the term SGL, or 'same gender loving' is used primarily in African American communities as a modern day rejection of what are considered 'Eurocentric' labels -

Recent studies indicate that African-American disadvantaged youths are less likely than Euro-American youths to self-label as gay male, lesbian, or transgender youths.


There are many other examples, such as MOGAI and GSD.

One elementary school in Canada caused consternation when the media got hold of their efforts to advertise a course they were offering for teachers -

Canadian elementary school teachers attend 'LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP' inclusiveness training session. Would you understand the title?, but snopes.com was quick to get to the source and set the record straight... so to speak, for the very reasons you identified in your opening post -


Yes, the poster is genuine. The intent of the title was to draw workshop participants (teachers) by acknowledging that keeping track of diverse LGBTQ identities can be overwhelming, especially as our students are continuously identifying new ones. In our union, we use LGBTQ as an umbrella term for all marginalized sexual and gender identities.

More transwomen erasure - I.e. TERF ****e

JackTaylorFan

https://sites.psu.edu/womeninhistory/2016/10/23/the-unsung-heroines-of-stonewall-marsha-p-johnson-and-sylvia-rivera/

https://mic.com/articles/121256/meet-marsha-p-johnson-and-sylvia-rivera-transgender-stonewall-veterans

How language evolves with time and understanding.

baby and crumble

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

More transwomen erasure - I.e. TERF ****e

How is that trans erasure? If Sylvia herself didn’t identify as trans??

JackTaylorFan

baby and crumble wrote: »

How is that trans erasure? If Sylvia herself didn’t identify as trans??

It's the simple fact that at the time many terms we now take for granted were not even established - i.e. trans women was not really recognised as a valid identity. The whole trangender movement was still very nebulous. And there are many conflicting reports on how Sylvia identified throughout her life. The very fact we refer to her as "she" should indicate something to you though. As for the other transwoman mentioned in the articles I linked:

Marsha P. Johnson was an African-American transgender women who was an LGBTQ rights activist and an outspoken advocate for trans people of color. Johnson spearheaded the Stonewall uprising in 1969 and along with Sylvia Rivera, she later established the Street Transvestite (now Transgender) Action Revolutionaries (STAR), a group committed to helping homeless transgender youth in New York City. She was tragically murdered on July 6, 1992 at the age of 46. Her life has been celebrated in numerous books, documentaries, and films.

https://www.biography.com/people/marsha-p-johnson-112717

It's that other user's constant attempt of erasure of the T from the larger community that I am highlighting here. And if you haven't noticed their blatant attack, you aren't really paying attention. I mean, seriously, ask yourself why the subject of Riveria was even crow-barred in here. FFS

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

https://sites.psu.edu/womeninhistory/2016/10/23/the-unsung-heroines-of-stonewall-marsha-p-johnson-and-sylvia-rivera/

https://mic.com/articles/121256/meet-marsha-p-johnson-and-sylvia-rivera-transgender-stonewall-veterans

How language evolves with time and understanding.

None of the above contradicts anything I've posted.

That second link doesn't even work btw.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

It's the simple fact that at the time many terms we now take for granted were not even established - i.e. trans women was not really recognised as a valid identity. The whole trangender movement was still very nebulous. And there are many conflicting reports on how Sylvia identified throughout her life. The very fact we refer to her as "she" should indicate something to you though. As for the other transwoman mentioned in the articles I linked:

The term transgender had been established at that time. It just didn't apply to Marsha P Johnson and Sylvia Riviera who never identified themselves as transgender, but as drag queens, transvestites, a completely separate and distinct identity from transgender. The quote I posted was from an interview in which they are the words of Sylvia herself, not what anyone else either assumes she is, or tries to assimilate her identity into their movement, attempting to erase drag and transvestite identities in the process, as though they are the gatekeepers of other people's identities.

The fact that she refers to herself using female pronouns indicates only that she prefers to be referred to by female pronouns. It doesn't tell anyone anything else about her. You can certainly assume what you like about anyone's identity, but that only tells anyone something about you than it says anything about anyone you would attempt to assimilate into the transgender identity. The same was tried with Conchita Wurst, only she was very quick to point out she was having none of it either -


Conchita Wurst: Some people think I’m a trans woman

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

It's that other user's constant attempt of erasure of the T from the larger community that I am highlighting here. And if you haven't noticed their blatant attack, you aren't really paying attention. I mean, seriously, ask yourself why the subject of Riveria was even crow-barred in here. FFS

If anyone's erasing any identities here, it sure as hell ain't me. There was no crow-barring necessary in using example of the Stonewall Riots to point out how some academics engage in a bit of historical and cultural relativism/revisionism to appropriate and assimilate other people and their identities to suit their own narrative. I was making the point that contrary to the OP's opinion, it's not just people of their parents generation don't like the idea of other identities being identified, it's just as much a practice engaged by the current generation to erase and diminish other identities they aren't familiar with, as though they are the self-appointed gatekeepers of other people's identities or how the self-appointed gatekeepers identify how other people who aren't them, should identify themselves.

Annasopra

Yeah I think its an interesting narrative alright around identities.

I once saw someone described in the media as "a woman with a transgender history" I contacted her saying oh the media got that wrong - No she said they didnt. I am a woman. I am not a transgender woman. I define myself as a woman. When I discuss myself nowadays in relation to trans issues I identify myself as "a woman with a transgender history" because being transgender is effectively my past. I am a woman.

There is of course a huge further debate about widening the letters. For example - If it becomes lgbti does that gay and intersex issues all get lumped in together. Are all interesex people happy with being subsumed into this umbrella. Doesnt it almost dilute intersex issues to be subsumed like that because lgbt people can dominate groups, conversations etc with their needs. Intersex issues are also quite complex and many lgbt people may not have a clue at all.

JackTaylorFan

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah I think its an interesting narrative alright around identities.

I once saw someone described in the media as "a woman with a transgender history" I contacted her saying oh the media got that wrong - No she said they didnt. I am a woman. I am not a transgender woman. I define myself as a woman. When I discuss myself nowadays in relation to trans issues I identify myself as "a woman with a transgender history" because being transgender is effectively my past. I am a woman.

Sorry, but that is internalised transphobia right there - with a strong hint of delusion. And it's also a harmful message to put out there - that we should be ashamed of being transgender.

