As the title states really. I need to refer to this diverse group of people, who somehow have gotten put in the same box labeled “sexual minorites”.
I’m a boring CISHET vanilla white male, so I don’t really know. I want to include as many as I can when I refer to “lgbtq+ people”. I’ve been studying various flags, trying to find the one flag I need. But I can’t really figure it out.
Is lgbtq+ the preferred term, or what should I use? Is a flag better? I don’t want to hurt someone by not including them.
The LBGTQ : pronounced The luh-buh-guh-tuh-quah
The alphabet mafia
Or the southern version : all y’all
Removed by mod
Here’s what I use:
- LGBT+ most formal (and old fashioned)
- LGBTQ+ less formal
- “people” most inclusive
I find the full abbreviation to be a bit of a mouthful when speaking, so I sometimes prefer use “rainbow”, for example in the context of “rainbow rights” instead. I consider it as inclusive as can be, and people understand what I mean.
I’m a cis straight man, so I may have missed something.
My two cents as a trans person: The Q (queer) is an umbrella term for everyone who didn’t fall under L G B or T, so adding anything after that is just unnecessary and begging for right wingers to make a joke out of it.
So “LGBTQ” is safest, but most of the time I just say “LGBT” tbh
I get where you’re coming from, but what about the wide swath of people in this post, who are not covered by the term? Like aromantics and asexuals?
begging for right wingers to make a joke out of it
Who’s to say I’m not kinda looking for it? Come at me, I’m angry, I sorta want a fight. I can hold my own in a debate, and if I can get you to expose your obsolete and inhumane views by attacking me, then YOU are the one who’s outed.
I’m aro/ace and I don’t really say anything more than LGBT or LGBT+ myself. I’m not really a fan of the whole alphabet soup acronym, it doesn’t make conversation any easier. I don’t speak for everyone though, some people clearly like the name including everyone. Personally I tend to even omit the + or Q after the first time of saying because otherwise it’s still a mouthful.
aromantics and asexuals
They’re covered by the term “queer” too because they’re not heterosexual. And if anyone identifies as “agender” they’d be covered by the Q too, since they’re not cisgender.
I’m angry, I sorta want a fight
I don’t think we have anything to fight about lol
I don’t want to fight either!
Speaking as an aromatic though, I am very heterosexual. I just don’t enjoy all the lovey dovey squishy romantic things… Holding hands is mostly ok, anything beyond that kinda grosses me out. (Kissing is so weird…) I very much enjoy the more intimate physical things though.
Many aromantics enjoy physical relationships, but don’t understand the more romantic aspects of them.
I’m not looking to fight anyone here. I’m sorry if I came across way. I want to stop my boomer coworkers from hurting LGTBQ people in our organization, and if that resolves in me debating my coworkers then that’s a fight I’m not gonna back down from… #imactuallynotverybadassjustextremelytired
Oooh I see what you meant now lol. But yeah, I feel you.
What’s funny is that a lot of my coworkers would shit-talk trans people until they learned I was transitioning. Now all of the sudden they’re more nuanced and understanding 🤔
Do you call them boomers to their faces?
Last time I did was today, but that was in a teasing funny setting, and to a person I hold a great deal of respect for.
I wouldn’t in a discussion, I hate name calling, it’s counter productive. But in my mind…
But it exists in your head, right? Like you have mentally categorised an age of people as boomers, and you’re associating a behaviour with that category?
The reason I say is that age is also a protected category…
I want to stop my boomer coworkers from hurting LGTBQ people
As a 70 year old lesbian, I’d like to suggest you might find some more allies in your organization, please don’t assume all boomers are bigots. I have many grey haired allies. I doubt you’re as alone as you think you are, but maybe you’re just more “out” than they are. Give them the chance to come out and join you.
The rainbow people. :)
I treat them as normal people and don’t refer to them at all. They’re no different than anyone else in any way and shouldn’t be excluded or included as a result of their sexual identity.
This is all fine and dandy, but if you can’t name a minority group, then they are effectively forgotten. It’s not true that they are “no different than anyone else” otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. When it comes to diversity and inclusion, you want to be able to identify and name the groups you’re trying to include.
In a normal world, there’s no need for groups. We’re all just people. No one is an exception- no one is special. To me, they are the same as eveone else.
Just people.
Well, we don’t live in that magical world and minorities still need support to avoid discrimination.
Treated the same, or treated special…. Pick one.
Personally, I don’t think anyone is excluded. And won’t treat someone differently just because others do. Everyone is equal in my world. Who you love is no business of mine. If others make it so- that’s not something I should adjust for.
Do as you wish.
Personally I prefer just “sexual minority” as LGBTQ comes with political backage that I prefer not to be associated with.
