Jump to content

LGBTQIA vs. GSRM?


Alex97

Recommended Posts

So I think we are all familiar with the acronym LGBTQIA (for anyone who isn't it stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer and/or Questioning, Intersex, and Asexuals and/or Allies). As far as acronyms go, it's somewhat long, and if you are like me you might be a bit annoyed at Allies being included, often instead of Asexuals, in it.

Recently I heard of the acronym GSRM, which stands for Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities. I kind of like it better for a couple of reasons. First of all, no allies in the acronym. I know that may sound a bit harsh and mean, but they shouldn't really be in the acronym since they aren't part a GSRM (not suggesting that alies are not important, they have historically proved to be very helpful in GSRM movements). Secondly, we won't be having to add any letters (notice the lack of P for Pansexuals in LGBTQIA) since it is much more inclusive of anyone who isn't heterosexual and heteroromantic. Thirdly, it brings some visibility to sexual attraction being separated from romantic attraction and gender, something that a large number of people aren't aware of.

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

I think that "GSRM" is a good idea. There are two concerns I can think of though:

- I might be wrong but it doesn't seem like intersex people are included.

- "LGBT+" has a history and thus an emotional value which "GSRM" currently lacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To clear things up, you have Lgbtqia+

which people like shortening down and dropping the P, for who knows why.

The whole of it is actually:

LGBPTTQQIIAA

Which is lesbian-gay-bi-pan-transgender-transexual-questioning-queer-intersex-intergender-asexual....well you get the point(so it does include pansexual)

yeah it's a little lengthy, but it's inclusive and has emotional value and history like Autumn Season said.

on that note GSRM, or the thought of it is nice and I like that it includes romantic as well....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has the same problem as LGBTQQIAAA*. People are just going to keep adding more and more letters to be inclusive. In fact, that has already happened in that the first time I heard the acronym you are talking about it was just GSM: Gender and sexual minorities. The R is a new addition.

Eventually people are going to want to add things like Sensual minorities, and aesthetic minorities and the like .

We should either just go back to LGBTQ and leave Q as the catch all for everything in the cracks (like pansexuals, genderqueer, asexuals, ect...) People already know LGBT and adding 1 last letter is no big deal.

OR

We should be simple. Gender minorities.

Being a Sexual minority, romantic minority, transgender person, or intersex person are all at their core gender issues.

For instance, cisheteronomative society sees Homosexuals as having the sexuality of the wrong gender. Bisexuals have the sexuality of both genders when they should only have one. poly-sexuals have the sexuality of both genders and then some. Asexuals don't have any genders sexuality. Same goes for romantic orientations.

Transgender people have incongruent gender identities for their gender. Intersex people have the wrong organs for their gender.

It all comes back to gender. So why both bringing up sexual or romantic orientations? Just call us Gender Minorities.

*Lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-questioning-intersex-asexual-aromantic-ally

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I prefer the acronym GSRD, since it emphasises the "diversity" part of sexuality. Though I don't take offence to any other combination; whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
allrightalready

Being a Sexual minority, romantic minority, transgender person, or intersex person are all at their core gender issues.

Transgender people have incongruent gender identities for their gender. Intersex people have the wrong organs for their gender.

the first one is inaccurate, differences in sex development have nothing to do with gender (some DSD persons do have gender issues but the vast majority do not)

the second is flat out wrong. being trans is what having a mismatch between your phenotype and gender is. DSD is a whole range of issues and is more about not being able to figure out which binary box to put someone in due to variances from how the majority of people develop.

and as Autumn Season noted GSRM leaves out DSD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sweden, we say "HBTQ(+)" (Homo-, bi-. trans-, and queer). But I think GSRM is a good idea, since it does not have to include every single group in the name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
somethingrandom

I heard GSD today - gender and sexuality diversity so it encompasses everything you can think of - it doesn't exclude straight either because why should it? No allies or anything but just diversity of everything. I think its much better than lgbt etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Queen Under the Mountain

I think it has the same problem as LGBTQQIAAA*. People are just going to keep adding more and more letters to be inclusive. In fact, that has already happened in that the first time I heard the acronym you are talking about it was just GSM: Gender and sexual minorities. The R is a new addition.

Eventually people are going to want to add things like Sensual minorities, and aesthetic minorities and the like .

