Society of Antisocialites

And Now For Something Completely Different...

14 posts in this topic

We're more than a little bit sick of the alphabet soup the LGBT+ tag has become. Trying to include everyone is nice, but it's an ideal. This isn't to say including everyone is a bad idea, but assigning a letter for every sexuality and ever gender would be enough to fill a dictionary, and that's not even including romantic orientations!

((I sincerely apologize for doubple posting and if an Admin would merge these two it would be greatly appreciated. My "enter" key stopped working (and still isn't working, as I had to switch computers to type, which is incredibly difficult to type on for some reason) and... such is an issue.))

As I sad, we're a little sick of alphabet soup, and it tends to make the community look a little ridiculous despite good intentions. We're used to seeing the LGBTQQIIAA+, but I know we've seen one with more letters and four "A"s - we can't imagine what the fourth would be for, because adding "aromantic" would justify doubling the other sexuality!letters to include romantic orientations as well.

So, we put up another alternative, one that really *is* all-encompassing: GLOS.

This one, in addition to being short and sweet, includes ALL Genders, Lifestyles, Orientations, and Sexualities. Better yet, it distinguishes other orientations from sexuality, which we've seldom see. Polyamorous folks (like many in our system) are also recognized.

What does everyone think?

- Eledon

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nooope, it's going to end up with people complaining about not recognizing the uniqueness of each and being insensitive.

Exactly why I stay the hell away from these things.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult one I think.

I think the GLOS acronym is at least memorable LGBT and all the other extra bits is definitely too much. I heard Q added to it for "Questioning but the extra Q, I and AA have lost me.

Couldn't we just stop partitioning people and called everybody people. It just seems like yet another way of discriminating against a group of people to me. whether they are L, G, B,T, Q, C, H, P, A, X or anything else, being discriminatory is not OK with me

Zygo :flame:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody here had the idea that human society is at the stage in its infancy where it gets to know a couple new words and gets super excited, then applies them to everything - even things for which the label's don't fit. It's still in the mindset that the differences are what's important, not the similarities.

That mindset not focusing on the "we're all people" aspect is what's been getting us. For one, it shouldn't mean jack shite what you are. We're going to keep having the same arguments - like what happened with race and gender, and now sexuality and trans* status, and we can guess what's coming next - until somebody lays it down that people are people no matter what, and nothing "different" about them should be used to discriminate - and that counts for negative and "positive" discrimination in the long run.

We've heard the alternate "queer", but that word already has negative connotations - and you know how people *love* to stereotype without bothering to understand what they're stereotyping. GLOS makes more sense to us as an umbrella acronym.

The letters are as follows for LGBTQQIIAA - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual/Transgender (not sure which), Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Intergender (had to look it up), Asexual, and Agender. Or one could be Androgynous. No wait, it's Allies. Ironically they're still missing the slightly better-known Pansexuals, which would also clue some people in to the very much non-binary spectrum of gender.

We've seen QUILTBAG too, but we're not certain of all the letters (like "U"), and it sounds silly to us, like something that could easily turn into a slur.

The LGBTQQIIAA isn't the most ridiculous one we've seen either... Do a search on alternative LGBT acronyms or "full" LBGT acronym, and... it's a flustercluck. Nobody is going to remember half of that, and they're still failing in their purpose. GSRM (gender, sexual, romantic minorities) is closest, but we hadn't heard of it until searching, and it still plants us as apart from the "normal" people.

Bleh. Lots of words, but short story - LGBTQ+ we don't think is going about this the right way. The focus should be on people, not labels, like Zygo said - and that would help *everybody* more in the long run.

- Salem

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun Fact: Lgbtqqiiaa (la-gibt-key-ah) is the ancient name of the planet Omicron Perseii VIII. Its current leader is known as Lrrr, who rules with his wife, Ndnd, by his side. :D

As you can tell, I'm not big on labels either. :smile:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't there already a term that encompasses ALL Genders, Lifestyles, Orientations and Sexualities?

People....

Perhaps it's time to stop thinking about all the ways that we're all different and start thinking about the many ways in which we're all the same.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easier said than done, Demovora. Humankind seems to revel in trying to make one's self more special or important, or unique.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a huge part of the problem is that in trying to say there is a separate community for everyone who is not heterosexual you still segregate people and then compartmentalize all the others by saying they all belong to one community as well.

In real terms there really is a natural segregation, because for the most part people don't tend to mix with other people that do not share their interests.

Sexuality is no different. If you made a forum for each form of sexuality its very unlikely that you would find people posting on every forum. The majority would stick to their own area of interest.

In trying to encompass everyone people are forgetting that there are still other groups of people with different views and habits so that technically and in very real terms,to me, there isn't actually an LGBTQII community at all.

I agree with Dem here that there are only "People"

There should not be any need for gay rights they should all simply be peoples rights.

Zygo :flame:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"People" is also a segritory label, its root is populous, implying the population of x, granted x is never specified wich leaves what x is up to the imagination.

Since this method of ambiguity seems to be a popular one, then i prepose the new name for the lgbt to simply read as "identity"

Their slogan coukd simply read "I'am"

Granted it would be hard for such a group to compleat any goal do to massive levels of confusion as to what that goal is.

Labels are used to direct thought to explain simply and quickly what is ment.

This has drawbacks yes especialy when no labels fits, wich may be the lgbt's thinking they are trying to create a hyper discriptive label to suport a group that goes through simuliar things but not identical things,

For example .

pan sexuals are included in the lgbt (some one who is attracted to all genders)

Like wise asexuals are included (some one who is attracted to no one)

They look like oposites, but they both center around (attraction)

To further complicate this less add other lables to this.

We also have trans-sexual folks ( people who feel they are a different sex then what they where born with)

Like wise we have genderless folks wich alone can be a complicated group, ranging from folks who feel they shouldn't have any sexual organs, to people who dont identify as any gender and dont realy care.

What do these folks have incommon? They dont relate to folks who identify with their physical gender(cis gender), but funny enough the latter kind of genderless dont relate to trans sexuals either ( complicated)

But on a basic level we end up with two words

Attraction, and gender

A simple and discripted name could thus be...

The alternative attraction and gender community

abriviation aag.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romantically, I'm heteroflexible. Sexually, I'm pansexual. And to be honest, until I saw it mentioned here, I never consciously realized how segregatory it is to label everyone by their preferences. But it's an excellent point. Tbh, labels like LGBT and even those of specific religions essentially turn people into living targets for the prejudiced majority. It's essentially a mindset of "different? you're different? well, different is bad, so /you/ must be bad and we don't want bad things so we're going to kill you."

Sometimes that last part is figurative, but uh... sometimes it isn't.

And that's a big part of the even bigger problem.

~Melari

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey Melari XD long time no see.

to the topic: sooooo im confused... why are there labels in the first place? I'm not talking about the discrimination but as for me if you want to know me just ask and I'll tell you... why do we need labels at all? just talk to people. x..x its not so hard

Drake

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the labels are just a way of people identifying each other under a large umbrella of terms, similar to "otherkin" really.

There are ever so many ways to be otherkin just as their are X many ways not to be heterosexual and if you want to find someone that probably thinks/feels like you do, having a name for it that everyone can understand helps quite a bit.

Zygo :flame:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*nods* i agree. just don't think it should be something that's relied upon. :3

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites