But seriously, I updated the LGBTQ+ in Qstack’s title to LGBTQIA+ after a few comments from people who felt like the shorter acronym wasn’t inclusive enough, and I also updated the main Qstack Directory post to LGBTQQIP2SA+ to include even more.
What do you all think? When/why is the + not enough? Would love to hear your thoughts.
Such a great topic to unpack with others (thank you, Troy)! I often wonder, when folks (myself included) react to the expansion of this acronym with irritation, rigidity, an eyeroll, or any other kind of dismissal, what's driving it. When I've managed to peek under my own hood to see what's going on, the main thing I see is the fear. Fear of being criticized for "getting it wrong" and not being able to "keep up." Fear of being criticized as too old, too out of it, not queer enough, etc. and so on.
That's a problem in my inner world, because if I'm not "enough" in one of those ways, in comes shame. And when shame shows up, anger and projection are close behind as first responders to the emotional pileup. I get cranky and curmudgeonly and complain it's all getting to be too much and that I don't know why it has to be so complicated.
But when I can set that aside and try to understand why we need to keep adding letters on to the acronym and colors onto the Pride flag to acknowledge differences, I can see some very valid reasons. For one, it legitimizes, respects and humanizes folks who are often de-legitimized, disrespected, overlooked, devalued and dehumanized. For another, it gives folks who are in a process of self-discovery a helping hand in identifying parts of themselves. It gives expression to what such folks feel but may not have been able to name.
I know there are likely many more important reasons, and I so appreciate the invitation to learn from others.
I definitely hear you on the fear factor, Keith - I think it was a virtual eye-roll over an identity not included in the short LGBTQ+ which made me feel a little judged, and I decided to expand it in the Qstack title/Directory list - but it's still not completely inclusive; I'm waiting for the next finger wagging, and meanwhile who is the deciding authority? And does a letter really accomplish those goals of respecting and including? Legitimizing, humanizing, valuing others is a process, not a shorthand notation.
I hope Qstack is a link in the chain toward this important process, and also, that people feel included - when you've done everything and said everything you can think of to say "Everyone is welcome" except add more letters to an acronym, at some point you gotta say
...and I hear you, Troy about the frustration of really doing one's best to create an inclusive space where people can be embraced and even celebrated in their identities and yet still getting feedback that it falls short.
For what it's worth, I think *you* get to be the deciding authority in the sense that it's only you who can truly say and know when you feel like you've acted in alignment with your own integrity.
Also in the FWIW department, I agree that adding letters or stripes is only one action in a much larger process of legitimizing, humanizing and valuing. And I know that so much of it is an inside job...it's me who needs to believe that I (and my identities) are legitimate, valuable, and that I am a full-blown, card-carrying member of the human race just as I am. And/but, I salute you and all of us who are trying to lend our support to each other in navigating that messy, gut-wrenching process in a world that generally doesn't support differences. Thanks for all you're doing here on Qstack, truly <3
I think that queer is good, simple, and straight to the point. Before I was familiar with the word queer, I felt that the + by itself was also fine, nearly synonymous with how I think of queer today. I feel comfortable using both to describe myself.
But these terms and acronyms are not about me. They're about a distinct sort of people who deviate from the prescribed norm, particularly in terms of gender and sexuality (which, yes, includes me, but they're still not about "me"). What do we use these terms for? Are they for immediate education, or a term of reference? Are they for clarity, or inclusion (to some, indirect exclusion)?
To me, it's more about communication. We need a uniting label in order to quickly communicate who we are/where we stand. If we are constantly updating our label, who can we communicate with? How can we represent ourselves? What is the point of an acronym if it is longer than most words? Certainly, I've found that adding more letters to the acronym throughout the years has made me more curious/aware of the sides of queerness that I had not yet put words to, but again, it's not about "me" when it comes to labels and terms. I can always define my personal relationship with labels, but I can't do that if the label does not have a reliable shape. On the contrary, I feel like a burden or an excess every time the acronym gets updated. I feel like I'm not supposed to trust the organizations who don't get it right immediately.
I don't have a conclusion to my thoughts. I just think about how queerness had been named in other languages and how those words had slowly been poisoned by colonialism. I'm very glad that we can work out these petty issues on our own initiative now.