We should either just go back to LGBTQ and leave Q as the catch all for everything in the cracks (like pansexuals, genderqueer, asexuals, ect...) People already know LGBT and adding 1 last letter is no big deal.

According to tumblr, there is a controversy if asexuals can or not identify as queer, with very heated discussions about it. I have no idea why this is so important, but, apparently not everybody considers this word as a umbrella for all kinds of sexualities, and to be honest, if the price to pay to be in the acronym is such tiring polemics, I rather be completely out of it and use only the word "asexuality", without acronyms, umbrella terms and etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a Sexual minority, romantic minority, transgender person, or intersex person are all at their core gender issues.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Not everyone recognizes gender and therefore it may have nothing to do with their sexual/romantic identity.

basically, what allrightalready said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calamity Jim

I think part of it comes because the recognition of the differences is as important as having an umbrella. Identifying as GSRM lumps me in with a bunch of very different people without recognizing those differences. Minority groups tend to get that default person you think of when you discuss it, and when you say GSRM you are creating one term that is going to get caught up in one image that isn't going to match the rest of the group. For example, when you say Pride one of the strongest associations with the world is that of a young cis gay man. It's what people think of because it is what the media shows.

When you use QUILTBAG (my fav cause its so easy to say) you acknowledge that we are similar but not the same. Being part of QUILTBAG doesn't make my media representative a cis gay dude because I can go "Nope. I'm LTA. That's were I fit." So it prevents homogenous representation.

It's why there are Feminists, Queer Feminists, and Feminists of Color. They all stand for the same thing but they also all bring together different images because as groups they have different histories and it is important that one group does not speak for the other.

I'm all for the differentiation because it is important to acknowlege that while we are all playing for the same country we aren't all on the same team, and trying to erase that threatens the cause in a very serious way because it erases the differences between the groups. We've seen this hurt the trans community quite badly already and I think that keeping the issue as complicated as it is is important. It should be complicated and hard to talk about because it is complicated and hard to talk about and a cutesy acronym won't change that but it will make people think that the conversation should be as easy to say as GSRM.

Also, GSRM would include fetishes, which is a different kettle all together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LGBTQQIP2SAA is actually the full acronym, according to my sources. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, 2 spirited, asexual and ally. I’ve seen two Ts used before because some people use Trans and Trans* differently and in this case an asterisk might be next to the second T in the acronym.

I don’t know why your has two Is and mine doesn’t, but I’ve never heard the term intergender before, only bigender, agender, etc.

2-Spirited is a third gender in a Native American culture, according to my research.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sweden, we say "HBTQ(+)" (Homo-, bi-. trans-, and queer). But I think GSRM is a good idea, since it does not have to include every single group in the name.

I prefer that one actually. I've always disliked that we have a gender/sex different between homosexuals but no other sexuality. It doesn't seem to make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heteroromantic asexuals have no gender issues which is why I oppose their inclusion in LGBTQ.

Well LGBT+ doesn't include gender much, but do you not think the A stands for asexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally like the sprawling alphabet soup approach to characterizing the diversity of non-cis-heterosexual orientations/identities because it highlights some of the underlying irreducible messiness of the world. Sure, one can come up with a tidily logical acronym that neatly packages the range of human diversity as if a settled issue "solved" by appropriate bureaucratic application of approved terminology. But, this erases the historical and ongoing struggle for different voices to be heard, different problems to be exposed, different oppressions to be confronted, different joys to be exalted, that share common threads but cannot be homogenized into one common glob. The LGBTQQIP2SAA+ acronym is a mess --- a conflicting discordant struggle --- but so are we all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sleepy Skeleton

I prefer GSRM.

With LGBTQ+ and all of its varieties, you have people who try to single out each other. Supposedly, LGB and T were first put together because both groups faced oppression from the majority. And apparently asexuals and lots of others aren't ~oppressed~ enough to be considered LGBT. Therefore I prefer GSRM because it includes everyone, not just the most popular genders or sexualities.

Alternatively, there's MOGAI/MOGII (marginalized/minority orientations, gender alignments/identities, and intersex), but I still prefer GSRM.

