all 64 comments

[–][deleted] 39 insightful - 4 fun39 insightful - 3 fun40 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I am somehow exhausted and suffering a headache reading about our bullshit umbrella terms. Let’s just take LGB and run

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 18 insightful - 5 fun18 insightful - 4 fun19 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

I'm for it, but the acronyms have an irritating habit of growing longer, just like Pinocchio's nose.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 28 insightful - 1 fun28 insightful - 0 fun29 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Queer" is a Trojan horse filled with oppression grifters and attention seekers. "Questioning" may have been the only acceptable addition to the alphabet soup as there are many younger people who just don't know themselves yet but could really benefit from the support of the community. But, like someone here said: At some point, you're going to have to decide. You can't stay questioning forever. And that's why the poser opportunists dropped the term and decided on the nebulous cloud of non-meaning called "Queer". Got the straight majority on board, because they could simply use the same support "template" they used for the lgb. This is why lgb acceptance took so long while tq+ is just blasting forward to bedlam with the help of the wokesters. But it is not the same thing, but they are not even thinking twice about it. They are causing overall acceptance to go down, so I am not gonna use that term unironically.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

A Trojan horse, a closeting mechanism and a bandwagon for trend-seekers! The Q-word certainly gives you a lot of bang for your buck, doesn't it? Semantic Silly Putty, that's what it is.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 27 insightful - 1 fun27 insightful - 0 fun28 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Too much generalizing words are harmful, because no one can be sure about what discussion is. And it is replacing words for specific groups of people and their problems.

If you say "gay problems" everyone will be aware that it is men problems based on their sexuality. If you hear "lesbian problems" - everyone will instantly think about women and problems based on their sexuality. If you say "queer people problems" - what everyone will think? About someone being misgendered? This just makes no sense to anyone.

If you say on dating site "I am gay man", everyone will understand that you will not date women, that you like men. If you say (or even worse - type in internet without profile picture) - "I am queer person" - what do you even mean by that, who you interested in?

And word "Queer" does not even make sense in their own queer theory. If someone types "I am lesbian", then everyone know that person is woman. If someone types "I am queer" - who is that person, what their pronoun, what sex and gender that person have? So it is not saying about sexuality, about gender identity and about "assigned at birth" sex even in their own theories.

Some people are saying that word "queer" is a slur. I think it is not a slur, it is - rubber eraser instead.

I will copy my answer from another topic:

I was born in USSR, I was liking boys and was afraid of that and did not knew what is wrong with me. I only learned about gay men from "Voice of America" illegal radiostation, where they said that men can love another men and it is called "gay man". Imagine if they were just saying "one queer person can love other queer person, they are queer people"? I would be still struggling with my sexuality, and maybe even ended up with mental health issues or suiciding. This "queer" word is very harmful for LGB folks, even if it is not used as slur.

Word "Queer" is often said instead of "gay" in articles, almost completely replacing "bisexual" and "lesbian" words in articles. My lesbian friend showed me recently few articles about lesbian games on a few big sites, and word "lesbian" was used zero times in all of them, there were only "queer women" or even worse "queer people" (and queer people can be men, so it is not even clear that article about homosexual women at all). So mainstream audience would not even be sure about what kind of people those games are.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

While I do think it's an awful slur, I can't disagree with you about the eraser equation. I mean, how could I disagree when it you lay it out with such deadly clarity?

[–]fuck_reddit 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You point out the central flaw of the "reclamation" of the term "queer." It is an identifying label that clarifies nothing. To say nothing at all would be more clear than calling oneself "queer."

[–][deleted] 20 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

The thing that gets me the most is when a single person is referred to as LGBTQ+ or something like that. Congratulations on communicating exactly zero bits of information. Just call them what they are (lesbian, gay, bi, whatever) instead of foisting a clunky and unnatural phrase onto them.

I notice this happens to LB women, mostly lesbians, a lot. Instead of lesbians or bisexuals, we're "queer women" or "wlw" or "sapphic" or even "LGBTQ+" when describing a single person or clear-cut demographic. It's already hard enough to find non-sexual content about us online. Now we have to deal with people who just refuse to use the words lesbian or bisexual. It's so frustrating to not even be able to accurately describe or find yourself because people want to keep inventing words and applying them to inappropriate situations.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's what people seem to want nowadays: A term that communicates zero information! In addition to being disrespectful labels, "Queer" and the Incredibly Expanding Acronym are manifestations of the closet. Sooner or later, we're going to hear people talking about "Queer Pride", and that combination of words is a total oxymoron.

[–]fuck_reddit 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I think it's sadly only being noticed now that they're trying to do the same thing to gay men. Stonewall UK referred to three gay men killed in Reading, UK as "LGBT" and people flipped out... It's sad that a lot of people are only just coming to realize what's been happening to lesbians for years...

