Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

As the title says, can we change the acronym of LGBTQ to something like HBTQ? I have no idea why the words Lesbian and Gay are separated. I don't even know why the word Lesbian exists! The words lesbian and gay have the exact same definition, except society at some point decided men and women should have segregated words. I can't be the only person here who thinks the LG in LGBTQ is redundant, am I?

That’s a decent point. If you meet a homosexual male, they're gay. You meet a homosexual female, they're gay AND a lesbian? It’s redundant and pointless.

Personal, the acronym Sexual and Gender Minorities (SGMs) is what I would change it to, It's equally inclusive of both many orientation and gender minorities, and it's simple.

But it's not like everyone will immediately switch from what's commonly used by everyone to an alternative just because it's a little redundant, You can't really replace a wellknown acronym like that, And the acronym seem's just fine as it is for what everyone uses it for in discussion and debate.

I suppose if you're online looking for someone to hook up with and you're on a semi-anonymous website (i.e. people's gender isn't necessarily clear from the get-go), and the profile of a person says "I'm gay", assuming the word lesbian doesn't exist you're still at a loss for whether or not they're the "kind" of gay that you're looking for. It's a similar situation for places like gay bars- it's rarely if ever both "kinds" in the same joint, for obvious reasons. So now the place has to clarify: "male gay bar" or "female gay bar". Now add in that word, and it becomes a little more convenient.
I do agree that the way it's used in the initialism (it's not an acronym, goddamn it!) is sorta kinda a little bit pointless and redundant, but eh, what are ya gonna do?

Where did the Q come from?
Is it Queer?

The Q in HBTQ is Questioning, where one is unsure of their sexuality. They can be on any range in the Kinsey Scale, even exclusive heterosexual, but if they aren't sure if they fit anywhere else, they are Q.

The reason the two words are segregated are because their meanings came up from different time periods. Lesbian comes from Greek origin, specifically the island of Lesbos, where Sapphos (the origin of the word Sapphic which also means lesbian) and multiple women on the island would have sex with each other. Gay in terms of meaning a homosexual came much later, therefore it was a convenience to distinguish a homosexual man as gay and a homosexual woman as a lesbian.

I think it would be significantly better to combine Lesbian and gay into homosexual for the acronym. However, the reason L and G are there are to signify that both men and women are part of this movement. It's essentially to place assurance that people of all sexualities, genders, and orientations are welcome amongst each other. So people are a little more lenient on keeping it the same so as to appeal to more members and ease them in a bit more openly.

Gay can refer to both sexes, but typically used towards males, while lesbian is specifically female.
I don't really see the problem. If anything is redundant, its Q.

HBTQ wouldn't work because Homo and Hetero both begin with H

L and G are separated because lesbians are actually hot.

Quite honestly it feels inconsequential. And I don't even think Q is part of the LGBT official acronym since when you are fighting for LGBT rights, you aren't fighting for the rights of the people questioning since they still have their rights.

Personally I think MOGAI (Marginalized Orientations, Gender identities, And Intersex) works better as an all inclusive thing than LGBTQ+. Making an acronym for all of related groups groups that people want to include can get ridiculous.

"Marginalized" is a very subjective word
MOGAI is too inclusive, since, literally ever sexual orientation is marginalized.

MOGAI makes no sense to me, LGBT makes the most sense as it includes everyone of the non-heterosexual sexuality, which is who we are talking about.

I see two problems with this:
1. Why would you want to use a moniker that has your own "marginalization" built into it? Sure, that might be very much true in most parts of the world today, but isn't kinda the whole point of it being a badge of "pride" to make you feel better about yourself? That'd sorta be like the NAACP calling themselves FERA instead: "Formerly Enslaved Race Association".
2. I don't know if it's just me, but I'd find it very hard to take people using it seriously, i.e. in rights marches and things like that. It's something about that particular order of sounds.

The word "queer" is used a lot in academia as a kind of umbrella term. So, for example, if you were a philosopher or sociologist studying the cultural effects of sexual orientation, you would say you were studying "queer theory."

An umbrella term works a lot better than an acronym. In, say, LGBT, every letter represents one distinct identity group – lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people. If you want to expand your coverage (say, for example, to asexuals) you have to add a letter, and that can get cumbersome pretty fast. Using a single word to designate, in a syllable, any sexual orientation or gender identity which is outside the norm, adds a lot of flexibility and reduces the chance of unintentionally excluding people.

So perhaps it would be a good idea to, instead of developing a new acronym, give this sense of the word "queer" wider usage.

I approve of this and the "queer" word. Queerfolks is a great name for people too. However, are asexuals "queer" per se…?

Depends on how you go about defining it.

I figure, playing off the word's original meaning ("strange" or "unusual") we can use it to cover any kind of sexuality that's non-heterosexual or non-cisexual, whatever form that takes – i.e. outside the norm. Since heterosexuality presumes sexual attraction, asexuality would be covered.

It just depends on what your talking about.

expanding LGBT is only meaningful when your are talking about the expanded group.

When you are talking about a group that is being oppressed, you are going to say LGBT, your not going to include asexuals or who ever else since, while they are under-represented, aren't being oppressed.

yea… I never understood the gay/lesbian word separation…

^Pretty much.

Damn. Uhh…. I got nothin. GBTQ? No, it would take Tumblr several months to warm up to that.