Also, it's silly to argue about which is the "real" acronym. The + includes the rest and shuts up the people who complain about it being too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to tumblr, there is a controversy if asexuals can or not identify as queer, with very heated discussions about it. I have no idea why this is so important, but, apparently not everybody considers this word as a umbrella for all kinds of sexualities, and to be honest, if the price to pay to be in the acronym is such tiring polemics, I rather be completely out of it and use only the word "asexuality", without acronyms, umbrella terms and etc.

I am aware of that, and I would mark that a pro for just going GM.

That said, most sources I have seen (including multiple academic sites) consider the Q in LGBTQ to stand for queer and to include all things non-cis-heterosexual. Though, that does seem exclusive of those who are intersex.

Being a Sexual minority, romantic minority, transgender person, or intersex person are all at their core gender issues.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Not everyone recognizes gender and therefore it may have nothing to do with their sexual/romantic identity.

basically, what allrightalready said.

Let me clarify as I think there is a misunderstanding as evidenced by yours and allrightalready's posts

I am talking about gender in the societal sense not the individual sense. In particular I am referring to cis-heteronormative society's views on what is male and what is female. Further, I am also making a separation between gender the societial concept and gender identity.

A person who is born as AMAB transwoman could have masculine tastes and gender presentation. All their characteristics are what Society would call masculine except for their own perception of their own gender. Such a person might choose to transition but keep a masculine presentation.

In a cis-heteronormative societal sense masculinity/being male means having a male gender identity and presentation, synched sexual/romantic/sensual/etc attractions toward women, and having male sexual features.

As such, all forms of attraction, intersex, and gender identity would fall under the gender category. It all goes back to what society thinks being male or female means.

Heteroromantic asexuals have no gender issues which is why I oppose their inclusion in LGBTQ.

Except of course that they have the gender issue of lacking their gender's sexuality. As such, their lack of interest in having sex will other them and cause gender issues.

But I am well aware that you and I disagree on the subject, and am willing to agree to disagree :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me clarify as I think there is a misunderstanding as evidenced by yours and allrightalready's posts

I talking about gender in the societal sense not the individual sense. In particular I am referring to cis-heteronormative society's views on what is male and what is female. Further, I am also making a separation between gender the societial concept and gender identity.

Yes, but like you said, that's everyone else making it a gender issue, not necessarily for that person.

I don't think sexual orientation is about *gender* for most people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer GSRM.

With LGBTQ+ and all of its varieties, you have people who try to single out each other. Supposedly, LGB and T were first put together because both groups faced oppression from the majority. And apparently asexuals and lots of others aren't ~oppressed~ enough to be considered LGBT. Therefore I prefer GSRM because it includes everyone, not just the most popular genders or sexualities.

Alternatively, there's MOGAI/MOGII (marginalized/minority orientations, gender alignments/identities, and intersex), but I still prefer GSRM.

Also, it's silly to argue about which is the "real" acronym. The + includes the rest and shuts up the people who complain about it being too long.

Wasn't GSRM coined by a pedophile? I keep reading that we shouldn't use this acronym because of that.

As for ace being LGBT, I wouldn't consider asexuality to be "LGBT". LGBT asexuals do exist and are part of both the asexual community and the LGBT community, but being asexual doesn't make you LGBT just like being LGBT doesn't make you part of the asexual community. I know some people claim that asexuals don't face any kind of oppression (note: I do think asexual people face less / different kind of oppression and that's why the asexual community is needed, because it's different), I don't think everyone saying that aces can't reclaim the q slur (which is still used in hate crimes but isn't directed at asexual people) or consider themselves LGBT is always acephobic. It makes sense to remember that the LGBT movement has a specific history, it's not just about being outside of the norm.

I think the asexual community does pretty well on its own when you find one that is open to LGBT aces, because it deals with asexual topics.

I don't mind lumping everyone together in conversation with acronyms such as MOGAI, but I do think that it's not a bad thing to keep some communities separate. Even among the LGBT, when dealing with specific questions, you can clearly see the communities and some advocate for separatism because people do tend to speak over other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season
Let me clarify as I think there is a misunderstanding as evidenced by yours and allrightalready's posts

I talking about gender in the societal sense not the individual sense. In particular I am referring to cis-heteronormative society's views on what is male and what is female. Further, I am also making a separation between gender the societial concept and gender identity.

Yes, but like you said, that's everyone else making it a gender issue, not necessarily for that person.