These replies make me so happy... Such an easy (as in *calm*) discussion! As far as I've read, many of us agree with the "queer" term. But, those who don't... >_< Ugh, so complicateeed !!!
My overall problem with the acronym in general (and even when it was a shorter LGBT) is that it dehumanizes people. We are not an acronym. And I've been in meetings with politicians and corporate leaders and they have literally said, "What do the LGBTQs think," as if that's a person, or even a cohesive group. All labels are reductive but LGBTQQIP2SA+ means nothing, it's a mouthful and it won't "help" anyone with visibility. But it is a gesture at solidarity. I'm all for inclusivity and acceptance, but acronyms are not going to solve anyone's legal, emotional or survival chances.
I'm old enough to remember when we first started playing the initials game back in the '70s, when it began as GLBT.
Makes no difference to me which letter comes first, but I was never clear on just how/why it got switched, and wondered if it simply grew out of some sense of "ladies first" etiquette. All things considered, rather ironic if that was the case.
Your points are well-taken, Jerry, and if trends continue on this trajectory, there might come a point when the order needs to be strictly alphabetical, so no one feels minimized.
I never want to step on anyone's toes or dismiss anyone's identity, so this feels tricky to comment on, but I do feel like the alphabet soup is becoming a bit convoluted. Just because a hyper specific identity isn't specified explicitly doesn't mean that it isn't welcome or that it doesn't exist. Queerness is such a broad spectrum that this acronym could expand forever, and it seems to be on track to do so. Will it become compulsory at some point to type out every key on our keyboards before we're allowed to talk about queer issues?
I wonder if we might be getting to a point where we should dispense with the acronym altogether, and agree on an inclusive term which neither prioritizes nor otherizes anybody. Naively perhaps, I thought that reappropriating "queer" in the 90s was supposed to be that all-inclusive term, but certainly I can see how that can also be problematic. Still, it's the Q for Queer that I ultimately decided on for Qstack because I saw it as the umbrella term that many other cultural entities use for movements, genres, arts and so forth to identify us.
I saw one person's cheeky attempt to show what the acronym would look like if every single group and identity were denoted, and it was 50 digits long.
I had a discussion like this recently with some students so really good to read the discussion! Helps me consider what work for the school/them. Thanks Troy 🩵
That's what I was thinking too. I use "LGBTQ+" even as an aroace nonbinary person (masc.), for "queer PLUS" suggests there's more, a more that cannot be incuded 'cause of its diversity. Now, that could be seen as putting lesbians, gays, bisexuals, trangender and/or queer individuals (although I consider "queer" an umbrella term too) 1st, before... *above*. An illusion of *superiority* that could lead to mooore drama in the community. However, we'd be erasing its origins and whys too. The 'L' coming 1st is history... Dunno. There's lotta stuff to take on account... So complicated @_@ When will we stop needing labels...?
Such great comments from everyone here, and I like how it's okay that we all have different reasons and approaches, and there is no one right answer to this tough question. For me, the "queer" umbrella feels most like home as it tells you exactly what I want you to know about me. Do you need to know which brand(s) of queer I am? No. So I get some sense of privacy, and you get enough info to function respectfully. As someone who is intersectional, I rarely expect all aspects of myself to be visible or accepted or understood. And I don't *need* that when I can just say "queer."
I also use queer and LGBTQIA2S+ interchangeably in speaking and writing to pay homage to those less comfortable with my word choice and to acknowledge the vast beauty and amazingness of my community. Why not add another letter? More is better! If I have left someone out, I want to know so that I can be better. And yes, it does take effort to relearn and remember, but I engage in this act out of caring for the individuals those letters represent.
It's tricky, for sure. On the one hand, visibility is crucial and like another commenter said, the + can feel sort of like a cop out, an othering or worse - an erasure. Yet, the longer the acronym, the more potentially confusing and (paradoxically) less accessible it can feel. Plus, it can feel fragmentary. By emphasizing distinctions between different identities, it might undermine the sense of unity and solidarity that the acronym is meant to foster. (Though, I'd argue that we have never reeeeally had unity.) Adding more letters can feel like a distraction from the more pressing struggles for rights and acceptance.