By no means, do I go around exclaiming I am trans outside Boards, because it will likely get me in some serious trouble - if not killed. But by definition that's what I am, and that's what she is too. You can never change that. It's like you saying I used to be a gay man but because I repress that part of me and choose to be with a woman even though I am still only attracted to men, I am cured. It's bull****; it's an internalised repulsion of oneself caused by desperately trying to fit with societal norms. I am obviously in no way disputing her right to call herself a woman, but delete the trans part as something she has outgrown is damaging to the whole community. Cis women don't suddenly cease being cis and vice versa.

What's the message? That somehow being trans is wrong and you should strive to escape the label at some point? I mean, that's a pretty ****ed message, no?

And to be honest, my life would be a lot easier if I just stopped caring about the rest of the trans community. If I went on about my life "passing" as I do - in most areas - as cis. All my friends are cis. They sometimes even ask me when the issue of transgender people comes up in conversation: "Why can't you just say you're a woman. I don't see you as trans, I only see you as you: a woman." Yeah, that's nice and all, but it's pretty much dismissing what my experience has been and what I am.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There is of course a huge further debate about widening the letters. For example - If it becomes lgbti does that gay and intersex issues all get lumped in together. Are all interesex people happy with being subsumed into this umbrella. Doesnt it almost dilute intersex issues to be subsumed like that because lgbt people can dominate groups, conversations etc with their needs. Intersex issues are also quite complex and many lgbt people may not have a clue at all

You mean, the way many LGBT people don't have a clue past their own actual part of the acronym already?

Anyways, as far as I understand, the community is all about intersectionality now. Minorities who face similar if not the same problems from being oppressed and discriminated against coming together to form a framework in a fight for awareness and rights. Your concerns about how including intersex people might somehow diminish their rights is completely flawed. It gives them a louder voice to have the support of an entire community behind their message.

I do wonder how far do we expand that community though?

In America, 2S (or 2 spirit) is now part of the LGBT+ acronym. And to my understanding it is basically another way of saying someone is some variation of trans - but the title is protected and exclusive to those who are Native American. So, in effect, the community is now adding ethnic minorities to the list. I don't necessarily have an issue with that. I attended a talent show recently where disabled people, LGBT+ and travellers were all given a chance to perform, it was okay. Nothing special. But it was an opportunity to see individuals given a voice in front of an audience where they wouldn't ordinarily have done.

Is it going too far placing diasbled people, ethnic minorities and LGBT+ people on the same stage? I don't know, and I don't personally care as long as we are all pulling in the same direction.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

None of the above contradicts anything I've posted.

That second link doesn't even work btw.





The term transgender had been established at that time. It just didn't apply to Marsha P Johnson and Sylvia Riviera who never identified themselves as transgender,

Literally, a website dedicated to people like Marsha (the one linked in my reply to B&C), calls her a transwoman. For **** sake...

That's as much words as I can be bothered to waste with you.

Annasopra

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Sorry, but that is internalised transphobia right there - with a strong hint of delusion. And it's also a harmful message to put out there - that we should be ashamed of being transgender.

By no means, do I go around exclaiming I am trans outside Boards, because it will likely get me in some serious trouble - if not killed. But by definition that's what I am, and that's what she is too. You can never change that. It's like you saying I used to be a gay man but because I repress that part of me and choose to be with a woman even though I am still only attracted to men, I am cured. It's bull****; it's an internalised repulsion of oneself caused by desperately trying to fit with societal norms. I am obviously in no way disputing her right to call herself a woman, but delete the trans part as something she has outgrown is damaging to the whole community. Cis women don't suddenly cease being cis and vice versa.

What's the message? That somehow being trans is wrong and you should strive to escape the label at some point? I mean, that's a pretty ****ed message, no?

And to be honest, my life would be a lot easier if I just stopped caring about the rest of the trans community. If I went on about my life "passing" as I do - in most areas - as cis. All my friends are cis. They sometimes even ask me when the issue of transgender people comes up in conversation: "Why can't you just say you're a woman. I don't see you as trans, I only see you as you: a woman." Yeah, that's nice and all, but it's pretty much dismissing what my experience has been and what I am.

.

Interesting. It really surprised me to be honest at the time. I dunno. I really dont. Because of the role this person has in the trans community I cant see the internalised transphobia at all. I went back and looked at it again. What she said was she was trans before treatment, has transitioned as now sees herself as a woman. Its a different perspective to me I have to say. I can see where you are coming from in saying she is rejecting her trans identity. I am not so sure is she is though. She is affirming her own identity as a woman and acknowledging her trans identity a but differently to others. When I look at what this person does for the trans community I struggle to see internalised transphobia. I dont think it is to be honest. On the other hand maybe you are right. As I said I dont fully know. The one thing I do know is for me identifying oneself is the most important and who am I to criticise her for identifying how she decides.

You mean, the way many LGBT people don't have a clue past their own actual part of the acronym already?

Anyways, as far as I understand, the community is all about intersectionality now. Minorities who face similar if not the same problems from being oppressed and discriminated against coming together to form a framework in a fight for awareness and rights. Your concerns about how including intersex people might somehow diminish their rights is completely flawed. It gives them a louder voice to have the support of an entire community behind their message.

I do wonder how far do we expand that community though?

In America, 2S (or 2 spirit) is now part of the LGBT+ acronym. And to my understanding it is basically another way of saying someone is some variation of trans - but the title is protected and exclusive to those who are Native American. So, in effect, the community is now adding ethnic minorities to the list. I don't necessarily have an issue with that. I attended a talent show recently where disabled people, LGBT+ and travellers were all given a chance to perform, it was okay. Nothing special. But it was an opportunity to see individuals given a voice in front of an audience where they wouldn't ordinarily have done.

Is it going too far placing diasbled people, ethnic minorities and LGBT+ people on the same stage? I don't know, and I don't personally care as long as we are all pulling in the same direction

Its complex. Yes many lgb people have a huge lack of understanding of anything to do with trans issues or intersex etc etc and indeed can often be quite strong transphobes.

I agree with you broadly that is the ideal definition of the lgbt community "Minorities who face similar if not the same problems from being oppressed and discriminated against coming together to form a framework in a fight for awareness and rights. " - I suppose though coming back to my discussion on LGBTI - for intersex people they have a particular set of issues that probably dont effect that many lgbt people. For many lgbt people they may lack a huge understanding of what the issues intersex people face are. You can certainly make it LGBTI but will they "have the support of the whole communuty behind them" - I don't know if they will. Do intersex people even want to be subsumed? LGBT groups can also recreate the privilege of societal patriarchal heteronormative, cisnormative roles too where they claim to be LGBT but are a group of well connected middle class gay men or there can be an unwritten almost code of ignoring the B and T. Look at GCN even as example - it really can be at times just a representation of young white middle class good looking gay men.


