GRSM or LGBT+?

[Strange-quark]

1 hour ago, Firefly8 said:

I hadn't thought of this before. Good point.

Still according to allmighty Wikipedia (:P):

"Usually, the term sexual minority is applied only to groups who practice consensual sex" [between adults implied I think]

[SithLord]

10 minutes ago, Strange-quark said:

Still according to allmighty Wikipedia (:P):

"Usually, the term sexual minority is applied only to groups who practice consensual sex" [between adults implied I think]

A case can still be made for zoophiles and objectums to be included or not because they are attracted to non-humans. While I am totally onboard for ignoring the creepy minor attraction stuff going on, it's harder to talk about consent when you're debating the sentience of the object of attraction. And while I don't know any zoophiles personally, I do know there are objectums on AVEN who definitely want to be acknowledged. 

[Strange-quark]

@SithEmpress agreed. There being space for them too is, after all, one of the reasons I prefer GSRM/GRSM.

[SithLord]

2 minutes ago, Strange-quark said:

@SithEmpress agreed. There being space for them too is, after all, one of the reasons I prefer GSRM/GRSM.

And it's one of the reasons I can see people be dubious about wanting to use those terms. I'm a bit on the fence about them so it doesn't dissuade me personally, but it's something to keep in mind. 

[frostboot]

I'd never heard GRSM before but I've always wanted an alternative to the increasingly ridiculous LGBTQIAP+ nonsense. It simply isn't possible to include every identity, and when we shorten it a large portion of people are excluded.
That said, LGBT is what we're rolling with now and using a term that is unknown to the public only feels like it would complicate things, not only for the vast majority of people but for us that would have to stop and explain the term every time we use it. So I'm not sure. 

[Phantasmal Fingers]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2020 at 9:19 PM, AceMissBehaving said:

Aro would fall under romantic minority, it actually puts a brighter light on aromanticism

That's a bit like telling an atheist that atheism is a religious minority. From an atheist perspective it's inaccurate and reinforces a negative stereotype.

[Zagadka]

34 minutes ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

That's a bit like telling an atheist that atheism is a religious minority. From an atheist perspective it's inaccurate and reinforces a negative stereotype.

I dunno, it isn't that I think romance doesn't exist, I just don't experience it. I think it is a fair tie in.

 

Though I agree about the atheism thing.

[Phantasmal Fingers]

Just now, Zagadka said:

it isn't that I think romance doesn't exist, I just don't experience it. I think it is a fair tie in.

How about, "it isn't that I think god doesn't exist, I just don't experience god." ?

 

So he's there but he isn't? 

 

Or if we replace a male pronoun with "the divine" or "love", for example, "it's there but I don't experience it." 

 

How do you know?

[Zagadka]

I'm pretty bloody sure God doesn't exist. I'm just as confident that other people have romantic feelings that are perfectly valid.  I don't think they are equatable as concepts.

[AceMissBehaving]

2 hours ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

That's a bit like telling an atheist that atheism is a religious minority. From an atheist perspective it's inaccurate and reinforces a negative stereotype.

I don’t personally agree with you, but if that’s your take that’s your take.

 

To me it’s like calling asexuality a sexual minority, we’re not the majority, so we would be a minority. I don’t see it as an inaccurate or negative thing. 

[Guest]

On 2/29/2020 at 9:18 AM, Strange-quark said:

I actually like GRSM exactly because it sounds kind of weird and nerdy 🙈 ... But good point, GSRM seems to be the more common one 😅

I think GSRM has a nice ring to it. Either way, it sounds like a type of mobile phone network, and to a lesser extent, a nod to the Apple IIgs.

[Dan.K]

GSRM is my preference as the alphabet soup we now have is segregating. I'm attracted to guys and I'm an ace but a lot of gay people don't like me on 'their' forums (even though I identified as gay for a very long time)

 

GSRM doesn't exclude based on what tribe you are. I also know a lot of LGBT people that are transphobic because they dont feel they actually fall under the umbrella as it's not a sexuality where as GSRM covers them without potentially feeling the odd group out 

[SassPass]

As we learn more about sexuality, we have to keep adding to LGBTQIA+ as we understand more and more people. LGBTQIA+ is more recognizable, but at some point, we're going to have an acronym that is more work to say than it is worth. Might as well start using GRSM now as it's already starting to get up there.    

[iff]

On 3/2/2020 at 6:20 AM, Strange-quark said:

Still according to allmighty Wikipedia (:P):

"Usually, the term sexual minority is applied only to groups who practice consensual sex" [between adults implied I think]

Also according to wikipedia

 

"Others referred to as "sexual minorities" include fetishists and practitioners in of BDSM (bondage, dominance, and submission), and sadism and masochism.^[17] The term may also include asexuals"

 

[WanderingKate]

I picked LGBT+ just because I wasn't aware of what GRSM meant...until today

Then again, I wouldn't mind GRSM catching on, I think it could be more inclusive as we keep having to had letters to the LGBT+. 

