75
So many LGBTQ Texans are moving to this city, it may declare an 'emergency' (www.chron.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/lgbtq_plus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 5 months ago (16 children)

GSRM or LGBT+ seem good enough. Guessing its a result of people trying to be exclusionary and people feeling the need to explicitly include those groups, but still think GSRM still would be clearly inclusive of most of those groups anyway?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I’ve never even heard of GSRM, so that’s another new one for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The first time I heard of it, it was just GSM, but I guess then romantic minorities got added?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    This is how I know I’m getting old. Can’t understand what the dang kids are saying anymore!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Its easily been over 10 years since I heard of GSM, after I was done with high school at least. No clue when I first saw GSRM used tho.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago* (8 children)

    2SLGBTQIA+ is a result of being more inclusionary, and it is the standard for the Canadian government. The 2S at the front represents two-spirit people, which is a term that Indigenous people use (also why it was placed at the front, as a sign of respect since they were here before everyone else). The QIA+ are literally additions to include queer (which is a catchall), intersex (who were previously medicalized and excluded), and agender/asexual/aromantic people (who have historically been excluded/ignored), and the + obviously is to include anyone who doesnt feel reflected by the other letters. This is literally the least exclusionary way to do it.

    GSRM has been attempted many times but framing people as minorities when providing allegedly inclusive terminology is generally out of fashion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The acronym system is anti queer philosophically relies on strict taxonomies and fundamentally hierarchal exclusionary while not telling us why these people are lumped together their issues have so much in common its really liberally stupid and as as queer I take offense

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I'm aware of what it stands for. But using 'A' as a catchall for several identities means aro-spec identities are still frequently neglected, allies try to claim it just stands for them instead of ace, aro, and/or agender people, so its still ends up being exclusive in practice while just being unnecessarily long given its failure to achieve the intended goal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    I propose we just all adopt the "+" sign. If we're going for ultimate inclusiveness, why not just get rid of the individual letters entirely? Otherwise we'll just keep having new groups that want to tack on another letter since new sexual-orientation/gender identity categories seem to drop as regularly as the NOW That's What I Call Music! CD series - many of which are indistinguishable from each other.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •