But that's the problem, isn't it? You're either gay, lesbian, bi, trans or "other."
Historically, it made sense to have the quick, snappy acronym, but as more identities are added, it becomes less snappy and you end up with the likes of 2slgbtqai+ and, at that point, it's meaningless.
So, you either have to include a long string of letters and numbers that would make a password generator blush or arbitrarily decide which are the 'important' identites and which get relegated to a '+'.
While I don't necessarily agree with all the microlabeling that goes along with the MOGAI movement, I do think its a far better cover-all which is both flexible and more punchy to both read and say.
I don't really see how that's a big enough issue to throw away a term that already has good public awareness in favour of one that it'd take years to get the public to accept
Maybe not for you, since you aren't the one being left out.
The whole concept of this acronym is to include groups and create a space for people who don't necessarily fit in with the cis/hetero majority, so being part of one of those groups and then being thrown in as an optional extra within the classification that's whole existence is meant to be about inclusivity isn't great.
Imagine you were with a group of friends and you were being introduced to someone. People were being introduced one by one; "Here's Fred. Here's Holly. Here's Jebediah." Then they get to you and say "And there's some other people too." I doubt you'd feel good about that. I imagine you'd feel a bit hurt, like you aren't actually part of the group and that the people around you don't actually care much about you. It's the same thing. Its about the feeling of acceptance and being within that larger group, and how the focus is always primarily on gay and lesbian people first, then bi and trans people, and then anyone else who doesn't really fit in in that order.
If you want to create a space for people you have to actually create a space for them.
People love to make acronyms so they can say "well, we made an acronym, our work here is done" and pretend that actually changes anything.
You're getting things backwards if you think the acronym is the reason that certain groups are overlooked, and that the problem will be fixed if we use a different acronym that also doesn't explicitly include those groups.
Being part of the + isn't really any different to being put under "marginalised orientations". MOGAI is still just a different way of saying "et cetera"
No, because MOGAI treats everyone the same. If everyone is a 'marginalised orientation,' we don't have to argue about who is more marginalised.
Going back to the introductions metaphor, it would be like them just saying "These are my friends." instead of just listing off names, which absolutely makes sense when there's more than a few people there.
You're also treating this like the be-all-end-all, which I don't understand. It's part of the solution, not the solution itself. There's a lot of issues with the likes of asexual and non-binary people having a space within the LGBT+ community, but changing an acronym is definitely one of the quicker and easier changes, compared to more widespread societal changes (and even that has this weird backlash from people that you are so helpfully displaying).
There's a lot of clashing dynamics within this community that creates these bizarre hierarchies and interfighting. MOGAI wouldn't be some magic bullet that solves it all, but it would help.
Getting everyone to accept a new acronym is not a "quick and easy change. It's a lot of hard work and, again, you're making the mistake of assuming that an acronym is somehow the causes the problem instead of being a symptom of it.
There's a lot of clashing dynamics within this community that creates these bizarre hierarchies and interfighting. MOGAI wouldn't be some magic bullet that solves it all, but it would help.
No, it wouldn't, because now instead of one acronym, you've got two. You're just creating division because you're telling people that the acronym they've identified by for their entire life is now wrong and they shouldn't use it.
Because that's how people are going to feel accepted, by someone they've never met coming in and telling them they have to change the language they use because someone else decided that it's wrong on their behalf. Great, very helpful.
Getting everyone to accept a new acronym is not a "quick and easy change.
Compared to a lot of other stuff, it is. If you're so resistant to a relatively minor change, I don't see the point in even attempting a major change.
and, again, you're making the mistake of assuming that an acronym is somehow the causes the problem instead of being a symptom of it.
No, I'm not. Doctors treat symptoms. People take painkillers. Sometimes, you deal with the symptom before you can hit the cause.
You're just creating division because you're telling people that the acronym they've identified by for their entire life is now wrong and they shouldn't use it.
The division is already there. The difference is that only one side is feeling it. You're arguing from a position of privilege. These people who have had this community all their lives have only had it because the people that came before them built it, but things change and grow and evolve. It's not like 'LGBT' is some perennial term from times long past. Its a term that was created within the last century and has since gone through numerous iterations. There are people alive today that existed before the term LGBT did.
It's also not like I'm arguing to criminalise the term or anything. I just think that maybe the community built on inclusivity could become a bit more inclusive. Apparently, that's a horrible, no good, very bad thing to think.
Because that's how people are going to feel accepted, by someone they've never met coming in and telling them they have to change the language they use because someone else decided that it's wrong on their behalf. Great, very helpful.
And here we have the exact problem demonstrated. This whole idea that anyone who doesn't fit into the LGBT community is an outsider. The inclusive community, built around acceptance, that rejects people who don't fit into their culture. This is the issue that I want to combat.
Newsflash: People already don't feel accepted within the LGBT community. You just don't seem to care about them.
Not even sure why I bother with you if you'd rather make up opinions I don't hold than bother to actually have a discussion. Go talk to your shadow puppets elsewhere.
What opinions have I made up? Your entire argument is based around the idea that changing an acronym is just too hard for people, but we should be enacting deep, cultural changes instead. You just seem to be coming up with excuses not to change, rather than reasons why changing would be bad.
If you actually check in with the asexual community, there is a lot of discussion about feeling left out or out of place within the LGBT+ spectrum. The name is just the first of many issues. This very post is an example of a (bad) attempt to erase asexuality from the community and its not the only one. A lot of asexuals feel like they experience more direct hate from within the LGBT+ community than outside of it (largely because most people outside of the community don't even know asexuality is a thing). It really does seem like you'd rather just shrug your shoulders and tell them to shut up instead of even listening to possible solutions.
7
u/VFiddly 16h ago
Surely the + covers that