I don't think sexual orientation is about *gender* for most people.

... or most cultures.

In fact many societies don't recognize gender to be separate from biological sex and even those societies who do, don't understand gender exactly like our AVEN community does.

So while I understand why sexual orientation can be reduced to a gender problem, I don't think this model works for all countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
allrightalready

Intersex people have the wrong organs for their gender.

Intersex people genetically are born with both sexes.

http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex

(I like GSRM.)

the actual first sentence of what you linked to

"“Intersex” is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male." - while many conditions leading to a diagnosis of intersex have things that indicate "both" sexes it is not always that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sleepy Skeleton

Wasn't GSRM coined by a pedophile? I keep reading that we shouldn't use this acronym because of that.

As for ace being LGBT, I wouldn't consider asexuality to be "LGBT". LGBT asexuals do exist and are part of both the asexual community and the LGBT community, but being asexual doesn't make you LGBT just like being LGBT doesn't make you part of the asexual community. I know some people claim that asexuals don't face any kind of oppression (note: I do think asexual people face less / different kind of oppression and that's why the asexual community is needed, because it's different), I don't think everyone saying that aces can't reclaim the q slur (which is still used in hate crimes but isn't directed at asexual people) or consider themselves LGBT is always acephobic. It makes sense to remember that the LGBT movement has a specific history, it's not just about being outside of the norm.

I think the asexual community does pretty well on its own when you find one that is open to LGBT aces, because it deals with asexual topics.

I don't mind lumping everyone together in conversation with acronyms such as MOGAI, but I do think that it's not a bad thing to keep some communities separate. Even among the LGBT, when dealing with specific questions, you can clearly see the communities and some advocate for separatism because people do tend to speak over other people.

Unless they were using the acronym to justify pedophilia, who the term came from is irrelevant.

And I disagree about asexuals not being LGBT+. There's no reason to separate the two. Plus, a lot of people who say asexuals aren't LGBT are usually the ones who say asexuals are "basically straight." We're not. We're asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
New Strawberry 8

I've noticed a strangely high rate of prejudice from the LGBT+ community against asexuality, like our not wanting sex threatens their freedom to do it. I've always considered the A in the acronym to be for asexual (as soon as I knew about asexuality). However, I was actually just filling out a transfer application for a uni and there was a box to check for whether or not I identify as part of the LGBT+ community and I almost felt like I wasn't allowed to.

I would like to think that asexuals fit into that community because our sexuality makes us a scarcely recognized minority, no matter what a specific ace's romantic orientation is. I would like to have a broader acronym that covers everything without being a mouthful, so GSRM seems good (especially so that I wouldn't have to keep saying "no, the A at the end also means asexual, not just ally") but unfortunately it would be very difficult to get it going with enough visibility for most people to understand what you're talking about when you say it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like the term gsrm better I don't think it matters as long as it is just a renaming for lgbt.

I have nothing in common with those people (maybe bisexuals, but that is because they are often excluded by gay people as well)

I have no interest in going somewhere that meets under the lgbt name.

While it will say that it is about fighting for equality, all I see is people going at it in public, hoping they can offend someone enough to be "discriminated".

I am all for bringing chance and acceptance, but I don't want to fight with these people over who is repressed the most or who has the shitties life just to be part of their special club.

Being gay, straight, bi, asexual or something else is not and should not be a political statement.

I know that talking to people like yourself is rewarding in a lot of ways (Why else would I frequent Aven?)

But that can easily be separated from political movements.

But the gsrm name is better suited if we should be under the umbrella and we don't want to add letters every time someone feels left out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about just RM? Romantic Minorities? Sex, gender, and sexuality is all linked in one way or another to romance, or, in the case of asexuals/aromantics, lack thereof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
allrightalready

How about just RM? Romantic Minorities? Sex, gender, and sexuality is all linked in one way or another to romance, or, in the case of asexuals/aromantics, lack thereof.

both trans and DSD persons can be romantic, straight, and allosexual thus putting them only in the minority for either their sex or gender and would be left out of RM

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I tried finding a general answer for this, and the poll results does show that at least 1/3 feels like they do not belong in those groups. Reasons could be rejection or simply do not want to be part of it. So, I guess GSRM label is better out of respect for the 1/3 that doesn't find themselves to belong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...