LGBT or GSD?

ashers22

1ZRed wrote: »

I've caught up on the last few pages and I don't think you get how hypocritical your posts are coming across. You called me a retard without anything to back it up and now you're telling him to back up his claims as he was "just having" a go at you.

I think a proper discussion of this would be interesting as we clearly have different views on the subject but from your posts all you seem to be going is bullying people into agreeing with you, and if they don't, their words are twisted to make them seem like self concerned bigots.

Hardly a level playing ground for a discussion in fairness.

First of all I didn't call you a retard, I asked were you retarded because your amazing insight into what is covered under the lgbt umbrella happily excludes anyone who is not like you.

It's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. Wft does "queer" or the likes of that have to with anything?

Queer is a recognized term everywhere else, but you continue to just not accept that. You don't represent me and I have no desire to be represented by you under the terms of your current understanding of what is or is not inclusive or deemed eligible within the lgbt community. You must either be gay lesbian bisexual or trans.
You do realise you cannot define other peoples identity for them right?
If you or others don't agree with that what you are saying is that I and people like me do not exist.
I posted in this thread in response to the acronym GSD and how it sounded to me. That was the topic of the thread. You came here and inferred that "others" are not included, so from the outset you inferred that I am not acceptable here, unless of course I accept your more finely tuned definition of who or what I should be.
I choose not to be defined by you or what you believe is an acceptable identity, consequently I'll be relieved to leave the this kind of lgbt community and it's philosophy's behind me.

ps, when your need to play your "I'm a gay man" role hinges or affects the lives of others adversely perhaps it's time find somewhere else to play it as it is damaging to the rest of society and a fcuking ugly representation of lgbt as a whole.

floggg

ashers22 wrote: »

First of all I didn't call you a retard, I asked were you retarded because your amazing insight into what is covered under the lgbt umbrella happily excludes anyone who is not like you.
Queer is a recognized term everywhere else, but you continue to just not accept that. You don't represent me and I have no desire to be represented by you under the terms of your current understanding of what is or is not inclusive or deemed eligible within the lgbt community. You must either be gay lesbian bisexual or trans.
You do realise you cannot define other peoples identity for them right?
If you or others don't agree with that what you are saying is that I and people like me do not exist.
I posted in this thread in response to the acronym GSD and how it sounded to me. That was the topic of the thread. You came here and inferred that "others" are not included, so from the outset you inferred that I am not acceptable here, unless of course I accept your more finely tuned definition of who or what I should be.
I choose not to be defined by you or what you believe is an acceptable identity, consequently I'll be relieved to leave the this kind of lgbt community and it's philosophy's behind me.

ps, when your need to play your "I'm a gay man" role hinges or affects the lives of others adversely perhaps it's time find somewhere else to play it as it is damaging to the rest of society and a fcuking ugly representation of lgbt as a whole.

Are you really going to argue there is any substantive difference between calling somebody a restarts or asking them if they are in a manner and tone which objectively seems intended to convey that you think he might be?

Do you not think its sort of ironic that in a debate about labels you choose to use what most would find to be an offensive label as a put down?

And that's not getting into the use of the term or the idea of mental disability as a put down or equating it with stupidity.

Also, you say that we cannot define other people. But we are not trying. We are saying we are LGB and that's what we identify as.

You however are trying to define us. You are trying to say we should use a more inclusive label to define ourselves by, even if we feel that term bears no meaning to how we identify or who we are. That we must identify with disparate groups with whom we don't necessarily share any common traits with out then our perceived non-conformance to a norm.

Who cares whether I personally identify with the bestiality community or not, I am somehow wrong unless I submit to being linked to them?

And while we are on the subject of inclusivity, sure monogamous sexual interested heterosexuals should be allowed identify as GSD to? After all, we cannot exclude.

But wait, if it covers everybody, what the hell does it mean? Can't we just use the term homo sapien instead? Or is that exclusionary to the partners of members of the bestiality community.

Finally, isn't it extremely hetronormative to use heterosexuality as the standard against which conformity or deviance should be measured? Why do they get to be the gold standard against which all is measured?

I get that people want to be liberal and inclusive. Heck, I'm liberal and inclusive. I agree with somebody's right to have multiple partners, no partners, to be tied up and spanked, or to be defecated on if that's what they like.

What is absurd do is trying to be so inclusive that you refuse to recognise difference. As a gay man, I am not the same or similar to a straight woman who likes her two boyfriends to defecate on her. And that's ok. We should be allowed recognise and celebrate that difference. That's what diversity (as in the D in GSD) is all about.

Don't tell me though that I should have to identify with that woman or her boyfriends, to treat her issues and experiences as my own, or to define nyself by reference to a perceived non-conformance to a standard of your choosing or anybody else's, because that's just absurd.

As you said, I can't define you. Don't try to define me. I'm a gay man and I identify as such.

