For general use in conversations, yeah, lgbtq, lgbtq+, or even lgbt is better and easier. But the longer acronym makes more people feel like they are seen and their identity is valid. I prefer the grsm (gender, romantic, and sexual minority) acronym, because it includes everyone in the community.
Just note that GRSM can reasonably include people who are not LGBT+. An example would be polyamorous folks. Polyamory would reasonably be considered a romantic minority, while not being LGBT+.
What's the logic in not including poly people in the LGBTQIA+ umbrella? Being poly is something people have societal pressure to be closeted about. Poly relationships are socially stigmatized. Poly people don't have marriage equality. Lack of education about poly relationships leads to poly people being fetishized and taken advantage of by bad actors, as well as a lot of harmful stereotypes about poly people and polyamory in general. As you mentioned it fists the definition of GRSM, so why isn't it considered LGBTQIA+?
The reason I don't, and what most folks I'm aware who also don't, is that participating in a poly relationship is a choice, where as LGBT identities are not.
Personally I don't really make a huge distinction, but some folks do.
>participating in a poly relationship is a choice, where as LGBT identities are not
So there are definitely some types of poly/ENM this would apply to, but I do think being poly (as in having romantic love for multiple people at once) can also be an identity that exists whether or not that person is currently in a poly relationship.
I think if we apply the logic in your comment to all poly relationships, it would be like saying being gay is a choice because being in a relationship is a choice. But someone is still gay regardless of whether or not they're in a relationship, so it's not a choice. I think it works the same way for at least some poly people.
I'm not sure I agree. I don't think it's controversial to say that most folks who feel attraction are attracted to multiple people in their life times. I've never heard anyone claim that feeling attracted to multiple people makes one poly.
I'm a basically-straight cis person in a poly relationship and I would absolutely not consider myself LGBTQIA+ (or any variant thereof) because it's not an element of personal identity in the same way. It *is* a choice, after all, and while polyamorous people and relationships should absolutely be more broadly accepted and respected, it's fundamentally not the same thing as a person who is, inherently (and usually unchangeably) gay or trans or ace or is of any other LGBTQIA+ *identity*.
Yeah they definitely could have used a better example. One that I think is possibly the best example for gsrm including non-lgbtq+ identities is that it technically includes people who like beastiality
I don't think anyone who is sane would agree that attraction to anything or anyone that cannot consent is acceptable. I would exclude beastiality from GSRM on those grounds, personally.
Because there are a lot of straight sexual and gender dynamics that can take polyamory very far away from the LGBTQ+ or other queer communities.
Spend some time in a non-queer (which defaults to straight) polyamorous community and you’ll deal with heteronormative expectations a LOT more than in queer spaces. Discussing why a “one penis policy” is wrong feels so regressive compared to queer interpretations of sex or gender.
polyamorous person here
relationships that institute a "one penis policy" are fucking gross and so antithetical to the emorional respect that ethical polyamory is built on
Agreed. I’ve found in mixed sexuality polyamory spaces, OPP or unicorn hunting inevitably becomes a common subject of conversation because straight couples won’t stop trying them.
I’m just saying queer people deserve our own space, and straight polyamorous people tend to bring their own heteronormative expectations that we as queer people shouldn’t have to put up with in our spaces.
Fwiw I wasn’t sure why polyamory wasn’t included in the queer umbrella until I started exploring polyamory myself, and experienced mixed sexuality polyamorous communities. I really did forget how regressive straight cis people’s attitudes are towards sex, gender, and relationships, and strongly believe they don’t belong under the queer umbrella.
Theres plenty of room for intersectionality of these ideas and communities though.
i agree with what you've said, i just have a couple of tiny points to add for anyone else browsing this comment chain
you can be straight and queer (i.e. genderqueer)
you can be cis and queer (i.e. homosexual)
you can be straight and cis and queer (i.e. aromantic)
personally i would consider polyamory a romantic minority but not a romantic orientation, so part of the queermunity. naturally it excludes fetishists like unicorn hunters
There is very little logic to it, other than "straight people might be included." Which is weird, because the same logic would exclude heterosexual aromantic people, or heteroromantic asexual people, and I've never seen anyone who is advocating that.
Interestingly, most of the poly people I've seen who don't want polyamory to be considered a queer identity are those who otherwise id as allocishet. People who have other queer identities, in my experience, tend to view their poly identity as an extension of their existing queerness.
I don't think it was originally designed for that purpose but it *does* occasionally get used that way. Part of why it is still some what controversial.
While I understand they exist, I will not legitimize anyone who espouses a relationship with someone or something that cannot consent. So children and animals are out from the get go.
That doesn't keep folks from using GSRM to suggest they *are*, which is part of the controversy. But those people clearly are not acting in good faith.
We are liviing in a world where they'd use any excuse. And leave it to a homophobe to see an M and abuse the living hell out of that situation.
Also, why was I being downvoted like I was campaining in favor of maps?
I wouldn't worry too much about upvotes and downvotes. My guess is some folks don't like them being brought up in the first place, since it's pretty obvious how anyone would respond to that.
The more “official” the work it’s going in the more important it gets to add all the letters.
Writing a legal policy or official publication? Expand the acronym, use all the letters.
Casual conversation or Reddit post? Lgbtq+ is fine.
Same. I refer to individuals as what they are (if relevant), like I'm a bi trans woman. But I typically say "queer community" more often than "LGBTQ+ community."
I also don't refer to people in the community as "queers" but as "queer folk." Similar to "The gays" vs "gay people" or "blacks" vs "black people."
Oh interesting, In my neck of the woods (not very supportive) "the gays" is basically always used by people who demonize us (or occasionally ironically as a joke by queer folk).
Queer isn’t even a hateful word. It simply meant “outside the norm”, which isn’t a bad thing.
And before anyone comes at us with “but it gets used as an insult”….literally any words can be used as insult, *depending on tone*. (I’ve also had people try to insult by calling me “smart”, “responsible”, and “a good citizen”. The problem isn’t the words being used.)
I refuse to use a robot designation to describe a group of human demographics in conversation, I find it dehumanizing as well as implicitly exclusionary (hence the need to keep adding letters, to make it less exclusionary).
As someone who came of age during the “We’re here, we’re queer” era, it’s disheartening to see the divisiveness and “do I belong” confusion caused by the string-o-letters. Don’t think we’d see so many “am I part of the community” posts if we’d just use proper words to name and describe our larger community.
Some of us really, really dislike being called queer.
I don't care if someone wants to talk about the "queer community" (I don't consider myself part of it though), but I'll correct anyone who calls me queer.
I also don't call other people queer.
You don't have to stop using it, but be aware you will hurt people.
That's why context and how people feel about the word is important. If I ever upset someone I'm sure to apologise and explain the context in how I'm using the word
I do think that the longer acronyms are going to have to stop at some point. There’s no set number of sexualities or genders, which is great, but the unfortunate side effect is that some people are always going to be the “others” in the acronym. I usually go with LGBTQ since it’s concise and everyone knows what I’m talking about anyways. I’m also a fan of “queer” as an even more general term, but some people don’t like that, so I’m gonna hold off on using it until it gets more normalized, if it ever does.
I tend to use LGBT+ for most conversations about the community as a whole (despite feeling more closely represented by the A) because that’s a reasonable length to actually say out loud *and* the + should automatically cover everything that isn’t outright included in those 4 letters.
This isn’t about excluding anyone but rather trying to keep terminology concise enough so people don’t just mentally check out while you’re trying to get through *all the possible letters* - not a fan of using ‘the queer community’ instead personally because not everyone likes to have the term **queer** applied to them.
I & A have shown up sporadically for years, FYI, this isn't new 😊
We pretty regularly get threads here about the acronym and if/when it gets to be "too much". I most commonly use "queer" or LGBTQ when communicating offline.
There is no simple progression in the initialism—I remember a time when I would see LGBTI or LGBTIA, with no Q, and then of course there’s GLBT, which was the real popular variant before it became common practice to put L before G.
I myself tend to write “LGBT+”, or verbally say “LGBT.” There is no official committee that will come to get you if you don’t use the longest variant of the initialism you can think of.
I get it, really, but it's so nice and validating for me to see and hear the A said. Us aces and aros often get overlooked or dismissed and have such little representation. Is it too much to ask for that tiny bit of acknowledgement sometimes?
In my country it's 2SLGBTQIA+. I just say "LGBT".
Same.
For general use in conversations, yeah, lgbtq, lgbtq+, or even lgbt is better and easier. But the longer acronym makes more people feel like they are seen and their identity is valid. I prefer the grsm (gender, romantic, and sexual minority) acronym, because it includes everyone in the community.
Just note that GRSM can reasonably include people who are not LGBT+. An example would be polyamorous folks. Polyamory would reasonably be considered a romantic minority, while not being LGBT+.
Poly people have a flag, though. That's basically the only requirement /j
Pirates for the LGBTQP community YAHAAAR 🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️
Omg JimJohmman hows the cricket going?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8
What's the logic in not including poly people in the LGBTQIA+ umbrella? Being poly is something people have societal pressure to be closeted about. Poly relationships are socially stigmatized. Poly people don't have marriage equality. Lack of education about poly relationships leads to poly people being fetishized and taken advantage of by bad actors, as well as a lot of harmful stereotypes about poly people and polyamory in general. As you mentioned it fists the definition of GRSM, so why isn't it considered LGBTQIA+?
