Is it time to drop the alphabet soup and embrace the word QUEER?

[Amy1988]

Is it time to drop the alphabet soup and embrace the word QUEER?

http://instinctmagazine.com/post/it-time-drop-alphabet-soup-and-embrace-word-queer

Adam Dupuis | July 2, 2015

I don't know if it is time to embrace the word Queer, but you have to admit, it is a powerful and unifying term.  Who has yelled, "we're here, we're GLBTIQ, get use to it."  But sometimes I wonder if all of our letters and all of our separate flags do more to divide us than unify us.

How proud were we all to see the Rainbow Flag flying high, being plastered all over everything that didn't move.  It was such a unifying moment for us all. Would QUEER do the same?

I think all labels should be dropped. We are not queers, lesbians, transsexuals are what ever. We are people the same as anyone else.  Labeling people singled them out as being somthing other than human in a sense and that's a problem.

[Jenna Marie]

Yeah, I neither self-define as "queer" nor find it inclusive. I obviously think people get to define as they see fit, but I (and my wife) wonder if we're included every time we simply see a "queer" event, because some people think that means bisexual [and trans] people are welcome... and some think it doesn't. So I don't believe it's a fully inclusive term solely because I know of quite a few people who aren't - or don't want to be - included under it.

[amber roskamp]

I think all labels should be dropped. We are not queers, lesbians, transsexuals are what ever. We are people the same as anyone else.  Labeling people singled them out as being somthing other than human in a sense and that's a problem.

I feel like this not having any labels is ideal, but it is unrealistic. As language gets older it evolves. The words, homosexual and transgender and all the other words, are relatively new words used to describe certain experiences (liking the same-sex, or being a different gender then you are assigned at birth). The words seem othering to the people outside of the community, but the words can be empowering to people who are part of the community. Having a word to describe a uncommon experience such as being trans can help us feel less isolated. It helps us build community do to the fact that there is a big part of our identities that we all share.

Also we can't forego the lgbtq labels until we are treated to the same level of privilege that cis/het people receive.  Could you imagine advocating for rights and equal treatment without having words to describe our experiences? 

[rachel89]

The partial alphabet soup of "LGBT" or "LGBTQ" is not fully inclusive,and the fully inclusive initialism is way to be long to be easily used in casual conversation. I think "queer" is fine, most people know it what it means (not cis-het) and can easily be used in conversation. GSM or a similar term (Gender and Sexual Minorities) also works.

[Lady_Oracle]

I feel like this not having any labels is ideal, but it is unrealistic. As language gets older it evolves. The words, homosexual and transgender and all the other words, are relatively new words used to describe certain experiences (liking the same-sex, or being a different gender then you are assigned at birth). The words seem othering to the people outside of the community, but the words can be empowering to people who are part of the community. Having a word to describe a uncommon experience such as being trans can help us feel less isolated. It helps us build community do to the fact that there is a big part of our identities that we all share.

Also we can't forego the lgbtq labels until we are treated to the same level of privilege that cis/het people receive.  Could you imagine advocating for rights and equal treatment without having words to describe our experiences?

^this

[Dee Marshall]

The partial alphabet soup of "LGBT" or "LGBTQ" is not fully inclusive,and the fully inclusive initialism is way to be long to be easily used in casual conversation. I think "queer" is fine, most people know it what it means (not cis-het) and can easily be used in conversation. GSM or a similar term (Gender and Sexual Minorities) also works.

I would agree that many if not most people know that queer means not het, but I doubt they equate it with not cis. I think any contraction or homogenation of terms would simply cause us to fade out of view just as we're finally becoming visible. I've only recently started feeling comfortable calling myself a lesbian. Before that I just said I was "gyno-focal". I felt that calling myself lesbian was appropriating their word and confusing until I started really identifying as a woman and looking the part.

Ten years ago or more, before I realized I was trans I used to say I was a lesbian in a man's body. I thought I was joking.

[sparrow]

I was gonna say "nah, let's just plan to cut off acceptance once we hit 26 different classifications of people."*  But then I remembered seeing LGBTIQ2S, where 2S denotes people who identify as two-spirit... so we're already up to letter pairs.  More soup!

I'd love to see the day that we can drop L, G, and B, as sexuality is increasingly a non-issue, and as those classifications stop making sense in an increasingly nonbinary world.

I'd support SGRS (sugars?) to denote sex, gender, sexuality, and romance.  I bet I forgot something, though.  More soup!

But me, I identify as transgender and pansexual, so I think that queer would fit just fine, except that "pansexual" means "lacking hangups" in my mind... straight people are the weird ones! 

* to be a smartass, let's be clear.

[Erica_Y]

As others have said earlier I throw my heels into the I am a woman ring and I am not a fan in the least of the label Queer. Perhaps it is a generational thing.

[VeryGnawty]

The problem with the acronym is that people don't take it seriously.  Most people outside the community stopped paying attention after LGBT.  So, anything after that seems superfluous to a lot of people.  You could call it LGBTQIAA or LGBTQIAAROFLMAO+ and people would react to it the same.

I think we've passed the point at which the alphabet soup has become too long.

[Laurette Mohr]

I am simply just me.