Every few months another online debate flares up about exactly what the LGBT community should call itself. Generally speaking, most people default to LGBT (or GLBT, with a slight majority favoring the L-first version). This explicitly calls out key components of a diverse group: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. As shorthand goes, it’s fairly effective, recognizing the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identity in four simple letters. Of course, it can’t please everyone, and like most compromises, leaves plenty of people feeling unheard.
Four other forms of shorthand see frequent use in the media and on the Internet. Many people opt simply for “gay.” Unfortunately, that leaves out any aspect of the community that doesn’t identify explicitly with same-sex attraction. It also traditionally applies to men, resulting in sexist language, however unintentional.
Opponents of the community typically use “the homosexual community” which manages to be gender neutral but also leaves out significant populations (although those populations may be just as happy not to get attention from these groups.) The more academic term “sexual minorities” is also used. Although this has broader meaning it also draws focus to the word “sexual,” avoidance of which resulted in the use of the word “gay” in the first place. Members of the LGBT community don’t want to be defined strictly by possible behavior, but as complex, fully realized human beings. In an America with a strong puritanical streak – even today – the word “sexual” still has too much power to stigmatize.
Many activists have reclaimed the word “queer” as a preferred descriptor. Taking back the word from the bullies and foes is a way to regain power. This is much like Bitch magazine co-opting a frequent slur as a way to raise feminist activists above their oppressors. For many, however, the scars from being called “queer” are too deep and too fresh to choose it as an identity. So what’s a diverse, inclusion-inclined community to do?
Over time, a number of other additions have been suggested to the LGBT acronym. The most common is Q, signifying “questioning” to recognize that many people are uncertain about their sexual orientation or gender identity (or both). Some also use the Q for queer. At full throttle, the letters wind up something like LGBTQQIP2SAA – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
- Two Q’s to cover both bases (queer and questioning);
- I for Intersex, people with two sets of genitalia or various chromosomal differences;
- P for Pansexual, people who refuse to be pinned down on the Kinsey scale;
- 2S for Two-Spirit, a tradition in many First Nations that considers sexual minorities to have both male and female spirits;
- A for Asexual, people who do not identify with any orientation; and
- A for Allies, recognizing that the community thrives best with loving supporters, although they are not really part of the community itself.
That manages to be pretty inclusive, but it’s also pretty unwieldy.
Labels are tricky things. Most oppressed and minority communities have struggled with finding a descriptor that they feel embraces them and that they can embrace. The evolution of Negro to Colored to Black to African-American shows a clear transition from outside labels to a community claiming its own identity, although many with the community object to African-American. The journey from Indians to Native Americans to First Nations is similar, with many outside the community being unfamiliar with the latter designation. The transition from handicapped to disabled was successful (and codified in law) but the attempt to destigmatize to “differently abled” was just too awkward to find common usage.
It’s that kind of awkwardness that stymies the best attempts to find the magic LGBT label. The problem stems from the best of intentions, inclusion. People are complex, with multiple identities. Everyone has a sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, and many other components. It’s laudable for the LGBT community to recognize that there is strength in working together and to try to find a descriptor that shows that intent. In the long run, the intent matters more than the label. Rather than take umbrage at a less than fully inclusive LGBTQ – which at least shows good intent – let’s focus on the work we need to do together to make this a better place for everyone.
Well, I’m pan, but LGBTQ works just fine for me. Also, there is a quiet movement among us to start using the term “trans*” with the asterisk denoting we include two spirits, intersexed, gender queer and anyone else that does not fit neatly into the gender binary. So I think, in that respect, many of those communities still fit under the “T.”
Thanks, Christine. I hadn’t encountered TRANS* yet. That’s a nice way to be inclusive. I hope my casual definitiion of pan met your expectations.
It is a perfectly accurate definition. :D
I remember trying to say the acronym in my Critical Practice Approaches with the Queer Population class….it was a disaster…took forever….
So true! ;) It’s a shame there isn’t a version that’s at least pronounceable. That might give us something clear to settle for.
I posted about QUILT BAG a few months back. But who wants to say the Quilt bag community? :P
I hope your argument in favor of simple old GLBT and/or LGBT doesn’t earn you a glitter-bombing. Urging umbrage avoidance is sensible, but self-righteousness is too much fun to ever be eradicated.
I kind of prefer a rainbow flag to any acronym–the full spectrum of visual light is a nice metaphor for human sexual and gender diversity (and is even subtly humble, since visual light is such a tiny slice of the EM spectrum), but widespread adoption of a rainbow hotkey isn’t likely to gain traction anytime soon.
Ah, and if we could but exude rainbow without words or letters we’d be set. :)
Thanks for the kind words and wise observations. No glitter yet…
Personally I don’t think “asexual” means what you wrote it means but if it were then your statement later on “Everyone has a sexual orientation” confuses me. Do you believe everyone has a sexual orientation because you choose one for them or they choose one themselves? Because, I don’t have a sexual orientation because I simply choose not to label myself sexually.
I agree; this definition of asexuality doesn’t really make sense. I consider myself asexual, not because I don’t identify with an orientation but because I’m just not attracted to anyone sexually. By those in the community, asexuality is considered an orientation in it’s own right.
I see your point, Tori. The definition really should read “no attraction” rather than no orientation. Thanks for the clarification.
I really enjoyed this post a lot :) So much so in fact that I included a link to it in a post that I wrote here: http://wp.me/p3fdnz-7r I hope you’ll go and check it out because it was really awesome to come across someone who shared a similar thought with me. :)
I really agree that the amount of letters in the acronym don’t matter so much as what the acronym represents and the sense of inclusiveness its trying to give to everyone.
Thank you for sharing the link. The goal really is inclusion and solidarity.
I see the P for Pansexual, but what about Polysexuals and Polyamorous, there should really be two more P’s.
Thank you for your observations. As I mentioned in the original post, total inclusiveness is pretty difficult, if not impossible. That acronym gets very unwieldy and someone still gets left out…
Try using GSM (Gender Sexuality Minority). It encompasses everyone, and avoids mislabeling :)
That’s an interesting suggestion, Emma. I like the elegant simplicity. It does sound a bit sterile, but that’s the risk of shoving a diverse group into a convenient box…
this was an interesting article, as i was trying to find the complete and correct version of the acronym. i also noticed the incorrect definition of asexual, but that’s been pointed out. i wish and hope that queer or some other umbrella term can come to represent everyone in an inoffensive way, because i’ll personally struggle to be able to remember this ever-growing sequence of letters.
my only objection to the increasing inclusion is the second “a”– allies. though they are an important factor in queer rights, they seem to want too much recognition for being decent human beings (similar to non-racist whites in the USA; or feminist men, who are practically worshiped by liberal society). having “a” stand for allies makes them seem like part of the community, which is actually pretty bad when the following is considered: being non-misogynistic doesn’t make someone a woman; advocating for animal rights doesn’t make someone an abused dog; being an environmentalist doesn’t make me an ecosystem; etc. cishet allies in the acronym 1) take attention/validation of asexuals away, 2) essentially don’t belong for their lack of oppression. of course this is only my opinion, and i say so with the utmost respect of every unbigoted queer advocate.
I am pansexual and I find the definition on here quite offensive.
The definition in this post came from a pansexual resource and is included to show the complexity of sexual orientation. If you have a preferred definition or a clarification, please feel free to share it in this thread to enrich everyone’s understanding.