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Yes, but people ARE waking up. We are looking at something historic: What used to be the Gay Rights movement is splintering. Where will the dissidents end up? Will we have an American branch of LGB Alliance? Or will Lesbians, Gay men and Bisexual folk form separate but allied advocacy groups?

I'm not one of these people who automatically despairs at division. Ask any radical Lesbian: It is sometimes necessary to separate from those who don't have your best interests at heart. There's nothing wrong with like-minded people consolidating around issues that really matter to them. Compromise and agreeing to disagree is also necessary at times, but there's no percentage in compromising with historical revisionists, stealth misogynists and wannabe fascists! Donna Summer and Barbra Streisand said it best back in the day: If you've had enough, don't put up with this stuff, don't you do it/If you've had your fill, get the check, pay the bill, you can do it. (Lyrics by Paul Jabara and Bruce Roberts, "Enough Is Enough")

[–]fuck_reddit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I agree. I think my ideal would be an LGB group where ~75% of meetings are break-off meetings of L, G, or B men and women to discuss their own things/problems/experiences/advice, and then ~25% of the time have meetings/events all together to socialize/discuss problems. Basically, maintain a group cohesion, but don't spend so much time around each other we piss each other off lol

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm for it!

[–]fuck_reddit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We could call it the "Confederation of Independent Sexualities" or CIS for short lol.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

OMG! As far as "reclaimed" slurs go, that would take the cake. Not everybody agrees that "cis" is a slur, but do you agree that its use on Gay people is especially inappropriate?

[–]fuck_reddit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think it serves a linguistic purpose (in theory), but in practice its used to push gay guys out of the “””LGBT community””” (especially when “white” is also added). Its basically just a way of silencing the group whose most likely to call out trans BS.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When I see TRAs refer to a Gay man or Lesbian as "cis", especially the kind of TRAs who want to shove the term right down your throat, I see ignorant fools. What makes them fools is assuming that the way they experience gender is the same way everybody else does or should. What makes them ignorant is their lack of knowledge about how Gay people relate to gender; many of us have our own difficulties. Just because you aren't trans, that doesn't mean you are or have always been comfortable with your sex! It's another example of why one group should never dare presume to define another group.

[–]AugustiJade 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Interestingly, I've not met a single intersex person who even wanted to be in the alphabet soup. That is my own experience, of course, but again I feel like it's just the TRAs trying to co-opt them.

What a mess the last decade has been...

[–]florasisHOMOSEXUAL FEMALE/Pussy is my God and I'm monotheist 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, there was a comment from an intersex, saying "stop using my genetic defect to make a point". It has nothing to do with trans agenda, trying to use them is very miserable way to behave

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was an arrogant and patently dishonest thing to do, name-checking all these unrelated groups and claiming to represent them, just to make their constituency look bigger than it is. And the last time I checked, the Incredible Expanding Acronym is still taking on new letters!

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is what I mean about putting sex and gender diversity through a meat grinder. Taking that metaphor further, it's like grinding beef, chicken, pork, lamb, turkey, venison, water fowl and fish together. You end up with something that is indescribable, unpalatable and indigestible.

[–]ThiccDropkickGay 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

I don't know which one to use tbh. I think LGB has become too conspicuous and you immediately draw attention for excluding the t. So unless I'm in the mood for a debate I usually stick to LGBT. Never any more letters though

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 25 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 0 fun26 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

The more you stretch that acronym, the less real community it represents. I'm aware of deep divisions between Lesbian and Gay male activists that go back as far as the heyday of the Mattachine Society. Bisexual folk have always complained about the disrespect they get from Gay people (and the tension goes both ways, although that's seldom talked about); and we know only too well about the uproar radical transgender activism has caused.

If we're to be referred to by an acronym, or an umbrella term if you will, then we should all have a significant characteristic in common. Shared same-sex orientation makes sense of "LGB"; but when you add the "T", that's where the problems start. There's not enough commonality. LGB folk have fought against the idea that we're disordered, while most Transfolk embrace it. That "trapped in the wrong body" mindset hasn't been part of Gay activism for many years, and we certainly don't want to reclaim it. At least, I don't!

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 0 fun24 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Originally T was added for transsexual homosexuals. And LGBT was still ONLY about sexuality. Now T was hijacked by "transgenders" who are not even transsexuals with "born in wrong body" but some people called "transgenders" (previously transgender and transsexual were synonims, as gender was equal to sex, but not anymore) with "I feel like other sex" or "being other sex is my kink", and QIAANB+ part added was not about sexuality either. Almost everything that is after LGB nowaydas is about either sexual kinks or "how you feel yourself" or "what stereotype you will like to follow", not about sexuality at all. Plus if LGB is mostly about acceptance and "we are normal, just like everyone else, let us live. Being homosexual is same as being with brown or white hair, nothing special", the TQ+ is about "we are different, we need more rights than other people, make sure to remember that we are different and use special pronounses, change the world". And in general TQ+ has a lot more in common with movements like Feminism or Men Rights Activism.

