Middlesbrough Council Policy - comments please

[AFlyingPiglet]

Have just come across this article which was posted on the BBC website yesterday.  The article mentions asexuality but I'm wondering what people think about the policy the council has adopted.  Basically instead of LGBT they are opting to use LGB&T. No mention of any + and they are seeing this as a step forward as the alphabet soup is "ridiculous".

 

Feel free to move this article elsewhere if this isn't the best place for it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-46418045

[Gizamaluke]

I really don't care what acronym is used if I'm honest because when it comes to any kind of official form i have to always use the 'Other' category and I do not enjoy thinking of myself as an other so I use straight instead, but that still isn't right.

 

[Bio 7]

I can understand the reasoning for not using that massive string of letters, at that point it becomes annoying to say or type, but LGBTQ+ isn’t that bad. Also not having the + does kind of ignore other sexualities, however I consider Asexuality not being a part of that community anyway. Using an & symbol isn’t a big deal to me, and again I see the reasoning for it.

[Tystie]

Separating the LGB and the T recognises the difference between orientation and gender. Also, reading the article, and looking at the other options Middlesbrough considered suggests that it is looking beyond just LGBT. This is sounds good.

 

However, for me, that wider perspective is lost in the choice to use LGB&T. Putting that & in the list makes it seem fixed and finished, which I’m sure is not what was intended.

 

Quite honestly, if Middlesbrough is going to go for an option that isn’t used anywhere else, maybe it would have done better to have ditched the whole LGBT thing entirely and gone with something like O&G: Orientation & Gender. That could easily include asexual, pansexual, agender, non-binary...

[AFlyingPiglet]

On 12/3/2018 at 6:52 PM, Tystie said:

However, for me, that wider perspective is lost in the choice to use LGB&T. Putting that & in the list makes it seem fixed and finished, which I’m sure is not what was intended.

I understand their logic too but what you have said above is what troubles me about this.  

[Pramana]

I agree that the LGBTQ acronym is getting unwieldly, but I'd question whether it's worth adopting an alternate variation that no one else uses. They'd probably be better off to go the gender, sexual, and romantic minorities route.