Ps - he is a gay man. He doesn't need to play a role. Playing a role would pretending he was anything other than that.

Identifying as such doesn't mean he goes around beating the crap out of pansexuals. It just means he sees himself as a gay man and not, for example, a pan sexual.

Annasopra

ashers22 wrote: »

First of all I didn't call you a retard, I asked were you retarded because your amazing insight into what is covered under the lgbt umbrella happily excludes anyone who is not like you.

You could have explained that rather than just jumping in and name calling

ashers22 wrote: »

Queer is a recognized term everywhere else, but you continue to just not accept that. You don't represent me and I have no desire to be represented by you under the terms of your current understanding of what is or is not inclusive or deemed eligible within the lgbt community. You must either be gay lesbian bisexual or trans.
You do realise you cannot define other peoples identity for them right?
If you or others don't agree with that what you are saying is that I and people like me do not exist.
I posted in this thread in response to the acronym GSD and how it sounded to me. That was the topic of the thread. You came here and inferred that "others" are not included, so from the outset you inferred that I am not acceptable here, unless of course I accept your more finely tuned definition of who or what I should be.
I choose not to be defined by you or what you believe is an acceptable identity, consequently I'll be relieved to leave the this kind of lgbt community and it's philosophy's behind me.

ps, when your need to play your "I'm a gay man" role hinges or affects the lives of others adversely perhaps it's time find somewhere else to play it as it is damaging to the rest of society and a fcuking ugly representation of lgbt as a whole.

You are making some very valid points. However the hostile way in which you are approaching this discussion isn't actually helpful or conducive to discussion. If you want other people to understand your viewpoint then don't continuously attack them try explaining calmly why you think they are wrong. If you can't do that then it would be best if you didn't post in this discussion.

ewan whose army

Isn't a GSD a dog, as in German Shepherd Dog?

They are cute but its not really a LGBT acronym isn't it

Annasopra

floggg wrote: »

Are you really going to argue there is any substantive difference between calling somebody a restarts or asking them if they are in a manner and tone which objectively seems intended to convey that you think he might be?

Do you not think its sort of ironic that in a debate about labels you choose to use what most would find to be an offensive label as a put down?

And that's not getting into the use of the term or the idea of mental disability as a put down or equating it with stupidity.

Also, you say that we cannot define other people. But we are not trying. We are saying we are LGB and that's what we identify as.

You however are trying to define us. You are trying to say we should use a more inclusive label to define ourselves by, even if we feel that term bears no meaning to how we identify or who we are. That we must identify with disparate groups with whom we don't necessarily share any common traits with out then our perceived non-conformance to a norm.

Who cares whether I personally identify with the bestiality community or not, I am somehow wrong unless I submit to being linked to them?

And while we are on the subject of inclusivity, sure monogamous sexual interested heterosexuals should be allowed identify as GSD to? After all, we cannot exclude.

But wait, if it covers everybody, what the hell does it mean? Can't we just use the term homo sapien instead? Or is that exclusionary to the partners of members of the bestiality community.

Finally, isn't it extremely hetronormative to use heterosexuality as the standard against which conformity or deviance should be measured? Why do they get to be the gold standard against which all is measured?

I get that people want to be liberal and inclusive. Heck, I'm liberal and inclusive. I agree with somebody's right to have multiple partners, no partners, to be tied up and spanked, or to be defecated on if that's what they like.

What is absurd do is trying to be so inclusive that you refuse to recognise difference. As a gay man, I am not the same or similar to a straight woman who likes her two boyfriends to defecate on her. And that's ok. We should be allowed recognise and celebrate that difference. That's what diversity (as in the D in GSD) is all about.

Don't tell me though that I should have to identify with that woman or her boyfriends, to treat her issues and experiences as my own, or to define nyself by reference to a perceived non-conformance to a standard of your choosing or anybody else's, because that's just absurd.

As you said, I can't define you. Don't try to define me. I'm a gay man and I identify as such.

Ps - he is a gay man. He doesn't need to play a role. Playing a role would pretending he was anything other than that.

Identifying as such doesn't mean he goes around beating the crap out of pansexuals. It just means he sees himself as a gay man and not, for example, a pan sexual.

You should probably be a little bit more careful about the types of comparisons you use in future

This post was reported

You know, it's a low tactic whenever anti-gay types will constantly make false equivocations to pedophilia and bestiality in their slippery slope arguments, so it's particularly ironic and painful to see gay men use similar equivocations to bestiality and scatological fetishes to argue against inclusion for those who don't fit under the strict LGBT acronym. A splendidly disgusting post.

wolfpawnat

ewan whose army wrote: »

Isn't a GSD a dog, as in German Shepherd Dog?