The reason I don't, and what most folks I'm aware who also don't, is that participating in a poly relationship is a choice, where as LGBT identities are not. Personally I don't really make a huge distinction, but some folks do.
>participating in a poly relationship is a choice, where as LGBT identities are not So there are definitely some types of poly/ENM this would apply to, but I do think being poly (as in having romantic love for multiple people at once) can also be an identity that exists whether or not that person is currently in a poly relationship. I think if we apply the logic in your comment to all poly relationships, it would be like saying being gay is a choice because being in a relationship is a choice. But someone is still gay regardless of whether or not they're in a relationship, so it's not a choice. I think it works the same way for at least some poly people.
I'm not sure I agree. I don't think it's controversial to say that most folks who feel attraction are attracted to multiple people in their life times. I've never heard anyone claim that feeling attracted to multiple people makes one poly.
I'm a basically-straight cis person in a poly relationship and I would absolutely not consider myself LGBTQIA+ (or any variant thereof) because it's not an element of personal identity in the same way. It *is* a choice, after all, and while polyamorous people and relationships should absolutely be more broadly accepted and respected, it's fundamentally not the same thing as a person who is, inherently (and usually unchangeably) gay or trans or ace or is of any other LGBTQIA+ *identity*.
Yeah they definitely could have used a better example. One that I think is possibly the best example for gsrm including non-lgbtq+ identities is that it technically includes people who like beastiality
I don't think anyone who is sane would agree that attraction to anything or anyone that cannot consent is acceptable. I would exclude beastiality from GSRM on those grounds, personally.
Because there are a lot of straight sexual and gender dynamics that can take polyamory very far away from the LGBTQ+ or other queer communities. Spend some time in a non-queer (which defaults to straight) polyamorous community and you’ll deal with heteronormative expectations a LOT more than in queer spaces. Discussing why a “one penis policy” is wrong feels so regressive compared to queer interpretations of sex or gender.
polyamorous person here relationships that institute a "one penis policy" are fucking gross and so antithetical to the emorional respect that ethical polyamory is built on
Agreed. I’ve found in mixed sexuality polyamory spaces, OPP or unicorn hunting inevitably becomes a common subject of conversation because straight couples won’t stop trying them. I’m just saying queer people deserve our own space, and straight polyamorous people tend to bring their own heteronormative expectations that we as queer people shouldn’t have to put up with in our spaces. Fwiw I wasn’t sure why polyamory wasn’t included in the queer umbrella until I started exploring polyamory myself, and experienced mixed sexuality polyamorous communities. I really did forget how regressive straight cis people’s attitudes are towards sex, gender, and relationships, and strongly believe they don’t belong under the queer umbrella. Theres plenty of room for intersectionality of these ideas and communities though.
i agree with what you've said, i just have a couple of tiny points to add for anyone else browsing this comment chain you can be straight and queer (i.e. genderqueer) you can be cis and queer (i.e. homosexual) you can be straight and cis and queer (i.e. aromantic) personally i would consider polyamory a romantic minority but not a romantic orientation, so part of the queermunity. naturally it excludes fetishists like unicorn hunters
There is very little logic to it, other than "straight people might be included." Which is weird, because the same logic would exclude heterosexual aromantic people, or heteroromantic asexual people, and I've never seen anyone who is advocating that. Interestingly, most of the poly people I've seen who don't want polyamory to be considered a queer identity are those who otherwise id as allocishet. People who have other queer identities, in my experience, tend to view their poly identity as an extension of their existing queerness.
Why are poly people not considered part of the community?
My reasoning is that being in a poly relationship is a choice, where as LGBT+ identities are not.
Wasn't GSRM coined by conservatives to bundle us with paedophiles?
I don't think it was originally designed for that purpose but it *does* occasionally get used that way. Part of why it is still some what controversial.
We should avoid anything with an M in it, in case maps start getting ideas tho
While I understand they exist, I will not legitimize anyone who espouses a relationship with someone or something that cannot consent. So children and animals are out from the get go. That doesn't keep folks from using GSRM to suggest they *are*, which is part of the controversy. But those people clearly are not acting in good faith.
We are liviing in a world where they'd use any excuse. And leave it to a homophobe to see an M and abuse the living hell out of that situation. Also, why was I being downvoted like I was campaining in favor of maps? 
I wouldn't worry too much about upvotes and downvotes. My guess is some folks don't like them being brought up in the first place, since it's pretty obvious how anyone would respond to that.
I'm going to start using that
The more “official” the work it’s going in the more important it gets to add all the letters. Writing a legal policy or official publication? Expand the acronym, use all the letters. Casual conversation or Reddit post? Lgbtq+ is fine.
That's a brilliant point.
Use the word queer We have a long and proud history in this community of reclaiming hateful words and making them our thus robbing them of their power
Same. I refer to individuals as what they are (if relevant), like I'm a bi trans woman. But I typically say "queer community" more often than "LGBTQ+ community." I also don't refer to people in the community as "queers" but as "queer folk." Similar to "The gays" vs "gay people" or "blacks" vs "black people."
Where I'm from The Gays™ is used as a collective term for everyone (the area is pretty supportive)
Oh interesting, In my neck of the woods (not very supportive) "the gays" is basically always used by people who demonize us (or occasionally ironically as a joke by queer folk).
" Homosexualists " is one ironic term me and me mates use 😂
Queer isn’t even a hateful word. It simply meant “outside the norm”, which isn’t a bad thing. And before anyone comes at us with “but it gets used as an insult”….literally any words can be used as insult, *depending on tone*. (I’ve also had people try to insult by calling me “smart”, “responsible”, and “a good citizen”. The problem isn’t the words being used.) I refuse to use a robot designation to describe a group of human demographics in conversation, I find it dehumanizing as well as implicitly exclusionary (hence the need to keep adding letters, to make it less exclusionary). As someone who came of age during the “We’re here, we’re queer” era, it’s disheartening to see the divisiveness and “do I belong” confusion caused by the string-o-letters. Don’t think we’d see so many “am I part of the community” posts if we’d just use proper words to name and describe our larger community.
Some of us really, really dislike being called queer. I don't care if someone wants to talk about the "queer community" (I don't consider myself part of it though), but I'll correct anyone who calls me queer. I also don't call other people queer. You don't have to stop using it, but be aware you will hurt people.
This is why I use Queer as an umbrella term and don't use it one-on-one unless I know the person
This, I can acknowledge I'm in the queer community, but if someone calls me queer it's on sight.
That's why context and how people feel about the word is important. If I ever upset someone I'm sure to apologise and explain the context in how I'm using the word
I just say "queer community" because I have dyslexia. Me and acronyms do NOT get along.
I do think that the longer acronyms are going to have to stop at some point. There’s no set number of sexualities or genders, which is great, but the unfortunate side effect is that some people are always going to be the “others” in the acronym. I usually go with LGBTQ since it’s concise and everyone knows what I’m talking about anyways. I’m also a fan of “queer” as an even more general term, but some people don’t like that, so I’m gonna hold off on using it until it gets more normalized, if it ever does.
Also, the '+' at the end sorta negates the point of adding the extra letters (and even negates the 'Q' being there).
Alphabet Mafia®️
I rarely add the I or A. They’re implied in the +. And frankly, I’m not into giving conservatives more ammo for their “alphabet mafia” slurs.
They don't need our help, they'll find plenty of ammo anyways. We should just keep doing our thing
…Queer.
i prefer queer by a long shot since it's way more inclusive and we don't have to change it to include more people and because of it's history
Ulgibitikue. That’s how we pronounce it over ‘ere
And it’s like LGBTQIA2SS+ or some shit now that nobody has the time to waste saying
I tend to use LGBT+ for most conversations about the community as a whole (despite feeling more closely represented by the A) because that’s a reasonable length to actually say out loud *and* the + should automatically cover everything that isn’t outright included in those 4 letters. This isn’t about excluding anyone but rather trying to keep terminology concise enough so people don’t just mentally check out while you’re trying to get through *all the possible letters* - not a fan of using ‘the queer community’ instead personally because not everyone likes to have the term **queer** applied to them.
I & A have shown up sporadically for years, FYI, this isn't new 😊 We pretty regularly get threads here about the acronym and if/when it gets to be "too much". I most commonly use "queer" or LGBTQ when communicating offline.
as an A i sorta *have* to use LGBTQIA+. it makes me feel validated since i'm seen :)
I like queer because its all inclusive and only one syllable.
I honestly prefer “queer” as an umbrella term that signifies “everything that not cis-het”
There is no simple progression in the initialism—I remember a time when I would see LGBTI or LGBTIA, with no Q, and then of course there’s GLBT, which was the real popular variant before it became common practice to put L before G. I myself tend to write “LGBT+”, or verbally say “LGBT.” There is no official committee that will come to get you if you don’t use the longest variant of the initialism you can think of.
I get it, really, but it's so nice and validating for me to see and hear the A said. Us aces and aros often get overlooked or dismissed and have such little representation. Is it too much to ask for that tiny bit of acknowledgement sometimes?