I think for me sexual orientiation and gender identity minorities is enough to be pulling in under one umbrella without pulling in other opressed and discriminated groups under that umbrella.

Interesectionality is ideal too. Like we cant box people off either - Sometimes for example disabled LGBT people are faced with rejection on all sides; LGBT community - nah why should our venues be accesible? General community "but people with disabilities cant possibly be sexual beings" or have their own sexual desires.

As I said its complex jtf.

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Literally, a website dedicated to people like Marsha (the one linked in my reply to B&C), calls her a transwoman. For **** sake...

That's as much words as I can be bothered to waste with you.

I never disputed the fact that some sources (indeed I did say academics but you'll see the point in a minute) refer to Marsha as transgender, I'm pointing out the fact that they are using terminology that they use, to identify someone else who is not them, according to their standards. Nothing like a good white power-washing in an academic ivory tower to wash the cultural and ethnic context from a persons identity, ending up with referring to them as a transgender woman of colour. Sure why not refer to black and latino street queens as coloured folks altogether and be done with it rather than recognise that there is a cultural and ethnic context to their identity? It's the same as you've done with the two-spirit identity - you're contextualising it according to your own standards when the term is actually much broader than that, and it's based upon ethnicity, which is exactly why it's a protected term, because it's indigenous to Aboriginal Indian culture and doesn't really translate to Western cultural understanding of identities.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

You mean, the way many LGBT people don't have a clue past their own actual part of the acronym already?

Anyways, as far as I understand, the community is all about intersectionality now. Minorities who face similar if not the same problems from being oppressed and discriminated against coming together to form a framework in a fight for awareness and rights. Your concerns about how including intersex people might somehow diminish their rights is completely flawed. It gives them a louder voice to have the support of an entire community behind their message.

I do wonder how far do we expand that community though?

...

Is it going too far placing diasbled people, ethnic minorities and LGBT+ people on the same stage? I don't know, and I don't personally care as long as we are all pulling in the same direction.

It's not flawed, it's simply a perspective which is different from your own, and it's one that is shared by many people who feel that their voices aren't listened to and who feel that their identity is being lost among the voices that have greater representation than theirs. There are many people who feel the terminology and the acronyms are simply inadequate and do not address or represent either their identity, or their concerns. For some people in the community, they are advocates of intersectionality, and for some people, they prefer to be recognised as individuals, and form their own identity and their own community.

With regards to people who identify as intersex, I think it's a valid point to make in saying that they have their concerns that aren't represented equally in the LGBT acronym, and for me 'intersectionality' is just a fancy term for assimilation and subsuming the intersex identity under the broader umbrella of 'LGBT' rights. The reason I use inverted commas around the acromym is because I've always simply seen it as an inadequate and non-descriptive umbrella term which doesn't recognise the individuals within it and their individual and unique concerns. A youtuber called pigeon gave an interesting insight into her experiences as an intersex person and I can see many ways in which her concerns as a person who is intersex are not addressed by the wider LGBT community, and they give a good insight into how attempts were made by the medical community to assimilate them into Western cultural understanding of binary gender narratives. It's a four part series, but the first part is here -

You don't care as long as people are pulling in the same direction as yourself, but when they're pulling in a different direction, you appear to want to push them back into line to fit with your world view and your narratives of identities. That's making yourself and your concerns the central focus of everyone's attention, and you're going to find out (if you haven't already) that the more individuals speak up for themselves and represent themselves, your world view of how other people should identify themselves as individuals is simply outdated and inadequate as it doesn't recognise people as individuals, but reduces their identities to outdated and inadequate acronyms and non-representative terminology.

JackTaylorFan

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Interesting. It really surprised me to be honest at the time. I dunno. I really dont. Because of the role this person has in the trans community I cant see the internalised transphobia at all. I went back and looked at it again. What she said was she was trans before treatment, has transitioned as now sees herself as a woman. Its a different perspective to me I have to say. I can see where you are coming from in saying she is rejecting her trans identity. I am not so sure is she is though. She is affirming her own identity as a woman and acknowledging her trans identity a but differently to others. When I look at what this person does for the trans community I struggle to see internalised transphobia. I dont think it is to be honest. On the other hand maybe you are right. As I said I dont fully know. The one thing I do know is for me identifying oneself is the most important and who am I to criticise her for identifying how she decides.

I'm sorry, I really can't wrap my head around some people in the trans community - especially some of the people making a living out of acting as spokespeople for us. To be honest, the logic of the woman in question is deeply flawed. As I said, if you are born cis, you remain cis. Same with trans.I do not know this person you speak of, but what she said sounds deeply unhelpful to me.

A woman with a transgender history? You have got to be kidding me.

I've been trans since the day I was born; I'll die trans. I don't consider myself any less of a woman because of this. I am not trying to escape my past like some in the community.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's the same as you've done with the two-spirit identity - you're contextualising it according to your own standards when the term is actually much broader than that

But it's not though.

The 2 Spirit thing refers to a Native American person who happens to identify and express themselves as a variant from the 2 traditional genders - i.e. a 3rd gender. Which to be perfectly blunt falls under the gender spectrum somewhere in the trans region.

I could make the reverse argument that Aboriginals are trying to erase a certain aspect of trans from their community.

Gender variation is common throughout history in all cultures, they all just have different narratives applied. I'm kind of sick of the non-scientific, mystical approach myself though.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don't care as long as people are pulling in the same direction as yourself, but when they're pulling in a different direction, you appear to want to push them back into line to fit with your world view and your narratives of identities.

What kind of garbage are you spouting now?


We are talking about gaining rights for a whole group of oppressed people. We are not talking about one individual.

And I have no problem with non-trans LGBT+ representatives who understand the issues speaking out on our behalf - as was done very recently in the Seanád by Fintan Warfield.

But yes, if some people in the wider LGBTQ+ community are denying the rights of another for whatever ignorant reason they might have, that affects them in no way whatsoever, of course I'm gonna tell them to shut the hell up and stay in their lane.

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

But it's not though.

The 2 Spirit thing refers to a Native American person who happens to identify and express themselves as a variant from the 2 traditional genders - i.e. a 3rd gender. Which to be perfectly blunt falls under the gender spectrum somewhere in the trans region.

Which, to be just as blunt, fits neatly with your reductive perspective of gender as opposed to acknowledging that their cultural understanding of gender differs from your own, and their culture is fundamentally based upon their ethnicity, not yours.

I could make the reverse argument that Aboriginals are trying to erase a certain aspect of trans from their community.

That's not reversing the argument at all, it's still basing your argument upon your understanding of identities which is informed by your culture, not theirs.

Gender variation is common throughout history in all cultures, they all just have different narratives applied. I'm kind of sick of the non-scientific, mystical approach myself though.

Which is fair enough, as it's only from your perspective. Other people are just as sick of what they see as Western anti-scientific, anti-ethnic narratives being applied by white Westerners to their identities, and they have begun to reject those narratives which have been applied to them by other people who aren't them, and they have identified and acknowledged and affirmed their own identities, much to the annoyance of white Westerners who are having none of it.

When you try to push your perspective and your narratives on other people who aren't you, you're using your considerably greater influence and power to oppress and suppress and subsume their identity into your narrative (and I don't mean just you personally, I've seen many people do it which is why I've always objected to it being done), then other people who aren't you are going to point out that they do not subscribe to your narratives of their identities or how you determine they should be identified or identify themselves.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When you try to push your perspective and your narratives on other people who aren't you, you're using your considerably greater influence and power to oppress and suppress and subsume their identity into your narrative (and I don't mean just you personally, I've seen many people do it which is why I've always objected to it being done), then other people who aren't you are going to point out that they do not subscribe to your narratives of their identities or how you determine they should be identified or identify themselves.

Gender variation is what it is, what it is, what it is. I am not dismissing anybody's identity; I am dismissing unscientific nonsense (with the greatest respect for unscientific nonsense, of course).

I think transubstantiation is a load of mystic bollox, too, but I am not saying people can't identify as Catholic.

Anyways, always nice we can disagree so fundamentally about everything.

P.s: Nice touch with the "western anti-scientific" jab - dogs barking all over town

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Gender variation is what it is, what it is, what it is. I am not dismissing anybody's identity; I am dismissing unscientific nonsense (with the greatest respect for unscientific nonsense, of course).

I think transubstantiation is a load of mystic bollox, too, but I am not saying people can't identify as Catholic.

Anyways, always nice we can disagree so fundamentally about everything.

Got down as far as here and thought yeah, at least while we do fundamentally disagree on just about everything, we can still be civil, and then I got to this bit -

P.s: Nice touch with the "western anti-scientific" jab - dogs barking all over town

I don't know why you read that the way you did, but the point I was alluding to is that the western cultural perspective of science was historically once and still is to a large extent a xenophobic, racist, classist, bigoted paradigm. Some people would even say it's just WEIRD.

It kinda reminds me of a video I watched a while back called 'Paris is Burning', where one of the most tragic parts of the film is the "passing" pageant, like they're trying to pass off an identity as 'civilised folk' in order to be acceptable to be assimilated into white Western cultural ideals of a 'civilised' society, while trying to maintain a sense of their own identity -

Annasopra

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I'm sorry, I really can't wrap my head around some people in the trans community - especially some of the people making a living out of acting as spokespeople for us. To be honest, the logic of the woman in question is deeply flawed. As I said, if you are born cis, you remain cis. Same with trans.I do not know this person you speak of, but what she said sounds deeply unhelpful to me.

A woman with a transgender history? You have got to be kidding me.

I've been trans since the day I was born; I'll die trans. I don't consider myself any less of a woman because of this. I am not trying to escape my past like some in the community.

But heres the thing if she was trying to escape her past then she wouldnt be so active within the trans community. Who am I question her identity or how you identify? I just dont see any internalised transphobia there given her role. I know a few trans community activists. It often saddens me a lot how much work they put into their community and how much backlash they often get back. The amount of work the they put into changing Ireland, improving trans people through education and legislation is unreal. Lets not forget Irelands trans laws have significantly changed for the better in a huge way in the last 3 years. They are often recognised as a world leader.


I also don't really understand insisting identity. It's like the idea that men who have sex with men automatically have to be boxed into being identified as gay or bi. They dont.

J_E

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I'm sorry, I really can't wrap my head around some people in the trans community - especially some of the people making a living out of acting as spokespeople for us. To be honest, the logic of the woman in question is deeply flawed. As I said, if you are born cis, you remain cis. Same with trans.I do not know this person you speak of, but what she said sounds deeply unhelpful to me.

A woman with a transgender history? You have got to be kidding me.

I've been trans since the day I was born; I'll die trans. I don't consider myself any less of a woman because of this. I am not trying to escape my past like some in the community.

I think everyone has their own lived experience and maybe sometimes, it's best to trust how they feel comfortable identifying themselves as. Particularly when it comes to a less clear spectrum of identity.


Regarding the letters - I think it is becoming a problem attempting to add too many letters. I have always thought LGBT or LGBT+, even though not explicitly mentioning every case of a sexual minority, has been suitable enough to describe those communities. I think to attempt to fit 6-8 letters just becomes a 'marketing issue' when trying to discuss causes with people outside of the community and it creates too much confusion and ambiguity. I think it takes focus away from more serious issues when it comes to discussing rights, healthcare, social issues.

In fact, I think sometimes 'Queer' is a better term altogether in encompassing that kind of experience.

EdgeCase

To me, particularly after watching Pigeon's videos, which were both eye-opening and very sad viewing, it looks like society vastly overcomplicates a simple thing: you are who you are and only you can define what that is.

I think we have overplayed gender stereotypes. It's coming from a culture that very narrowly defined gender roles, in a way that doesn't actually seem to fit biology even for straight & cisgender people. I mean we've spent centuries locking men and women into roles and bullying them into keeping those roles. I think that's where feminism has shown those boxes can be smashed open and needed to be.

It's also pretty clear that it's not a simple, over idealised, binary setup and that seems to me to range from any level of blurring of the lines from people just not wanting to be put into the box of a blokey male or ultra feminine female stereotypes, to LGB to fluid, to trans and to biologically intersex.

My view is it is just be who you are and **** the expectations.

Being human is complicated enough without having to force biology into an abstract social construct.

Annasopra

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

What kind of garbage are you spouting now?


We are talking about gaining rights for a whole group of oppressed people. We are not talking about one individual.

And I have no problem with non-trans LGBT+ representatives who understand the issues speaking out on our behalf - as was done very recently in the Seanád by Fintan Warfield.

But yes, if some people in the wider LGBTQ+ community are denying the rights of another for whatever ignorant reason they might have, that affects them in no way whatsoever, of course I'm gonna tell them to shut the hell up and stay in their lane.

Yeah

I have to agree with you on this. Individualism for me is a completely abhorrent philosophy. It emphasises some good things like freedom and of coyrse personal autonomy but then when taken too far to its extremes it is all about basically pure heartless selfishness and survival of the fittest (basically **** minorities and let the rich well connected trample on everyone).

We would never be where with womens rights, lgbt rights, human rights, workers rights generally if we took an individualist approach to life. We would still be in a society where would be massive structural exploitation of workers, opression/discrimination of lgbt people, women, people with disabilities.

If the like of Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera took an individualist approach to life and political activism then who knows how backward we would be in terms of lgbt rights. We certainly wouldnt have had much social and political improvements for LGBT peoples lives that we have had in the West for sure.

Annasopra

EdgeCase wrote: »

To me, particularly after watching Pigeon's videos, which were both eye-opening and very sad viewing, it looks like society vastly overcomplicates a simple thing: you are who you are and only you can define what that is.

I think it is much more complex than that and I dont think I can agree. Society can also provide us with identities that we can then ascribe to ourselves. On the one hand every individual is unique. On the other we are not unique in identity/characteristics. We are social brings. People need to have other people they can relate to with shared identities, characteristics, identities.

JackTaylorFan

J_E wrote: »

I think everyone has their own lived experience and maybe sometimes, it's best to trust how they feel comfortable identifying themselves as. Particularly when it comes to a less clear spectrum of identity.


Regarding the letters - I think it is becoming a problem attempting to add too many letters. I have always thought LGBT or LGBT+, even though not explicitly mentioning every case of a sexual minority, has been suitable enough to describe those communities. I think to attempt to fit 6-8 letters just becomes a 'marketing issue' when trying to discuss causes with people outside of the community and it creates too much confusion and ambiguity. I think it takes focus away from more serious issues when it comes to discussing rights, healthcare, social issues.

In fact, I think sometimes 'Queer' is a better term altogether in encompassing that kind of experience.

As I said, I am not questioning anyone's right to identify whichever way they want in regards man, woman or somewhere in between. But if you are trans before transition, you're still technically trans after. I really don't understand why this is so complicated for some people to understand, especially if you know what cisgender and transgender actually means.

JackTaylorFan

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But heres the thing if she was trying to escape her past then she wouldnt be so active within the trans community. Who am I question her identity or how you identify? I just dont see any internalised transphobia there given her role. I know a few trans community activists. It often saddens me a lot how much work they put into their community and how much backlash they often get back. The amount of work the they put into changing Ireland, improving trans people through education and legislation is unreal. Lets not forget Irelands trans laws have significantly changed for the better in a huge way in the last 3 years. They are often recognised as a world leader.


I also don't really understand insisting identity. It's like the idea that men who have sex with men automatically have to be boxed into being identified as gay or bi. They dont.

Sorry, but it is an inescapable reality that they will always be trans. You don't suddenly become cisgender after transition - that's just not how it works:

cisgender: denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex.

.

Now, maybe you don't see the internalised transphobia in this, but I certainly do. I have experienced first hand talking to women who after a certain period of time have decided they no longer wished to be known as "trans" - and I do understand that, but I also understand where that comes from. And 99% of the time it's because they are ashamed of their trans status - which is understandable with the generally poor societal attitude towards us. Again, I have no problem with people just calling themselves a man or a woman - but if you are supposed to be speaking on behalf of trans people and you are at the same time dismissing and downright denying your own trans identity, then something is terribly ****ed about the message you are sending out. And I am failing to see how you can't see the problem with that too.

I would not be surprised if this person is involved with TENI, to be honest. But I won't even go there.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know why you read that the way you did, but the point I was alluding to is that the western cultural perspective of science was historically once and still is to a large extent a xenophobic, racist, classist, bigoted paradigm. Some people would even say it's just WEIRD.

Really? You have no idea? Sure...

Anyways...

To the question of western science: Well, the only people I ever hear accusing modern medicine/science of being all the things you just listed, is ironically, the xenophobic, the racist, classist and bigoted - funny that, huh?

And "weird"? Well, yeah, I'm sure thunder and lightning was weird to a caveman too.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It kinda reminds me of a video I watched a while back called 'Paris is Burning', where one of the most tragic parts of the film is the "passing" pageant, like they're trying to pass off an identity as 'civilised folk' in order to be acceptable to be assimilated into white Western cultural ideals of a 'civilised' society, while trying to maintain a sense of their own identity -

I like this though... kinda sounds like someone saying "I am a woman with a transgender history" to me - funny that.

EdgeCase

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah

I have to agree with you on this. Individualism for me is a completely abhorrent philosophy. It emphasises some good things like freedom and of coyrse personal autonomy but then when taken too far to its extremes it is all about basically pure heartless selfishness and survival of the fittest (basically **** minorities and let the rich well connected trample on everyone).

We would never be where with womens rights, lgbt rights, human rights, workers rights generally if we took an individualist approach to life. We would still be in a society where would be massive structural exploitation of workers, opression/discrimination of lgbt people, women, people with disabilities.

If the like of Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera took an individualist approach to life and political activism then who knows how backward we would be in terms of lgbt rights. We certainly wouldnt have had much social and political improvements for LGBT peoples lives that we have had in the West for sure.

There’s a happy medium though between individualism and collectivism. Ideally you need both to work in synergy. If you get absolute individualism you end up with an extreme version of what some US right wingers would like and societal breakdown. On the other hand if you go to extreme collectivism you get something closer to authoritarianism or cults.

Ideally, you need the ability to be free within the structures and supports of a non oppressive society that is willing to listen to differing opinions, allow people to express themselves, put ideas forth, argue, change things etc etc

It’s basically the sweet spot that most modern liberal democracies tend to aim towards.

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

What kind of garbage are you spouting now?

We are talking about gaining rights for a whole group of oppressed people. We are not talking about one individual.

And I have no problem with non-trans LGBT+ representatives who understand the issues speaking out on our behalf - as was done very recently in the Seanád by Fintan Warfield.

But yes, if some people in the wider LGBTQ+ community are denying the rights of another for whatever ignorant reason they might have, that affects them in no way whatsoever, of course I'm gonna tell them to shut the hell up and stay in their lane.

You clearly do have issues with people who don't share your perspective speaking from their perspective. What we are talking about here are individuals who are representatives of their respective communities. You can tell people all you want to stay in their own lane, but they aren't obligated either to take you seriously or listen to you. If people like Marsha P Johnson, Sylvia Riviera, Caitlyn Jenner or the example of the woman that Joey gave had heeded people telling them to stay in their own lane, then we would never be aware of them as leaders within their own respective communities. The other thing about that 'shut up and stay in your own lane' philosophy is that it can just as easily be applied to you by other people, and are you any more likely to take them seriously? I wouldn't think so

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah

I have to agree with you on this. Individualism for me is a completely abhorrent philosophy. It emphasises some good things like freedom and of coyrse personal autonomy but then when taken too far to its extremes it is all about basically pure heartless selfishness and survival of the fittest (basically **** minorities and let the rich well connected trample on everyone).