They are cute but its not really a LGBT acronym isn't it

You see, to me the acronym GSD does mean German Shepard, LGBT does not include every sub group of sexuality, (such as asexual, queer, etc) but it is a lot better than something that many will think is a dog well to me anyway.

floggg

mango salsa wrote: »

You should probably be a little bit more careful about the types of comparisons you use in future

This post was reported

I wasn't equating anybody's orientation or preference to bestiality. But I was making what I think is a valid point that if you say we must use a blanket term to cover all sexual orientations or preferences, then it would seem that morally impugned "preferences" or practices should be included.

If we are to say BDSM and homosexuality should fall under the same umbrella, why not all fetishes (scat, rubber, furries etc).

And if its so wide, why exclude bestiality or even pedophilia? They are after all sexual "diversities" - though they are ones which are very much not acceptable for reasons of consent.

I think therefore the reference to bestiality was a valid comparison and one I am entitled to make. It shows the absurdity if trying to cover such a broad spectrum of orientations, interests and fetishes under a label, and perfectly illustrates my criticism.

It's legitimate to use extreme examples to test the logic or validity of any argument. This is what I have done, rather than introduce false equivalences (as is done where the slippery slope argument is used).

it shows the danger in lumping LGBT people in with all other "sexual diversities" - you force into that one umbrella and the link is one that is readily made.

One which I think wouldn't exist otherwise.

So the point of that example is to show exactly why I don't want the wider term used to define or label me.

As long as the example fits within the broad term I think it's legitimate. If you don't think it fits, then let me know why not and how the term can be defined to exclude morally dubious sexual diversities? And who defines what's morally acceptable.

If you can't point out a flaw in the logic used, I don't think the complaint is legitimate.

Awake&Unafraid

Like a previous poster said, GSD sounds like some kinda syndrome or disorder or something.

ashers22

floggg wrote: »

Ps - he is a gay man. He doesn't need to play a role. Playing a role would pretending he was anything other than that.

Identifying as such doesn't mean he goes around beating the crap out of pansexuals. It just means he sees himself as a gay man and not, for example, a pan sexual.

according to himself he's not, he's bisexual, undecided at the most. The other day he was discussing how he was thinking of going back to women..when the mood takes him.

I've never brought up bestiality or bdsm or polygamy into any discussion, my point wasn't about whether gsd would be more encompassing of everyone but that as it stands, Q is already an accepted part of it. If you believe that also stands for bdsm, and fetishists then that's your own personal misunderstanding. Queer as it happens is an all encompassing word in itself

For some queer-identified people, part of the point of the term "queer" is that it simultaneously builds up and tears down boundaries of identity. For instance, among genderqueer people, who do not solidly identify with one particular gender, once solid gender roles have been torn down, it becomes difficult to situate sexual identity. For some people, the non-specificity of the term is liberating.

It crosses gender divides, it breaks down the already stagnant divisions that exist between gay lesbian and bi sexual and trans, it is ALL inclusive. It' s a little like how the acronym MSM is ued as a catch all category for any man who has had sex with another man, regardless of their orientation. For me it means I don't have to follow the gaytrain to gaysville where the gay stereotypes live. Thats a role I never want to play, thanks all the same but I'm comfortable if you and your community do not want to recognize that.

ashers22

anyway, the bottom line on this is you refuse to acknowledge queer as an identity that fits under the remit of this community, it was my mistake to think it already was. Had I known this previously I wouldn't have joined the discussion or thought my input was relevant here but I've learned from my mistake and I'm happy to leave you folks to it. Toodles.

jaffacakesyum

Well isn't this a delightful thread :pac:

To be honest, I find LGBT (etc.) people quite odd when it comes to labels. Everyone is frantic to discover the next big thing label and have themselves included in an accronym that really doesn't matter. If people want to identify as queer, go for it. Why get so uptight about what fits into an accronym? It doesn't describe me adequately either but I'm not moaning about it. I'm bisexual although this doesn't describe me very well as I'm not equally attracted to both sexes and at the end of the day I want a girlfriend not boyfriend. Hence I propose the following

LGBTBBNEATBSSIKOC

And I will provide baked goods to whoever can decipher that one

1ZRed

ashers22 wrote: »

according to himself he's not, he's bisexual, undecided at the most. The other day he was discussing how he was thinking of going back to women..when the mood takes him.

According to myself I'm gay. Just like any straight lad that sometimes tries things for the laugh with a guy, but sticks to the girls 9 times out of 10 so do I with girls.

I don't care for labels because its pointless and I don't see the need for a different one for every single person on earth, that's the one that works best for me and it's not a big deal.

kingofslaves

ashers22 wrote: »

You're irrelevant :P We're just going to consider you Trans. (we know you're not but that's irrelevant too)

Thank you for that (NOT !) FFS people come here to discuss things and get slated/flamed/insulted. I'm NOT trans anything, not transsexual, transgender, transvestite, transirrelevant.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing and you might understand crossdressing more.

KDII

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

LGBTBBNEATBSSIKOC

And I will provide baked goods to whoever can decipher that one

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender But Bisexual Not Exclusively And Tries Boy Stuff Sometimes If Keen Or Cute.

Thank you, an apple tart please.

Annasopra

Some posts edited and deleted. Seriously folks drop the bickering

wonderfulname

floggg wrote: »

If you can't point out a flaw in the logic used, I don't think the complaint is legitimate.

The fact it relies entirely on a logical fallacy isn't flawed enough? If I were to claim same sex marriage would lead to people marrying their siblings and minors that claim would be absurd why? How do you feel hearing those against marriage equality spout such rubbish?

On to the thread in general, I identify as queer, because I don't really fit anywhere else. It's just who I am. It'd be real nice if you guys could remember there's actually real people behind what you're discussing, and some of them are reading your opinions, would you really phrase them so harshly and dismissively to someones face?

As for my opinion, I dislike GSD as it won't be instantly recognisable to people, the current acronym in all it's guises is. As for LGBT/Q/I/A/TBC, LGBT doesn't affront me in any way, but i do think recognition of other identities is important, it broadens the scope of others understanding of sexuality and gender, and it's validating (and believe me all those special snowflakes, transexuals in denial, frigids, sluts, bigamists, commitmentphobes, trend followers and deviants could do with validation). I don't see any negatives in organisations adopting extended acronyms but I think it's a great step forward for those it recognises and shows a wider shift towards a society that's more open to, and accepting of, people with a less than hetronormative existance, which includes everyone here.

bodice ripper

wonderfulname wrote: »

but i do think recognition of other identities is important, it broadens the scope of others understanding of sexuality and gender, and it's validating (and believe me all those special snowflakes, transexuals in denial, frigids, sluts, bigamists, commitmentphobes, trend followers and deviants could do with validation).

I'd say as much as another poster might as a gay man have more in common with straight men than "polyamorous asexuals", I'd have more in common with the deviants. And I'm ok with that.

ewan whose army

I just don't know why they don't use the term - Non-Het.

GSD is more inclusive but it sounds like a dog or a medical condition. LGBT while has a ring to it, won't be accepted by everyone until it has every single letter of the alphabet to fit every label.

I am not 100% sure if I am gay or bi I just know that I am not straight so I don't like labeling myself.

jaffacakesyum

KDII wrote: »

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender But Bisexual Not Exclusively And Tries Boy Stuff Sometimes If Keen Or Cute.

Thank you, an apple tart please.

Haha that is MUCH better than what it originally meant. One apple tart coming up...ehh...courtesy of babyandcrumble cos I remember reading she can bake and I suck at baking

Anyway, can we not all just get along? Very bitter arguing here! To the people who don't feel LGBT addresses their needs, what do you suggest? Do you honestly suggest keep adding letters to the acronym until it gets ridicuclous? If we do that should we not just have one encompass term "Not Straight" to accommodate everybody? It gets ridiculous at that stage; can you see where we're coming from in that respect?

bodice ripper

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Haha that is MUCH better than what it originally meant. One apple tart coming up...ehh...courtesy of babyandcrumble cos I remember reading she can bake and I suck at baking

Anyway, can we not all just get along? Very bitter arguing here! To the people who don't feel LGBT addresses their needs, what do you suggest? Do you honestly suggest keep adding letters to the acronym until it gets ridicuclous? If we do that should we not just have one encompass term "Not Straight" to accommodate everybody? It gets ridiculous at that stage; can you see where we're coming from in that respect?

seriously, second post.

not straight is the most useful in my day to day life. it's not even sexuality specific, my whole life is generally not straight.

wonderfulname

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Haha that is MUCH better than what it originally meant. One apple tart coming up...ehh...courtesy of babyandcrumble cos I remember reading she can bake and I suck at baking

Anyway, can we not all just get along? Very bitter arguing here! To the people who don't feel LGBT addresses their needs, what do you suggest? Do you honestly suggest keep adding letters to the acronym until it gets ridicuclous? If we do that should we not just have one encompass term "Not Straight" to accommodate everybody? It gets ridiculous at that stage; can you see where we're coming from in that respect?

Firstly it's falicious to suggest lengthening an acronym once will lead to it being lengthened to absurdity in future, but I will admit I never use any of them in conversation as I find them cumbersome and inadequate, even LGBT, I tend to use "queer" as a catch all, refer to people who are not hetronormative, or in the case of sexuality "minority sexualities", remember there are straight trans people, asexuals who couldn't wholly be deemed "not straight", straight polysexuals, never mind that "not straight" could be counterproductive on a large scale, it implies some form of divide.

GSD would actually be the all encompassing term you're looking for.

jaffacakesyum

wonderfulname wrote: »

Firstly it's falicious to suggest lengthening an acronym once will lead to it being lengthened to absurdity in future, but I will admit I never use any of them in conversation as I find them cumbersome and inadequate, even LGBT, I tend to use "queer" as a catch all, refer to people who are not hetronormative, or in the case of sexuality "minority sexualities", remember there are straight trans people, asexuals who couldn't wholly be deemed "not straight", straight polysexuals, never mind that "not straight" could be counterproductive on a large scale, it implies some form of divide.

GSD would actually be the all encompassing term you're looking for.

In my opinion it would. Just taking the examples in your post and a few others off the top of my head (intersex, questioning, allies being a few that are sometimes mentioned) do you not think LGBTQAPIQA looks ridiculous? And that's just my made up one taking a few examples. There are others. And there's of course QUILTBAG and I think even QUILTBAGPIPE which, while hilarious, also seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Your use of 'queer' as a catch all is, while not a bother to me - couldn't care less, also not a very good suggestion in my opinion.

1) Because the majority of the general public don't even know what we mean when we say 'queer'. To most people 'queer' is a term used to describe someone who is odd/strange
2) LGBT is an already established acronym. Both 'straights' and 'non-straights' know what it is. Purely from an informational, historical, advertising etc. perspective it makes sense to keep it the way it is
3) Adding in extra letters for anybody off the street who feels they're not being recognised is cumbersome, and even regulars on the LGBT scene wouldn't have a clue what half the letters stand for. I know I wouldn't unless I frequented this forum

As for your point about transgenderism and being straight or not, you're right. LGB can be classified as "not straight" wheras transgenders can't be. Personally, and I've said and discussed this elsewhere, I think LGB and T are totally different things and, as I've often questioned why we're lumped in together in the first place. As has been pointed out to me on another thread it makes sense from a historical point of view and I agree; there's no point changing it to LGB and have a T group/movement separate now! And furthermore, I wouldn't like to exclude anybody. That said, I stand by my opinion that if it weren't historically included with LGB, I think they are separate issues.

Anyway, enough rambling. I don't think by keeping it as LGBT it's excluding anybody anyway. As I said, the acronym doesn't describe me very well but who gives a sh1t.

baby and crumble

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Haha that is MUCH better than what it originally meant. One apple tart coming up...ehh...courtesy of babyandcrumble cos I remember reading she can bake and I suck at baking

My apple tarts suck but I make mean banana bread.

floggg

wonderfulname wrote: »

The fact it relies entirely on a logical fallacy isn't flawed enough? If I were to claim same sex marriage would lead to people marrying their siblings and minors that claim would be absurd why? How do you feel hearing those against marriage equality spout such rubbish?

On to the thread in general, I identify as queer, because I don't really fit anywhere else. It's just who I am. It'd be real nice if you guys could remember there's actually real people behind what you're discussing, and some of them are reading your opinions, would you really phrase them so harshly and dismissively to someones face?

As for my opinion, I dislike GSD as it won't be instantly recognisable to people, the current acronym in all it's guises is. As for LGBT/Q/I/A/TBC, LGBT doesn't affront me in any way, but i do think recognition of other identities is important, it broadens the scope of others understanding of sexuality and gender, and it's validating (and believe me all those special snowflakes, transexuals in denial, frigids, sluts, bigamists, commitmentphobes, trend followers and deviants could do with validation). I don't see any negatives in organisations adopting extended acronyms but I think it's a great step forward for those it recognises and shows a wider shift towards a society that's more open to, and accepting of, people with a less than hetronormative existance, which includes everyone here.

What logical fallacy?

My comments have all been made in respect to the proposed GSD acronym, which is proposed to cover things like BDSM and other "sexual diversities". If it covers BDSM, I don't see why logically it can't cover scat. And if I also don't see why it couldn't also cover morally abhorrent things like bestiality and pedophilia. Hence I think trying to use an all encompassing term is ridiculous.

If you test the proposition with extreme examples you see one of the many reasons the idea is not sound.

As for queer, I never denied anybody's existence or right to use the term.

it's not a term I would use or want used to describe myself, as I see nothing strange or odd about me though.

To be honest, I don't even fully understand the term or what it's meant to cover half the time. For example, I can understand transsexualism but I don't really get this gender queer stuff. I have a fixed sense of gender identity I case so I can't relate to that position.

That doesn't mean if have anything against gender queer people or that I'm opposed to them. Or that you can't use the term to describe yourself and I recognise your right to use it and your existence.

I just don't think we are in the same boat or that our experiences or issues are necessarily the same.

stephen_n

The need for society to erradicate individuality with labels is truely depressing :-(

mr.anonymous

If I could chip in very late by saying I think GSD is ok because it stresses Diversity. I get an 'openess' from it. You can't pigeon-hole people.

I think LGBT won't change because it has just always been LGBT as far as I know.

I think the T - Transgender is least understood. I certainly don't understand it as well as lesbian, gay and bisexual.

I always say I'd prefer a 'who gives a sh!t?' approach to sexuality. I love that little happy feeling inside when people say "so what?" about someone else's sexuality.