Since I've been in my 70s, I've tended to prefer things as uncomplicated as possible and, like it or not, find it increasingly difficult to keep abreast of sociological evolution. For example, LGBTQQIP2SA+ is 12 characters long, and I guarantee I won't remember them all or their order 30 seconds after I've clicked away from this page.
Another "like it or not" circumstance is that cis/het happens to be the default. That is to say, it's what is assumed to be the case about any of us unless we announce or indicate otherwise in some way.
I've never much cared for the term "gay" anyway and, frankly, would find it perfectly acceptable - in place of those 12 characters - to be referred to as NCH: Non-cisgender/heterosexual. It's a big enough umbrella for all of us to fit under and distinguishes us from, y'know, all those ordinary people.
I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, visibility is important, so listing each indicator is important. On the other hand, if the intention is to list every indicator, it's virtually inevitable that some will be left out, and consistency will be impossible. Being gray ace and agender, I'm usually left out or am included in "+," which, honestly, doesn't feel great. It's pretty much the same as being in the catch-all "other." Personally, I prefer "queer," because then everybody is included equally... except the people who don't like "queer" because it still feels like a slur to them. It's a tough question.
When I worked in public policy (in Canada), we consulted a lot with 2SLGBTQQIA+ groups about this, and what I just typed is what we landed on (the 2S being first in the acronym is important to acknowledge Indigenous people's sovereignty). I had to coach politicians to practice speaking the acronym so it rolled off the tongue smoothly but distinctly, because nothing says inclusion like some elected person saying, "LGBT and whatever" in a speech. *eyeroll*
💜✨️Honestly.. I see it as to each his own. I'm not going to even lie. I add the (+) becuz I can NOT remember all the "New Stuff". So, the (+) is my way of keeping it cool for ME. ..besides I'm Old School hunni.. I barely remember WTH we got NOW 😂🤦🏾♂️. But thys was informative for me. I want everyone to feel loved and welcomed. For if it's brought to my attention like it was yours, I'd prolly do the same as well 🥰.
I think it's a matter of intention. The plus can be great shorthand for overall inclusion, but specifically including the I and the A is important for telling intersex and ace/aro folks that you see them, they're known and recognized and accepted here. Since these groups fighting for any visibility in their own community, I see it as a small effort that can go a long way.
Such a great topic to unpack with others (thank you, Troy)! I often wonder, when folks (myself included) react to the expansion of this acronym with irritation, rigidity, an eyeroll, or any other kind of dismissal, what's driving it. When I've managed to peek under my own hood to see what's going on, the main thing I see is the fear. Fear of being criticized for "getting it wrong" and not being able to "keep up." Fear of being criticized as too old, too out of it, not queer enough, etc. and so on.
That's a problem in my inner world, because if I'm not "enough" in one of those ways, in comes shame. And when shame shows up, anger and projection are close behind as first responders to the emotional pileup. I get cranky and curmudgeonly and complain it's all getting to be too much and that I don't know why it has to be so complicated.
But when I can set that aside and try to understand why we need to keep adding letters on to the acronym and colors onto the Pride flag to acknowledge differences, I can see some very valid reasons. For one, it legitimizes, respects and humanizes folks who are often de-legitimized, disrespected, overlooked, devalued and dehumanized. For another, it gives folks who are in a process of self-discovery a helping hand in identifying parts of themselves. It gives expression to what such folks feel but may not have been able to name.
I know there are likely many more important reasons, and I so appreciate the invitation to learn from others.
I definitely hear you on the fear factor, Keith - I think it was a virtual eye-roll over an identity not included in the short LGBTQ+ which made me feel a little judged, and I decided to expand it in the Qstack title/Directory list - but it's still not completely inclusive; I'm waiting for the next finger wagging, and meanwhile who is the deciding authority? And does a letter really accomplish those goals of respecting and including? Legitimizing, humanizing, valuing others is a process, not a shorthand notation.
I hope Qstack is a link in the chain toward this important process, and also, that people feel included - when you've done everything and said everything you can think of to say "Everyone is welcome" except add more letters to an acronym, at some point you gotta say
¯\(°_o)/¯
...and I hear you, Troy about the frustration of really doing one's best to create an inclusive space where people can be embraced and even celebrated in their identities and yet still getting feedback that it falls short.
For what it's worth, I think *you* get to be the deciding authority in the sense that it's only you who can truly say and know when you feel like you've acted in alignment with your own integrity.
Also in the FWIW department, I agree that adding letters or stripes is only one action in a much larger process of legitimizing, humanizing and valuing. And I know that so much of it is an inside job...it's me who needs to believe that I (and my identities) are legitimate, valuable, and that I am a full-blown, card-carrying member of the human race just as I am. And/but, I salute you and all of us who are trying to lend our support to each other in navigating that messy, gut-wrenching process in a world that generally doesn't support differences. Thanks for all you're doing here on Qstack, truly <3
Thank you so much Keith, I appreciate that very much… 💜
I think that queer is good, simple, and straight to the point. Before I was familiar with the word queer, I felt that the + by itself was also fine, nearly synonymous with how I think of queer today. I feel comfortable using both to describe myself.
But these terms and acronyms are not about me. They're about a distinct sort of people who deviate from the prescribed norm, particularly in terms of gender and sexuality (which, yes, includes me, but they're still not about "me"). What do we use these terms for? Are they for immediate education, or a term of reference? Are they for clarity, or inclusion (to some, indirect exclusion)?
To me, it's more about communication. We need a uniting label in order to quickly communicate who we are/where we stand. If we are constantly updating our label, who can we communicate with? How can we represent ourselves? What is the point of an acronym if it is longer than most words? Certainly, I've found that adding more letters to the acronym throughout the years has made me more curious/aware of the sides of queerness that I had not yet put words to, but again, it's not about "me" when it comes to labels and terms. I can always define my personal relationship with labels, but I can't do that if the label does not have a reliable shape. On the contrary, I feel like a burden or an excess every time the acronym gets updated. I feel like I'm not supposed to trust the organizations who don't get it right immediately.
I don't have a conclusion to my thoughts. I just think about how queerness had been named in other languages and how those words had slowly been poisoned by colonialism. I'm very glad that we can work out these petty issues on our own initiative now.
These replies make me so happy... Such an easy (as in *calm*) discussion! As far as I've read, many of us agree with the "queer" term. But, those who don't... >_< Ugh, so complicateeed !!!
My overall problem with the acronym in general (and even when it was a shorter LGBT) is that it dehumanizes people. We are not an acronym. And I've been in meetings with politicians and corporate leaders and they have literally said, "What do the LGBTQs think," as if that's a person, or even a cohesive group. All labels are reductive but LGBTQQIP2SA+ means nothing, it's a mouthful and it won't "help" anyone with visibility. But it is a gesture at solidarity. I'm all for inclusivity and acceptance, but acronyms are not going to solve anyone's legal, emotional or survival chances.
I'm old enough to remember when we first started playing the initials game back in the '70s, when it began as GLBT.
Makes no difference to me which letter comes first, but I was never clear on just how/why it got switched, and wondered if it simply grew out of some sense of "ladies first" etiquette. All things considered, rather ironic if that was the case.
Your points are well-taken, Jerry, and if trends continue on this trajectory, there might come a point when the order needs to be strictly alphabetical, so no one feels minimized.
I never want to step on anyone's toes or dismiss anyone's identity, so this feels tricky to comment on, but I do feel like the alphabet soup is becoming a bit convoluted. Just because a hyper specific identity isn't specified explicitly doesn't mean that it isn't welcome or that it doesn't exist. Queerness is such a broad spectrum that this acronym could expand forever, and it seems to be on track to do so. Will it become compulsory at some point to type out every key on our keyboards before we're allowed to talk about queer issues?
I wonder if we might be getting to a point where we should dispense with the acronym altogether, and agree on an inclusive term which neither prioritizes nor otherizes anybody. Naively perhaps, I thought that reappropriating "queer" in the 90s was supposed to be that all-inclusive term, but certainly I can see how that can also be problematic. Still, it's the Q for Queer that I ultimately decided on for Qstack because I saw it as the umbrella term that many other cultural entities use for movements, genres, arts and so forth to identify us.
I saw one person's cheeky attempt to show what the acronym would look like if every single group and identity were denoted, and it was 50 digits long.
I had a discussion like this recently with some students so really good to read the discussion! Helps me consider what work for the school/them. Thanks Troy 🩵
Queer is good enough for me.