We would never be where with womens rights, lgbt rights, human rights, workers rights generally if we took an individualist approach to life. We would still be in a society where would be massive structural exploitation of workers, opression/discrimination of lgbt people, women, people with disabilities.

If the like of Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera took an individualist approach to life and political activism then who knows how backward we would be in terms of lgbt rights. We certainly wouldnt have had much social and political improvements for LGBT peoples lives that we have had in the West for sure.

I hope what I've written above clarifies my position in relation to individuals and how they are representative of their communities. Another example I often think of is someone like Harvey Milk, who was undeniably a great leader in his community, someone I really admired, until I read how he threw one of his own under the bus for his own political gain -

On September 22, 1975, President Gerald Ford, while visiting San Francisco, walked from his hotel to his car. In the crowd, Sara Jane Moore raised a gun to shoot him. A former Marine who had been walking by grabbed her arm as the gun discharged toward the pavement. The bystander was Oliver "Bill" Sipple, who had left Milk's ex-lover Joe Campbell years before, prompting Campbell's suicide attempt. The national spotlight was on him immediately. On psychiatric disability leave from the military, Sipple refused to call himself a hero and did not want his sexuality disclosed. Milk, however, took advantage of the opportunity to illustrate his cause that public perception of gay people would be improved if they came out of the closet. He told a friend: "It's too good an opportunity. For once we can show that gays do heroic things, not just all that ca-ca about molesting children and hanging out in bathrooms." Milk contacted a newspaper.

Several days later Herb Caen, a columnist at The San Francisco Chronicle, exposed Sipple as gay and a friend of Milk's. The announcement was picked up by national newspapers, and Milk's name was included in many of the stories. Time magazine named Milk as a leader in San Francisco's gay community. Sipple, however, was besieged by reporters, as was his family. His mother, a staunch Baptist in Detroit, now refused to speak to him. Although he had been involved with the gay community for years, even participating in Gay Pride events, Sipple sued the Chronicle for invasion of privacy. President Ford sent Sipple a note of thanks for saving his life. Milk said that Sipple's sexual orientation was the reason he received only a note, rather than an invitation to the White House.

His decision to out Oliver Sipple may well have been personally motivated too, but for me his actions tainted his achievements. I don't have to like him as a person, but I can't deny all that he did achieve for his community.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Really? You have no idea? Sure...

Anyways...

To the question of western science: Well, the only people I ever hear accusing modern medicine/science of being all the things you just listed, is ironically, the xenophobic, the racist, classist and bigoted - funny that, huh?

And "weird"? Well, yeah, I'm sure thunder and lightning was weird to a caveman too.

Nope, I don't have any idea other than our difference of perspective. Anyways, to my use of the acronym WEIRD, I assumed you weren't familiar with the term which is why I linked to it. I can only assume now given what you've written subsequently that you didn't even bother to click on the link to understand the meaning and context of the acronym in relation to what I posted, which was a commentary on Western perspective of science, and in particular the social sciences. The acronym stands for Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic nations, and the US is a perfect example of same. The problem with that perspective in the social sciences is that it represents only about 12% of world populations and cultures, yet it produces most of the scientific literature which tends to make assumptions about populations as though their ideas are universal.

I don't think it's funny at all (if by funny you mean in the sense that it actually is ironic) that you're attuned to scientific and medical opinions which support your own narrative, but that also tells me you didn't bother to watch the video I posted earlier of someone who sees the medical and scientific community as doing harm to members of their community, because of the gender binary narrative they subscribe to which means they get to mutilate people without their consent just to fit in with their narratives of sex and gender.

There's three human concepts throughout human history which some people have used to claim an entitlement to authority over other people and justify committing abhorrent acts of violence against those people - religion, science and politics. Only the first two are of any interest to me, the third - not so much.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I like this though... kinda sounds like someone saying "I am a woman with a transgender history" to me - funny that.

I guess then you didn't watch that video either. The fundamental difference between the example I gave, and the example that Joey gave, is that the people in the film are conflicted between an identity they wish to maintain, and an identity they wish to aspire to. Michael Jackson tried, didn't work out so well for him, and now his daughter is caught up in a similar conflict between her cultural and racial heritage, and seeking acceptance and validation, with Wendy Williams acting like she's the authoritarian gatekeeper of how people should identify themselves -

Michael Jackson’s daughter Paris responds to criticism for saying she ‘considers herself black’


In the example that Joey gave, I don't see any evidence of any internal conflict. However, I do see you trying to push your narrative on other people who aren't you, which is indeed, ironic, and I don't mean in the sense that what you're doing is in any way amusing. I genuinely do wonder who do you think you are are that you think you can tell other people to stay in the lane that you prescribe for them.

JackTaylorFan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A load of bollox

All you are doing is dog whistling and sealoining here, I'm afraid. It's all you ever do. I'm done entertaining you on this thread.

I won't click on any videos you share - nor your links, because, they are quite honestly irrelevant to the conversation. As are you.

Regards

J_E

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

As I said, I am not questioning anyone's right to identify whichever way they want in regards man, woman or somewhere in between. But if you are trans before transition, you're still technically trans after. I really don't understand why this is so complicated for some people to understand, especially if you know what cisgender and transgender actually means.

There are no formalised standards - you could place this argument in the framework of 'if you were a woman before a transition, you are still a woman after'. It's how people choose to commonly identify and associate their gender identity. I would rather accept what they have to say if it isn't unreasonable (I do find when people begin to invent deliberately awkward and unique gender terms it begins to cause confusion and alienation, but these are fringe cases and it's their life, really). I think we are under no obligation to make a show of a person whether they say they are trans or a woman. Why do we need to know in general situations? It's simply how they want to present themself. Much like some may actively present their homosexuality, and some don't want sexuality to define their life. Not every transperson needs to be an activist. It's harming nobody, really, and in some cases they may be trying to avoid discrimination.

JackTaylorFan

J_E wrote: »

There are no formalised standards - you could place this argument in the framework of 'if you were a woman before a transition, you are still a woman after'. It's how people choose to commonly identify and associate their gender identity. I would rather accept what they have to say if it isn't unreasonable (I do find when people begin to invent deliberately awkward and unique gender terms it begins to cause confusion and alienation, but these are fringe cases and it's their life, really). I think we are under no obligation to make a show of a person whether they say they are trans or a woman. Why do we need to know in general situations? It's simply how they want to present themself. Much like some may actively present their homosexuality, and some don't want sexuality to define their life. Not every transperson needs to be an activist. It's harming nobody, really, and in some cases they may be trying to avoid discrimination.