And this is main issue with TQ+ under umbrella term - they want absolutely different things than we (LGB) are, they have absolutely different problems than we have, and even whole core reason of those problems is different. If Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals have something in common - romantic and/or sexual attraction to same sex people, if all LGB people have same reason for being oppressed and it is shown in same way to all of them, then TQ+ have nothing in common both with LGB part and even within themselves.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

I wanna add that seeing that TQ+ also includes asexuals but to me they aren't like the rest of TQ+. They just want acknowledgement and that's everything. Unlike these trans and non-binary kids demanding special behavior and rights around them.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Well, asexual is still related to sexual orientation and sexuality, so they may belong to LGB. However, they do not have oppression like LGB people, they are pressured for different reasons. In general, thought, they are much-much closer to LBG than the rest of TQ+. And I am actually not sure if Asexuals even want to be in LGBTQ+. I know only few, and they are not associating themselves with LGBTQ+ and they are not sure why they should be associated with it at all.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Speaking for myself, I very much object to being grouped with asexual people! I question whether asexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation, but I don't even want to go there. To associate the Gay liberation movement, which was sex-affirming, with asexual activism is not only wrong, it's insulting; and the very concept of having a semantic miscellaneous bin for sexuality is offensive.

[–]Ko-hi 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Speaking as an asexual ally, yes we want to be included. There's too many people who question whether we are a legitimate sexual orientation and whether the question of gay rights concerns us.

As asexual I have 0 attraction for either gender, but my piping works fine and I'm not sex-repulsed or whatever stereotype of asexuality is popular, I just don't feel attraction. In practice my life will look very similar to that of a shy bisexual, I don't have a preference but I also don't like feeling lonely, I could end up with either gender.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm concerned with Lesbian and Gay rights. I may be sympathetic to other sex and gender-diverse people, but their struggles are not mine and I've got more than enough on my plate. Asexual pride is not Gay pride. Gay pride is not Trans pride. And so on.

It's foolish to think that a single liberation movement can effectively represent anybody and everybody who feels oppressed, regardless of reason! You can spread advocacy so thin that there's no substance left, just a lot of empty posturing. Today's "queer" activists don't seem to understand that; or maybe empty posturing was all they ever intended?

To anybody who's got a taste for loaded alphabet soup, I say "bon apetit." In fact, you can have my serving. Eat 'til it hurts!

[–]Ko-hi 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Let's put it this way, the main difference between us and bisexuals is that we have sex or marry for reasons unrelated to attraction. The concept is so muddled that I did think I was bisexual for 15 years.

I'm not saying you need to include us in LG advocacy, just that we do want to be included in the wider LGBTQ+ label and that we really are a legitimate sexual orientation.

I'm here aren't I? That means I support the LGB moniker for issues that specifically affect LGB people.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It means that you're an ally. That doesn't mean our liberation movement should be your liberation movement, too!

As for inclusion in the acronym, it's a moot point because the current leadership of the movement have included you (or at least they claim to represent you). I and others who think as I do have rejected that leadership, and I think I can safely say we're in the process of creating a movement that's faithful to the original goals of Gay Rights activists. We're not interested in creating another Pride bandwagon that everybody can jump on.

I'm sorry if you feel that we've ostracized you; understand that it's because our life experiences are so different. (BTW, sex and marriage relates to physical attraction for ALL of us, including Bisexual men and women!) Why worry about that, though? You've got that nice, warm bowl of loaded alphabet soup to satisfy your hunger for inclusion. And if the time comes when that potluck meal fails to satisfy, there's always the option of starting a discrete Asexual Rights movement.

[–]Ko-hi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not sure why the rant because this is exactly what I said too. We want to included in wider LGBT+ community, the alphabet soup as you put it (where A is often replaced by "ally", yay) and I respect your need for a separate label.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you believe, as I do, that the intent behind all this acronym amending was deliberate sabotage to the Gay Rights movement?

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think it was intentional for the most of the time. However, now it is almost certainly is.

[–]Ko-hi 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

That first A still about sexuality! Asexuality is what rounds out the spectrum of sexualities, same/opposite/both/neither.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

"Asexual" is similar to the label "queer" in that an exact definition is impossible to arrive at. If I want to get thoroughly confused, all I have to do is try and sort out all the contradictory claims made about asexuality! Because it's so nebulous, I can't accept asexual persons as part of that spectrum you refer to. Nor do I believe they suffer oppression that's comparable to what Lesbians, Gay men and Bisexual folk suffer. But as I said before, there's no reason for you to worry because the LGBTQ+ leadership believes differently. You're definitely part of the Incredibly Expanding Acronym. What more do you want?