Annasopra

No

It hasnt always been lgbt

It has had many different terms

Gay and Lesbian
Lesbian and Gay
lesbigay
LGB
GLB
GLBT

There have been many rows upto now about L being first and about T being added on.

There are many different terms out there at present

LGBTQ (queer)
LGBTI (intersex)
LGBTQIA (queer, intersex, asexual)

SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) is also used a lot in international human rights discussions and laws and instruments. SOGI is used for example in the Yogyakarta principles

http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en.htm

Morag

If you were to read the article and watch the video, you would see that it is service providers who are looking to use the term. They are looking beyond LGBT people and looking to include as many people as possible who may need their services.

I would sooner use the term GSD then Alt lifestyle but those are the people which they are looking to help. Won't stop me using the term LGBT or Queer but I can see why they which to relabel to GSD to do more outreach.

ewan whose army

mr.anonymous wrote: »

If I could chip in very late by saying I think GSD is ok because it stresses Diversity. I get an 'openess' from it. You can't pigeon-hole people.

I think LGBT won't change because it has just always been LGBT as far as I know.

I think the T - Transgender is least understood. I certainly don't understand it as well as lesbian, gay and bisexual.

I always say I'd prefer a 'who gives a sh!t?' approach to sexuality. I love that little happy feeling inside when people say "so what?" about someone else's sexuality.

True, but I still reminds me of German Shepherd Dogs too much (probably because I have one)

Goodshape

On the fence about this.

Any label comes with attachements. There's an idea and an image of what it is to be that thing, that label.

I have a hard enough time thinking of myself as part of the gay community sometimes, as it often seems to go beyond the simple fact of same sex attraction. There can be expectations placed on me as soon as my sexuality becomes known and that's not something I always appreciate. I'm a lot more than "a gay".

Adding the entire QUILTBAGPIPE smorgasbord and beyond obviously compounds the issue. You're asking me to personally and proudly identify with – as part of, even – a group of people and a label which I may know nothing about or have very little in common.


Now, NONE of that is to say I believe any individual deserves any less than total respect and freedom to be who they are and how they are. So yeah, maybe some banner we can wave for an entire swatch of different groups, sub-groups and individuals that feel similarly repressed at times is a good thing (hence, I'm on the fence), but.. I'm not L or B, T, U, A, Q or into bondage or scat or any of the others. Gay – yes, I am that. And I'll continue to put up with the looks of slight confusion as people blurt out innocently "but... you don't look like a gay", because at the end of the day it's still the easiest way we have to describe my sexuality, whether or not the actual person fits the pre-conceived mental image.


Really I just wish all these labels would **** off and we can get on with demanding respect and basic human rights for all people. Regardless of the letters they choose, or not, to wear.

Goodshape

Morag wrote: »

If you were to read the article and watch the video, you would see that it is service providers who are looking to use the term. They are looking beyond LGBT people and looking to include as many people as possible who may need their services.

In respect to this separate issue, GSD doesn't have a great ring to it to be honest but it does sound suitable enough.

Annasopra

Do people take quiltbagpipe as serious? I always thought it was meant to be ironic

jaffacakesyum

mango salsa wrote: »

Do people take quiltbagpipe as serious? I always thought it was meant to be ironic

I don't think anybody can take an acronym like QUILTBAGPIPE serious :pac:

Annasopra

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I don't think anybody can take an acronym like QUILTBAGPIPE serious :pac:

The way you and another poster were talking I thought that you were taking it seriously

jaffacakesyum

mango salsa wrote: »

The way you and another poster were talking I thought that you were taking it seriously

Hardly. I think it's a ludicrous acronym. As is LGBTQIABEIYR or whatever else you want to add to the lot.

In my opinion, of course.

Goodshape

mango salsa wrote: »

Do people take quiltbagpipe as serious? I always thought it was meant to be ironic

I used it myself just to illustrate a point.

Scruffles

GSD just sounds like it will have the unaware of the general public looking it up in the DSM manual thinking its back there again.
am personaly not bothered about the labeling as it is now and am completely without any level of sexuality,asexual and trans [adrogynous].

'non hetro' makes people assume are gay automaticaly,something memorable,inclusive and as short as possible woud help with awareness amongst the general population.

as for this-

First of all I didn't call you a retard, I asked were you retarded because your amazing insight into what is covered under the lgbt umbrella happily excludes anyone who is not like you.

am one of those 'retards' were so quick to indirectly bring into this,cant recall ever being asked if that was the way that think about LGBT as it certaianly isnt? am of an inclusive mentality and so is every other person that live with with id,so please dont go associating us when have clearly got no understanding of id other than ancient old stereotypes.

ewan whose army

What's wrong with sexually diverse? Sexuality is just another fascinating quirk of human diversity after all

Richie15

1ZRed wrote: »

It's just inclusion for the sake of inclusion and it's getting ridiculous... It's stupid.

