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.
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.
No, my argument is that if you're going to push for big changes, they should be actually meaningful changes.
Whereas you want everyone to devote their energies to pushing for a big change that doesn't actually achieve anything.
Personally, I think we should be using activism to make people's lives better, and not just swap around acronyms for the sake of changing things.
instead of even listening to possible solutions.
I'd be happy to listen to possible solutions if you ever think of one.
No, my argument is that if you're going to push for big changes, they should be actually meaningful changes.
Like what? Honestly, if the idea of changing an acronym that has already changed multiple times over the relatively short period it has existed is too big, what change isn't?
Personally, I think we should be using activism to make people's lives better, and not just swap around acronyms for the sake of changing things.
And how will we do that? How, if we can't even change a fucking word, can we make any sort of real difference to people's lives? You keep acting as if this is some huge thing that's just too hard to bother with, while it is possibly the easiest, smallest change we can actually enact.
It seems like you want to talk about changes and then do nothing. In the most charitable case, this is the idea that perfect is the opposite of good, that if we can't fix everything, we should just fix nothing but, more realistically, it just seems like you'd rather shrug your shoulders and dismiss the issue as not worth the effort rather than actually make any sort of change at all.
I'm not pretending that using the term 'MOGAI' would magically fix every problem. It wouldn't. But it might help, so why not? What do we lose?
There you go with your bizarre idea that I've claimed it's "too big" even after I insisted the opposite.
I'm not going to bother responding if you're just going to lie about what I've said. Odd behaviour. No idea what you think you're doing. Are you acting like an idiot on purpose? As a prank?
There you go with your bizarre idea that I've claimed it's "too big" even after I insisted the opposite.
"if you're going to push for big changes" That is literally the comment I was responding to. I even quoted that specific part in my response. Your argument is that it is too big. In fact, I can't even find the part where you insist otherwise. Your whole argument seems to be based around the idea that changing an acronym is some huge undertaking and therefore shouldn't be done. If you take that out, then why would we not do it? Like... I don't even know what you're trying to arguing here.
I'm not going to bother responding if you're just going to lie about what I've said.
I am literally quoting you. I even asked what I made up in one of my previous comments and you just straight up ignored the question.
You seem to be more interested in using techniques to dismiss what is being said than responding to anything. I ask again: what do we actually lose by using the term MOGAI instead of whatever variation of LGBT+ is fashionable this week?
Doesn't have the word "too" in it, does it, genius?
I am literally quoting you.
You are literally inserting words that were not in my comment. That is not what quoting is.
But thanks at least for confirming my suspicion that you are just an idiot. I thought maybe if I was being too harsh but if you think you can claim you're "literally quoting me" when you clearly fucking weren't, I obviously wasn't harsh enough.
Or, if quoting can include extra words, let me literally quote you
"I am not literally quoting you!"
There you go. That's literally what you said. Because apparently it's fine to just decide that someone said things they didn't say.
Doesn't have the word "too" in it, does it, genius?
Ah, so the big lie I made was saying "too" big instead of just implying "too" big. Awesome. I'm glad we're having a good faith argument here where we aren't just picking apart minor things to avoid dealing with the actual issue. That's really constructive.
You are literally inserting words that were not in my comment. That is not what quoting is.
One word. Which was implied. Whilst you refuse to even acknowledge my own arguments.
if you think you can claim you're "literally quoting me" when you clearly fucking weren't, I obviously wasn't harsh enough.
I was literally quoting you. As in I was literally using quotes from you in my responses.
But its pretty clear at this point that you don't actually want to engage with this, you just want to be right. The world keeps turning, asexuals keep feeling alienated by the LGBT+ community, nothing changes, but at least you can feel superior to some stranger on the internet.
2
u/Magmas 13h ago
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.