LGBT or GSD?

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****.