Yes, that's fine in every day life. I don't feel the need to tell people my gender whatsoever either. They draw their own conclusions on meeting me.

But as I said to Joey, if you are speaking on behalf of trans people, it sends out the wrong message completely to say you are no longer trans. How many times can repeat the fact that if you are cis you are cis and if you are trans you are trans. The reason people are so quick to shed the trans label is because of the social stigma. That's my personal opinion as a trans person and it ain't gonna change.

sexmag

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

All you are doing is dog whistling and sealoining here, I'm afraid. It's all you ever do. I'm done entertaining you on this thread.

I won't click on any videos you share - nor your links, because, they are quite honestly irrelevant to the conversation. As are you.

Regards

I thought one eyed jacks response was quite well put together and would have liked to see you respond instead of just dismissing it and ignorong anything you don't agree with. If that was the case for everyone there would be no acceptance of anyone in the lgbt community,people need to be able to see all sides of a discussion,people being able to put themselves in other people's shoed and without that there will never be any progress

JackTaylorFan

sexmag wrote: »

I thought one eyed jacks response was quite well put together and would have liked to see you respond instead of just dismissing it and ignorong anything you don't agree with. If that was the case for everyone there would be no acceptance of anyone in the lgbt community,people need to be able to see all sides of a discussion,people being able to put themselves in other people's shoed and without that there will never be any progress

I'm not in the habit of doing what TERFs (OEJ) expect of me, but thanks for your input. I'll file it under: Things I don't give a **** about.

JackTaylorFan

J_E wrote: »

Much like some may actively present their homosexuality, and some don't want sexuality to define their life. Not every transperson needs to be an activist.

But the woman in question is a trans activist, that is why it is an important distinction in this case.

I really can't make it any simpler for you at this point. If you don't get it by now, It is for one of two reasons: a) you are too dense to actually comprehend all that has been explained to you or b) you are actively not listening to what I have repeated to you twice now.

Either way, I won't reply to you on the subject again.

One eyed Jack

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I'm not in the habit of doing what TERFs (OEJ) expect of me, but thanks for your input. I'll file it under: Things I don't give a **** about.

I didn't respond to your last reply to my post, because it would have been validating your assumed authority to determine who is permitted to speak, and when they are permitted to speak. You simply don't have that authority, over anyone.

Now, I had left it, but when you drag me back into the conversation to call me a feminist, that's just insulting :pac:

Just to be clear - I don't expect anything of you, because I don't regard you as any sort of a leader. You talk about 'us' as though you speak for or represent the transgender community, and as far as I'm concerned - you don't, and you never will. The only thing you have managed to achieve is perpetuating negative stereotypes.

Fortunately for most people who are transgender, your ideas and your opinions are simply outdated, and people who are better informed than you are can easily point out the number of claims you've made which are simply false.

I can understand from your perspective why you want to dismiss people who don't agree with your narratives and have an opinion of their own as deluded, dense or feminists, but that's all you've added to the conversation. If that's all you have to add to the conversation, you shouldn't be surprised when people question whether your opinions are actually worth entertaining. Your arguments from authority just don't cut it.

sexmag

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I'm not in the habit of doing what TERFs (OEJ) expect of me, but thanks for your input. I'll file it under: Things I don't give a **** about.

I really have no idea what you want to achieve?

All of your comments(arguments) are just you dismissing everyone because they don't follow your narrative or are ignorant to what you stand for,yet you don't try and educate in a fair and informed way,how do you expect anyone to understand you when all you do is push them away with sarcastic comments?

Annasopra

Mod

Everyone - cut the personal jibes out. The thread topic is LGBTI. It is not posting style. This is a general warning to all posters. Any further off topic personal jibes from anyone they will be yellow carded and thread banned.

JackTaylorFan

.

Annasopra

All


The mod warning above is to keep thread on discussion. JTF is not thread banned. Any posters who engage in discussion about others posters styles will be thread banned from now on.

An_Toirpin

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We would never be where with womens rights, lgbt rights, human rights, workers rights generally if we took an individualist approach to life. We would still be in a society where would be massive structural exploitation of workers, opression/discrimination of lgbt people, women, people with disabilities.

If the like of Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera took an individualist approach to life and political activism then who knows how backward we would be in terms of lgbt rights. We certainly wouldnt have had much social and political improvements for LGBT peoples lives that we have had in the West for sure.

The advancement of human rigths has everything to with individualism. The arguments for the Suffragettes were mostly if not totally based on individualism. Rights stemming from individualism are still very rare. This philsophy may have huge influence in popular culture and politics but in actual rights very little, especially in Ireland.

P_1

Ok I'm going to delicately wade in here. In my eyes the whole alphabet soup (that's how I've come to term it now) has lost all relevance bar being a PC term to refer to someone who doesn't fit the hetronormative narrative.

For example what would someone who is genderfluid, poly and pan have in common with a cis gay man in a mono relationship bar the fact that they are not hetronormative. Or indeed what would someone who is ace have in common with a gay woman?

Intersectionality is IMO the way forward but is there really a need to constantly add more letters.

JackTaylorFan

[

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I'm going to delicately wade in here. In my eyes the whole alphabet soup (that's how I've come to term it now) has lost all relevance bar being a PC term to refer to someone who doesn't fit the hetronormative narrative.

For example what would someone who is genderfluid, poly and pan have in common with a cis gay man in a mono relationship bar the fact that they are not hetronormative. Or indeed what would someone who is ace have in common with a gay woman?

Intersectionality is IMO the way forward but is there really a need to constantly add more letters.

As far as I am aware, there is only one P and it stands for pansexual. Though, I have heard a multitude of other neo-labels of late too - such as pomosexual (though you might have a stroke trying to work out the logic of that one)

Polyamorous people - they are not strictly part of the LGBT+ community, to be honest. Sadly, there is a lot of confusion still about what these outlying letters mean. I've met people who think the A stands for Allies - it does not. If you're a straight man in a poly relationship with two women, you are still straight. A lot of gay/queer/bi/etc people also happen to enjoy a poly lifestyle as well, that's just a fact - but again, that's not what the P stands for at all. It's pansexual.