That's what I was thinking too. I use "LGBTQ+" even as an aroace nonbinary person (masc.), for "queer PLUS" suggests there's more, a more that cannot be incuded 'cause of its diversity. Now, that could be seen as putting lesbians, gays, bisexuals, trangender and/or queer individuals (although I consider "queer" an umbrella term too) 1st, before... *above*. An illusion of *superiority* that could lead to mooore drama in the community. However, we'd be erasing its origins and whys too. The 'L' coming 1st is history... Dunno. There's lotta stuff to take on account... So complicated @_@ When will we stop needing labels...?
Such great comments from everyone here, and I like how it's okay that we all have different reasons and approaches, and there is no one right answer to this tough question. For me, the "queer" umbrella feels most like home as it tells you exactly what I want you to know about me. Do you need to know which brand(s) of queer I am? No. So I get some sense of privacy, and you get enough info to function respectfully. As someone who is intersectional, I rarely expect all aspects of myself to be visible or accepted or understood. And I don't *need* that when I can just say "queer."
I also use queer and LGBTQIA2S+ interchangeably in speaking and writing to pay homage to those less comfortable with my word choice and to acknowledge the vast beauty and amazingness of my community. Why not add another letter? More is better! If I have left someone out, I want to know so that I can be better. And yes, it does take effort to relearn and remember, but I engage in this act out of caring for the individuals those letters represent.
I like queer for that same reason as well! Identification without the complete loss of privacy.
It's tricky, for sure. On the one hand, visibility is crucial and like another commenter said, the + can feel sort of like a cop out, an othering or worse - an erasure. Yet, the longer the acronym, the more potentially confusing and (paradoxically) less accessible it can feel. Plus, it can feel fragmentary. By emphasizing distinctions between different identities, it might undermine the sense of unity and solidarity that the acronym is meant to foster. (Though, I'd argue that we have never reeeeally had unity.) Adding more letters can feel like a distraction from the more pressing struggles for rights and acceptance.
Since I've been in my 70s, I've tended to prefer things as uncomplicated as possible and, like it or not, find it increasingly difficult to keep abreast of sociological evolution. For example, LGBTQQIP2SA+ is 12 characters long, and I guarantee I won't remember them all or their order 30 seconds after I've clicked away from this page.
Another "like it or not" circumstance is that cis/het happens to be the default. That is to say, it's what is assumed to be the case about any of us unless we announce or indicate otherwise in some way.
I've never much cared for the term "gay" anyway and, frankly, would find it perfectly acceptable - in place of those 12 characters - to be referred to as NCH: Non-cisgender/heterosexual. It's a big enough umbrella for all of us to fit under and distinguishes us from, y'know, all those ordinary people.
I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, visibility is important, so listing each indicator is important. On the other hand, if the intention is to list every indicator, it's virtually inevitable that some will be left out, and consistency will be impossible. Being gray ace and agender, I'm usually left out or am included in "+," which, honestly, doesn't feel great. It's pretty much the same as being in the catch-all "other." Personally, I prefer "queer," because then everybody is included equally... except the people who don't like "queer" because it still feels like a slur to them. It's a tough question.
When I worked in public policy (in Canada), we consulted a lot with 2SLGBTQQIA+ groups about this, and what I just typed is what we landed on (the 2S being first in the acronym is important to acknowledge Indigenous people's sovereignty). I had to coach politicians to practice speaking the acronym so it rolled off the tongue smoothly but distinctly, because nothing says inclusion like some elected person saying, "LGBT and whatever" in a speech. *eyeroll*
💜✨️Honestly.. I see it as to each his own. I'm not going to even lie. I add the (+) becuz I can NOT remember all the "New Stuff". So, the (+) is my way of keeping it cool for ME. ..besides I'm Old School hunni.. I barely remember WTH we got NOW 😂🤦🏾♂️. But thys was informative for me. I want everyone to feel loved and welcomed. For if it's brought to my attention like it was yours, I'd prolly do the same as well 🥰.
I think it's a matter of intention. The plus can be great shorthand for overall inclusion, but specifically including the I and the A is important for telling intersex and ace/aro folks that you see them, they're known and recognized and accepted here. Since these groups fighting for any visibility in their own community, I see it as a small effort that can go a long way.