Yeh, next thing you know there'd be one community that includes all the people in the world! There'd be no homophobia or sexism at all, then maybe they'd move on to eliminating racism and other forms of prejudice and eventually there'd be no hatred based on any arbitrary differences at all! Rabble rabble rabble!

Goodshape

Actually, I know "straight" people who aren't thrilled with the baggage and pre-conceptions that go along with that label either.

Labels are bull****.

Annasopra

GCN must have been reading this forum

http://www.gcn.ie/LGBT_Soup

There is a lot of anger in response

http://considertheteacosy.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/we-are-not-your-afterthought-responding-to-lgbt-soup/

wonderfulname

mango salsa wrote: »

GCN must have been reading this forum

http://www.gcn.ie/LGBT_Soup

There is a lot of anger in response

http://considertheteacosy.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/we-are-not-your-afterthought-responding-to-lgbt-soup/

Do you sleep with people of the same sex? Welcome to Gay Club. In a relationship with someone of the same-sex? Welcome to Gay Club. Trans and exclusively attracted to people of your gender? Welcome to Gay Club. Attracted to both sexes? Good for you, but unless you’re withsomeone of the same-sex, you aren’t part of Gay Club.

She can keep her Gay Club... That's appalling for GCN.

Medme

I'm surprised that article was published by GCN, I'm not trans nor am I usually in any way sensitive to the label 'issues' and happy to be called queer/gay/lesbian/dyke/whatever, but that article is makes sweeping statements, general assumptions about gender and identity and pretty much could be found offensive by anyone who identifies as being part of the non heterosexual community.
My favorite line...
'unless your with someone of the same sex, you aren't part of the Gay club. ' eh...biphobic much...WTF!

jaffacakesyum

wonderfulname wrote: »

She can keep her Gay Club... That's appalling for GCN.

I can see her point in simplifying things. At the end of the day, it's already used. How many times do people refer to the 'gay community' over the 'LGBTQUIAJHDHKDJHIHDSOISJ' (etc. :pac:) community. I have no problem with this. Just because one author is biphobic about it doesn't mean anybody else referring to the gay community actually means to exclude anybody. I find the gay community a good umbrella term that would include LGBT.

But LGBT is fine as it is as well. I would use them interchangably.

Ambersky

Thank you very much for those links, mango salsa, I have found them to be the most interesting part of this discussion so far.
Aoife O'Riordans article in paticular was an insight for me.
Im coming from a place where I have had the experience of not having a name, as in when I came out there were no gays or lesbians visible around me, or on television, or in magazines, for me to compare myself to.
So when I first fell in love with a woman I lived with her for five year without knowing I was Lesbian. That may not make much sense to many of the readers here but without others to compare yourself to you cant look around and go "I dont think Im like that" or "I think I'm more like that". All you can do is look around at the heteronormality around you and know you are not like that.

In isolation you have no name and you have no positive identity, you only know what you are not. It may sound like a lovely idea to "just be yourself" but I and thousands of older LGBT people have had that experience and it was confusing, lonely and isolating. Choosing not to identify yourself with, or take part in, an already existing LGBT community is a very different experience than the isolation of having nothing but heteronormality to compare yourself to.
The rejection of labels seem to have become a catch phrase and I think many people are confusing naming with labeling without an appreciation of the power of naming. You probably wont understand the power of naming untill you have had the experience of not having one. Naming is a very profound and important thing. In another area of naming, those born without a name or with the wrong name spend a lot of time searching for it. If you do not name yourself others will do it for you.

Then when I met other women who were attracted to women I found a whole load of other simularities between us and I was comfortable with naming myself as a Lesbian. I felt like I had come home.
The arguments that have gone on about how we name ourselves in previous years were mentioned in an earlier post, it didnt start with QUILTBAG.
I accept the name Gay at times. If someone asks if I am gay I will say yes, mostly out of an understanding of what they are asking, which basically is are you attracted to the same sex . But I also realise that Lesbians, and Lesbian issues and interests, can disapear because of the majority gay male membership and outlook within the Gay community. The name Lesbian is very important to me and much more accurately describes my interests, politics and sexuality.
Having experienced Lesbian identity and interests being subsumed into a Gay culture I am suspicious of other names that do not specifically use the term Lesbian, generic names like Queer I am suspicious of even though they seem to have a lot of women supporting them.

Aoife O'Riordan wrote about a lot of opposition coming from the assimilationist sector of the Gay community. I think this is a very important issue, assimilation, and I think it would be good to look at what that means and at its history within LGBT politics. Assimilationists as I see it basically want to be integrated into mainstream society, they see and value sameness and reject or minimise difference, they want equality with their heterosexual counterparts.
Supporters of Diversity do not want to be assimilated into mainstream society they call that heteronormality and they value and support difference and want equality for all.
You can see how these differences could lead to some arguments but it may be news to some that these are the very arguments that have gone on since the beginning of the gay rights movement. People may not see the point of history but I think people would be surprised at how relevant it is to what is going on now. I think even here on this forum a lot of the divisions or differences in outlook and opinion are from posters having basically a politics or hope of assimilation, or a politics or hope of diversity. Working towards assimilation can be very different than working towards and appreciation of and support for diversity. I think if we looked at those issues it would change the way or at least make the ways we want to name ourselves clearer.