Am also a boring, (getting) old white bloke: is something like “rainbow folk” not appropriate?
I know the Wear It Purple day organisers refer to kids who are questioning/curious as “rainbow kids” (at least, that’s what a trans coworker told me they called them).
Edit: honestly, it’d just be nice if we didn’t have to label people at all. Y’know - everyone’s a human deserving of dignity and respect, no matter where they come from, how they look, what they believe in, and who they love.
But, again, I get that I’m a boring old white bloke, and it’s probably a lot easier for me to say this than it is for those folks who feel oppressed/suppressed in some way. I just wish it weren’t the case.
“Queer” works.
Everyone between age 30 and 60 will accept the label immediately.
Some people under the age of 30 will get offended but they’re the kind of people who like getting offended so you can safely ignore them.
Some people over the age of 60 will get offended but who cares, they’re about to get dementia anyway.
Can I respectfully ask, what’s the definition of queer as opposed to lesbian, gay, bi, trans or intersex? As in, why is it included in the acronym? Does it have a specific meaning that isn’t covered by the other terms?
“Queer” is a catchall term. It specifically does not have a specific meaning. It’s meant for people who do not fit into the cishet idea of gender, but also don’t fall neatly into the L, G, or B of LGBT.
“Queer” technically encompasses the L, G, and B too. Anything outside of cishet “norm”. A fully straight metrosexual could consider himself queer.
I use the term “queer” to describe myself because my sexual identity (which is something like bisexual or pansexual) and my neurodivergence have made me something of a cultural outcast throughout most of my life. I don’t really “fit in” with most people, and “queer” describes that experience pretty succinctly.
To the person you are responding to, I am cautious about using this word too broadly because some people have specific trauma around this word. Bigots often wield the word like a weapon, so people who are subjected to that and don’t have adequate supports to deal with that trauma can get offended by it. I don’t think we should so flippantly dismiss that. It works for me. It doesn’t work for others.
I think there’s something to be said for not self-censoring due to the potential of someone’s personal trauma. Respectfully, some random person’s issues are not my problem and should not affect my ability to identify myself or others, as long as I’m not doing so in a mean spirited way. If words cause you mental issues, you should work on that with a therapist. I will not coddle you.
honestly, it’d just be nice if we didn’t have to label people at all.
Hear hear!
To be totally honest, that’s somewhat my sentiment for wanting to do something. Some other commenter thanked me for my attitude … I feel weird about that, because I think of it as respectful common decency towards my fellow humans.
I really like the rainbow word though, it’s not as gringe as the letter combinations, not as potentially offensive as some of the words rainbow folks self apply, and it still get the meaning across while being inclusive of all.
I tried “you people” but for some reason it didn’t go too well.
why not just use “sexual minorities”?
Gender and sexual minorities is more complete. Trans and non-binary identities are not sexual minorities.
GSRM
Gender, sexual, romantic minority.
I really hope he finishes the next book soon
I go with lgbt. Those who know all the letters, know all the letters. Those who don’t will make fun of you for listing out more letters.
I’m not saying lgbtqia2s+ fuck no. It’s cringe af
I agree that in an effort to be as inclusive as possible we have created a completely unmarketable acronym. That matters because we are still having to defend our very existence to a lot of people whose bigotry is being gathered up and weaponized politically against us.
What about “rainbow people”? I kinda like it, the letters can quickly become unmarketable cringe while still not include everyone.
Strong no to rainbow people or alphabet people from me - it’s the sort of thing a homophobic person would say to be dismissive of us. I use “queer”, but I think this is location dependent. Where I’m from in the UK, people don’t use “queer” as an insult (but rather they use “fag” or “gay”) but in other places it has a different history.
I think the main thing is that you are being polite and specifically asking for input so your heart is in the right place. If you are speaking (rather than typing), I believe people will hear that you are being sincere and not dismissive even if you use the ‘wrong’ word.
Final suggestion: LGBTeeple (contraction of LGBT people) because it’s funny.
Copy that, is it the rainbow or the people part? Because “people” was just a placeholder to avoid having this thread pop up if someone googles my future message.
I like your portmanteau, but I think that my target audience is either without the English literacy level to decode it, or with just enough to recognize it as “LGBT sheeple”.
While realizing that I will never find the perfect term that will convey my message, while not rubbing someone the wrong way, I will continue my search.
I personally use “queer folks” as a general catch-all. It used to be a pejorative, but has largely been reclaimed with the whole “we’re here, we’re queer” type messages.
I’ve always thought we should use “plus” as in the + at the end of lgbt. It’s short, easy, all inclusive and has a built in positive association.