Now, to be being ace: Well, the truth is, many ace people are subject to the same kind of bullying from a young age and treated with the same type suspicion as many gay/lesbian people would be throughout their life - in that way the experience is very much related. For some aces, who actually want relationships, it can also be incredibly difficult to find a partner- more so than your average person. I understand that this might seem hard for you to believe, but ace people put up with a lot of **** for their orientation - and it is an orientation. They are often marginalized and vilified, even within the LGBTQ+ community.

PistolsAtDawn

Heebie wrote: »

The various terms mainly have to do with deliberately including groups that "fall under the umbrella" of the shorter acronyms.
Some groups within the larger "gay community" often are marginalised by the gay community in similar ways to how LGBTQAI+ people are marginalised by "the mainstream community" or whatever you wish to call the society we happen to be living in.
The difference between L and G is to ensure women are separately acronym'ed.
Q is sometimes considered to be for people who identify as "queer" and have no desire to be thought of any other way. Most of the time it means "Questioning".. people who aren't really sure.
I think I might be for intergendered people, who are distinctly different from Trans people, in that trans folks feel they were born in a body that doesn't match whom they are.. intergendered people don't consider themselves one or the other, but somewhere in between. I think the A might be for Asexuals.
I'm not sure where Pansexual people would be represented, and I've never seen a P used in there.
Of course, if you ask 100 people you're likely to get 50 answers.

I hope to live to see a day where "person" "people" and individuals' names are all the labels were need.

Thanks, this was very informative.

I'm wondering as a straight white male (the devil incarnate, I know :-) ) why you "hope to live to see a day where "person" "people" and individuals' names are all the labels were need"?.

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with your wish however, it puzzles me nonetheless. As a straight white male if someone was to incorrectly label me as a black lesbian woman for instance, I would not be in no way offended, i'd probably laugh. If they said it a second time I may correct them by saying something along the lines of "apologies but your mistaken, i'm actually a straight white male", if they continued to mislabel me i'd then know it was intentional and designed to cause hurt at which point i'd know they're an a**hole and count myself lucky I figured out this person is an a**hole within three sentences, now I don't have to bother with them again, move onto the next person.

It seems like an easier solution all around to me, based simply on the fact that since the dawn of time people have been cruel to each other, so it is plausible to suggest that for the perceivable future, lets say the next 1000 years, this unfortunate characteristic trait of humans is unlikely to evolve out of our DNA. So rather than waiting 1000 years we can take action today, instantly, and adopt a mindset of "nothing can affect me as I am an individual in total control of the world's interaction with myself".

A simple switch in personal philosophy resulting in instant attainment of the truest form of individualism, in my opinion.

P_1

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

[




As far as I am aware, there is only one P and it stands for pansexual. Though, I have heard a multitude of other neo-labels of late too - such as pomosexual (though you might have a stroke trying to work out the logic of that one)

Polyamorous people - they are not strictly part of the LGBT+ community, to be honest. Sadly, there is a lot of confusion still about what these outlying letters mean. I've met people who think the A stands for Allies - it does not. If you're a straight man in a poly relationship with two women, you are still straight. A lot of gay/queer/bi/etc people also happen to enjoy a poly lifestyle as well, that's just a fact - but again, that's not what the P stands for at all. It's pansexual.

Now, to be being ace: Well, the truth is, many ace people are subject to the same kind of bullying from a young age and treated with the same type suspicion as many gay/lesbian people would be throughout their life - in that way the experience is very much related. For some aces, who actually want relationships, it can also be incredibly difficult to find a partner- more so than your average person. I understand that this might seem hard for you to believe, but ace people put up with a lot of **** for their orientation - and it is an orientation. They are often marginalized and vilified, even within the LGBTQ+ community.

I'm always a fan of learning new things though pomosexual is a new one to me. Dont worry I'll do my best to avoid a stroke but what does it mean? Edit just looked it up and damn as someone who hates labels ironical that's a label that rather resonates with me.

Depending on how you define the alphabet soup poly people might well have a place imo. Obviously not if you're only defining it on sexual orientation.

Trust me I'm well aware of the discrimination ace people can face from certain quarters. It's like biphobia on steroids

JackTaylorFan

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

Thanks, this was very informative.


It seems like an easier solution all around to me, based simply on the fact that since the dawn of time people have been cruel to each other, so it is plausible to suggest that for the perceivable future, lets say the next 1000 years, this unfortunate characteristic trait of humans is unlikely to evolve out of our DNA. So rather than waiting 1000 years we can take action today, instantly, and adopt a mindset of "nothing can affect me as I am an individual in total control of the world's interaction with myself".

So, in essence when you get punched in the face for no other reason than not being a straight white male, it's something you should just shrug off and learn to toughen up about as a strong invincible individual should do.

Yeah, cool... Victim blaming is awesome.

Like 5 thumbs up, there, little buddy.

Anyways, I seen your earlier derisive alphabet post before you edited. And like most the straight white males on this forum, I can't take anything you say seriously - nothing you guys post is in good faith

JackTaylorFan

P_1 wrote: »

I'm always a fan of learning new things though pomosexual is a new one to me. Dont worry I'll do my best to avoid a stroke but what does it mean?

Depending on how you define the alphabet soup poly people might well have a place imo. Obviously not if you're only defining it on sexual orientation.

Trust me I'm well aware of the discrimination ace people can face from certain quarters. It's like biphobia on steroids

Yeah, ace-phobia is pretty common.

And since you asked: Pomosexual is a label for people who refuse to be labeled. I mean, I just can't. I'm not sure, it almost sounds like it was started as a movement on 4Chan - but, then again, I read about it in an article from an LGBT+ news group recently. So yeah...

As for poly people, well, I've gave my opinion on that, and as far as I'm aware, officially there is only one P in the acronym. Poly is not inherently LGBT+ and neither are open relationships - and yes, in theory, I know those two things are not the same. Well, that's my take.

P_1

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Yeah, ace-phobia is pretty common.

And since you asked: Pomosexual is a label for people who refuse to be labeled. I mean, I just can't. I'm not sure, it almost sounds like it was started as a movement on 4Chan - but, then again, I read about it in an article from an LGBT+ news group recently. So yeah...

As for poly people, well, I've gave my opinion on that, and as far as I'm aware, officially there is only one P in the acronym. Poly is not inherently LGBT+ and neither are open relationships - and yes, in theory, I know those two things are not the same. Well, that's my take.

And that's fair enough. Like everyone has their own take on things and it's quite refreshing that there isnt a hive mind on this. The issue comes in my eyes when people start falling out over such matters.

JackTaylorFan

P_1 wrote: »

And that's fair enough. Like everyone has their own take on things and it's quite refreshing that there isnt a hive mind on this. The issue comes in my eyes when people start falling out over such matters.

Cool