1ZRed

When exactly did LGBT become the dumping ground for every non-heterosexual orientation?

My sentiments exactly

Ambersky

When exactly did LGBT become the dumping ground for every non-heterosexual orientation?

June 28th 1969.

1ZRed

Ambersky wrote: »

June 28th 1969.

I don't agree with this though. Asexuality, pansexuality and all these other things just get lumped into LGBT.

The OP stated that things like BDSM and our 'allies' should be included also, but I don't agree with this because it has nothing to do with them. You can be of any sexual orientation to engage in BDSM so why should we be included with them? It makes no sense at all and I have nothing in common with them.

I do with gay, bisexual and lesbian people though as we deal with sexuality issues that aren't heterosexual, so we can relate. Transgenderism is there for historical reasons only, as it's an identity issue, and that's ok I think.

But asexuality is the absence of sexuality, so I don't see it's place in LGBT, but it wouldn't bother me if they were included.

Pansexuality, omnisexuality, third gender, etc, however, all seem to be grasping at straws to find new ways to categorise people.
Pansexuality is being more emotionally attracted to people of either gender, rather than being bound to one, but that's just bisexuality whatever way to you look at it.

Why the need to find new labels? Every single person on earth has a unique orientation and way of looking at things, will that lead to 7 billion more letters to LGBT eventually?

If it went that way I'd want nothing at all to do with LGBT+ because it would just consist of everything under the sun they could think of that wasn't heterosexual and I wouldn't identify with the vast majority of it because it wouldn't be about sexuality. It's only inclusion for the sake of inclusion.

Funny thing about that though is that it would drive someone like me away because it'd think it ridiculous and unrealistic to lump everyone together.
It would defeat it's initial purpose of giving people who were of the main bodies of sexuality (gay, lesbian and bisexual) that weren't heterosexual more recognition and a voice.

I realise it's that very point that's being used to include more people who don't conform to straight and LGBT, but why include all people who's only commonality is that we don't conform to what is heterosexual?
Our issues are different, you just can't lump us all together and not expect our messages to get crossed or for some of us not to get heard equally.

To me, it's like having your cake and eating it too. It's great to be acceptant of people but you can do that at a far, you don't need to group everyone together to show that because all our different experiences would become muddied and smothered by each other.

My issues as a gay man could be overshadowed by that of someone who was into BDSM, or vice versa. I just couldn't identify with them and it would cause problems.

I just see this shift into ultra-inclusiveness to have good intentions, but ultimately, it's unrealistic and more problematic than it's worth long-term and when executed in the real world.

Rick_

wonderfulname wrote: »

She can keep her Gay Club... That's appalling for GCN.

The first rule of Gay Club is, you do not talk about Gay Club.

Ambersky

I guess I am having my cake and eating it too but I can understand a lot of your points IZRed. I identify as Lesbian and I have links with and sometimes identify as Queer or LGBT. I dont fully identify with the last two because, like you IZred in your fear of LGBT being overwhelmed by some inclusions, I fear my issues, as a Lesbian, being overshadowed mainly by the men who compose the majority in those groups.
My Stonewall reference is because some people want to portray a very acceptable face of the LGBT community to the world and reject the very people who made up that particular protest and the movement as a whole. Its not like we had this nice respectable Gay movement and then it was taken over by a bunch of Queens,Dykes, Rent Boys, Fag Hags and Trans People, they were there from the very start. You could make a case for saying the movement has been taken over by the assimilationists and respectable gays rather than the other way around.

When exactly did LGBT become the dumping ground for every non-heterosexual orientation?

In Stonewall the police didnt check to see which kind of not normal the customers were. You werent straight, you werent normal as far as they were concerned. Stonewall was a dive, a dumping ground, a place people went to who were on the fringes of society but they were the people who stood up that night and for the following nights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZUZKtko4R0

I have changed my own perspective over time too particularly on the Trans issue so I am somewhat reluctant to tell others I dont want to include them particularly when I haven't really heard or understood the arguments. Anyway what usually happens with political arguments over name changes is some people start calling themselves something, like those that started calling themselves Queer, that was suppose to include everyone and replace LGB originally. Some people were happy with the new name and felt it represented them better, others weren't happy with the new name and didn't change. Thats how it goes I think. Let those who want to change, change, and those who dont want to join in on that dont. It wont happen overnight anyway there has to be a critical number of people happy with it and using it before it would make any difference.