Disclaimer: I’m not making fun of queer people, I’m making fun of the acronym.

  • Acinonyx@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    if the ‘+’ includes every not mentioned gender/sexuality anyways, why can’t we just say ‘L+’?

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I get the criticism, but most countries are not in the term “The United Nations” either. It feels possible to make a grouped, organized label that supports minority sexuality groups and opposes bigotry.

      • Acinonyx@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Also why I throw the whole thing out and just call us all something else.

        true equality would either be just ‘+’, without any letters, or including every letter, which seems impossible.

        or like you said, something completely else. I personally like - hear me out - ‘alphabet people’. I understand that rightoids use this term as an insult so it isn’t usable, which is a shame, because apart from its negative connotation it has a few nice upsides:

        • sexualities/genders are being abbreviated by single letters already and since the alphabet contains all letters, everyone is included

        • ‘people’ is completely neutral towards everyone as well

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Because L+ is the only streaming service I’d pay for

      Seriously though the history of lgbt as an acronym comes down to the fact that it began with gay men and lesbians organizing separately and bi and trans people being part of those organizations, but bisexual and trans groups began differentiating and separately organizing while we all began realizing we needed to work together more in order to actually change things.