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

Asexuality is pretty easy to define. It is just not wanting any sexual contacts or relationships, for the whole life or temporary.

However, I am not sure if it is something separated or alternative to sexuality or orientations. I am living alone and not really having any sexual feelings to anyone for around 6-7 years now (I still have romantic feelings and flirting around, thought), so I am asexual, however, at same time I am lesbian, because I love and want only other women, both romantically and sexually, it is just period in my life now that I want to be alone. So asexuality is just one different beast. It is like you can be both tall and have brown hair - just not related things.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Asexual and Lesbian at the same time? That's one of the contradictions I was talking about. Is that supposed to be two sexual orientations paired up in one person? Shut the front door!

Without going into much detail, I could describe myself as asexual the way you describe it. But the point is: Whatever else we may be, we're Gay people! That's what qualifies us for inclusion in LesBiGay liberation movements. Asexual liberation? Don't understand it, can't relate to it, and won't pretend otherwise. All I know is that pretending asexuality is directly comparable to homosexuality in terms of persecution is dishonest. Not that I'm accusing you or anyone else here of doing that.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Didn't I just said that asexuality is not sexual orientation? And it is not gender either. It is tied with sexuality, but that is it. Asexuality is mostly pressured in a way that people may think asexual person is LGB or pressure to get married, etc. So problems are different to sexual orientation problems. And unlike sexual orientation, it can change, appear or dissapear, or last whole life (as I was sexually active until 6-7 years ago, until I decided I want to be alone for some time, and that time not ended yet).

At least by the old description/meaning of the therm, maybe TQ+ created new meaning to it, I don't know. But even if we think of asexuality of sexual orientation that is "inherent sexual and romantic attraction to no one" - homophobic countries still will not hate you for being alone. Only problems can be in countries like China, where having kids and being married is required, but that is same pressure as on everyone, not specifically asexuals.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That isn't exactly what you said, but I appreciate your clarification. I think we agree that people aren't an oppressed class due to their asexuality.

[–]Ko-hi 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Asexuality is lack of attraction, not "not wanting sexual contact". The second is generally a side-effect as sex would feel as palatable to us as the thought of having sex with a man to a lesbian.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Well, I had no attraction to anyone as well, even romantic one, for those years, until recently. Same was when I was married on a man.

[–]Ko-hi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Asexuality is easy to define and conceptualise, it's what a lesbian feels towards a man. No sexual attraction. It's a sexuality. But there are many who think it's about whether or not you want sexual contact, that is what muddles it.

You could say we're extremely low attraction bisexuals, since we feel equal attraction to both genders, if you prefer that.

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Men turning Lesbians into asexual women? Asexuality, a subcategory of bisexuality? You remind me of an amateur comedian, grabbing desperately for punchlines before he crashes and burns! Tell me another one; maybe next time I'll laugh!

No doubt it's best to let Lesbians and Bisexual persons speak for themselves; methinks there are a few who disagree with you. Maybe even more than a few. At best, your claims are wishful thinking and at worst, they're an attempt at gaslighting!

That annoying habit of trying to blur sexual orientation definitions is one reason why folks are starting to turn away from "queer" activists and activism. Re-defining someone else's identity to suit your own socio-political agenda, that's just plain rude. I could easily use rougher language, but let's keep things family-friendly.

[–]Ko-hi 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Oh my god are you being intentionally obtuse. You're twisting my words into something I never said.

Asexual = equal attraction to both genders, namely zero. It's a separate sexuality but it's most similar to bisexuality, due to the equal attraction aspect. 0=0. I am 30, I literally thought I was bisexual all my life until a year ago.

A lesbian feels 0 attraction towards a man. I used this comparison to point out what it feels like, to contrast that other person who said it's about not wanting sex. I did not say men make lesbians asexual WTF

[–]KCStuffedAnimal[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why should I twist your words when you do such a great job twisting them yourself? You don't need my help. If twisted analyses bother you so much, then stop drawing parallels with people whose life experiences you don't understand! But do they really bother you? I doubt it. The so-called "LGBTQ+ community" that you claim membership in encourages blurring identity distinctions and creating false equivalence. That's one reason why "G" is the only letter I identify with!

[–]Ko-hi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Considering I identified as bi for longer than some members of the community have been alive and dated/had sex with both genders, sure kiddo, I don't understand their life experience at all and there's no point in drawing any parallels out of experience. Keep being that abrasive and you'll alienate everyone sympathetic to the LGB without other letters cause.

[–]indeepshadowsBi woman 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You're on TRA levels of willfully misunderstanding your opponent. Congrats.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No argument here. We are LGB. Period.