[Zyph]

I believe that GRSM is a better term than LGBT+

 

First off. there's a lot of confusion surrounding the LGBT+ label. For most of us reading this, we know that the A is often confused with "ally". Not only that, but the A stands for three different things (agender, aro, ace) unlike the preceding letters. A lot of people disregard anything after the Q, seeing all of it as extraneous and unnecessary. Some people don't even acknowledge the plus. The point of an acronym is to make a name concise and memorable. While we may understand what LGBTQIAAAP+ stands for, not everyone does. If there is some other fitting identity-related term that gains traction, a letter has to be added. Actually, that's the main reason why people usually only spell out the first 4-5 letters. At least GSRM covers the same communities while being able to remain concise. If a new GSRM community gains traction, no new letter is needed.

 

Second, there's the legitimacy aspect. The GRSM acronym brings attention to the fact that sexual and romantic identities are not the same. This acronym alone makes it clear that aromantic is supposed to belong to the community. Asexuality will also have more legitimacy within the group. I mean, the majority of the people who have to make the romantic/sexual distinction are aces (most of the rest are aro allos).

[dangerousPerson]

GSRM/GRSM has its perks, but the wording does sound like it could mean to include other things like polyamory, BDSM, what have you. Lots of groups are technically minorities. I also have issues with using it to refer to myself. "Minority" is a statistic, doesn't feel like an identity. It's inherently based on contrasting with the greater population, although there's an argument to be made about that being the exact purpose of these labels. I prefer to stand on my own, anyway. GSRM has such a clinical nature to it, too. Looks like a term a government would come up with. I can't help but make reference to the use of "(ethnic) minority" in the US, particularly how that reflects on terms like POC. You can make those connections on your own, I don't want to go into it. I do think there's a place for GSRM, just not as something to replace LGBT.

 

On the other hand, LGBT+/LGBTQ is bad and outdated. Being tacked on as "+" feels marginalizing. LGBT et al. LGBT (and others). Hell, even the T was stuck on the back years after GLB/LGB gained popularity. I don't think an acronym that's just a list really works well for this kind of situation. BAME (Black, Asian, and minority ethnic) in the UK has a similar history in many ways, and similar issues. You can't be specific and also be inclusive to those who you are not specifying. I've seen "LGBT+" used sort of passive aggressively by aphobes to intentionally exclude ace-aro spectrum people. It's an entrenched term, though. It won't be replaced easily, and really the biggest thing it has going for it is how common and understandable it is, which GSRM does not have.

 

It looks like no one has brought up just "queer". That's what I identify with myself. Obviously, that has its own issues. Questions about reclamation, who can say what, should a word that can mean "abnormal" be used, all that. It's still used as a slur today. It's an identity in itself, too, not just an umbrella term, which can create friction. Also, I feel that it could potentially still be alienating to some intersex people, but I haven't heard any discourse in relation to that. Although, whether or not an intersex individual identifies with any of these kinds of labels in the first place is a different subject entirely. Queer can be considered more ambiguous than GSRM as well. But it's short and sweet. A lot like "gay". It's more mainstream every day. It's non-hierarchical, unlike LGBT. It's inclusive. It's fluid; you can use it to avoid choosing just one thing or having to make a list. Maybe some people say "I'm LGBT+" or "I'm GSRM", I don't know, but those are awkward. "I'm queer" is not. I think that, how it works as an adjective, gives it a lot of points as a term for identity. LGBT and GSRM are really just awkward wherever they are, though.

Etc. Etc. Queer is personal. Queer is my friend. Would it sound great if I heard my family use it, well...

[Ms. Carolynne]

I'm not sure, I usually go with LGBTQ+ with most people, given GSRM isn't well known.

 

I do like GSRM personally as it's a bit more concise while being more broad, so it can be a useful term when you're trying to be inclusive.

[Strange-quark]

On 3/27/2020 at 6:46 AM, dangerousPerson said:

It looks like no one has brought up just "queer".

Thanks for this input . Yeah, words tend to be difficult...

[GingerRose]

I prefer GSRM, because it's easier to hear and say.

[iff]

@Strange-quark

 

This poll is being locked and moved to the read only Census archive for it's respective year. As part of ongoing Census organisation, and in an attempt to keep the demographics of the polls current with the active user base at the time, the polls will last for one year from now on. However, members are allowed and even encouraged to restart new polls similar to the archived ones if they like them.

  

iff, Census Forum Moderator