• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

What Do You Think About LGBT vs GSRM?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HUELEN10

Member
Feb 29, 2008
26,480
3,008
1,820
I've been having talking with friends recently and there are a lot of people I know with very opposing views. Since GAF has a decent chunk of both non-heterosexual people and non-heterosexual supporters/allies/activists/etc, I wanted to get an outside opinion on the issue of the terminology. For those not in the know LGBT (or GLBT as some places call it) stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. Simple enough right? GSRM is another term, and it stands for Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities. As you can see, the two terms are not interchanagble, yet there is a growing number of people that want GSRM to be the term used by the people and the media when talking about stuff like orientations and stuff like that. Here are some of the pros and cons I have personally either dealt with or seen.

LGBT Pros
  1. It's mainstream and most people know what it means and entails.
  2. It focuses mainly on sexual orientations, which to many is all that matters in the LGBT as far as civl rights is concerned.
LGBT Cons
  1. Transgender: A lot of people say that the T doesn't belong in the acronym because LG and B or orientations, and transgenderism is simply the state of one's gender identity not matching one's assigned genitals, not an orientaiton (a valid point). That, and there actually exist gay and lesbian people (trust me, I know because I've spoken with them) that think that trans poeple should not be lumped with them because of (truly hateful IMO) things like "I was born this way, my sexuality is not a choice, but those trannies are fucked in the head, mooching off the civil rights we fought for".
  2. Redundancy: Gay and lesbian? Why? When people use terms like heterosexual or straight, there is no distinction made with men or women. Some people think the G and L should be replaced with H for homosexual, and others believe gay should emcompass both gay and lesbian. Other still make the point that using both gay and lesbian promotes sexism.
  3. Lack of orientations, and complete focus on binary ones: Pansexuality, Asexuality, Polysexuality, and Androphilia/Gynephilia are not included in LGBT.
  4. Allies: Some people think that LGBT supporters are nice and all, but not actually part of the LGBT (since, you know, they're not gay; they're just allies). As such, a lot of people add letters to LGBT, which leads us to...
  5. Letter meaning: LGBTAQETC? What is A? Ally? Asexual? What is Q? Queer? Questioning? Quiche ("it's pretty fucking gay, that's why I asked" is something I've actually been told when someone asked me if Q mean quiche.)? Too much confusion.

GSRM Pros
  1. It is all-inclusive to all sexual orientations, gender statuses, and romantic orientations, and it binary and non-binary friendly. Gays, Bisexuals, Pansexuals, Aces, Trans people, agendered people, and everyone else is included.

GSRM Cons
  1. It sounds too all-inclusive: GSRM is about pretty much all (what some would call) non-heteronormative genders, sexual orientations, and romantic orientations, and that's it. One of the issues is that some fetishist think it includes them, and some straight flurries and straight bondage enthusiasts believe they are included in the GSRM The fact that you are kinky doesn't mean you are part of the GSRM.
  2. Minorities: Some non-heterosexual people have a problem with being labeled as a minority.

Personally, I think it would be easiest to say if you're not heterosexual, you're queer, but that to many still carries negative connotations, and I respect that. Personally, I prefer the GSRM term because it is more inclusive, and at the same time shows that gender, sexuality, and romance are all different things, different things not worth hating a motherfucker for, and things that should have no bearing on how you are treated by other people. That being said, what is your take on this GAF? Are the dangers of sounding too all-inclusive truly real if GSRM becomes more popular? Will LGBT over time change to be more inclusive to other sexualities, bringing more gender into the field, and also adding romantic preferences?
 

maxcriden

Member
Sep 15, 2013
34,163
1
815
www.neogaf.com
I've never heard GSRM. I think this is the very first time I've ever heard of it. Is it in popular use at all amongst the LGBTQIA/GSRM communities?
 

Escape Goat

Member
Jun 6, 2004
76,415
1
0
39
DC
I've never heard GSRM. I think this is the very first time I've ever heard of it. Is it in popular use at all amongst the LGBTQIA/GSRM communities?

I have never heard of it either. I am still trying to wrap my head around polyamorous and pansexual.
 

Trouble

Banned
Jul 22, 2009
15,874
3
0
I think people have come to use LGBT to mean anyone who isn't straight and cisgender. I'm not sure trying to force a new acronym into the public's consciousness would accomplish much.
 

HUELEN10

Member
Feb 29, 2008
26,480
3,008
1,820
Honestly, I didn't hear about GSRM till mid-2014 while at my college's LGBT center for a function. This was only the second year they were being fully open to pansexual, asexual, and homosexual transgendered people (aka MTFs who like girls and FTMs who like boys); the management before that was pretty... pretty shitty and quite discriminatory actually.

The fact that the LGBT center might change its name to GSRM says something when it comes to the shift.
 
Dec 11, 2012
22,028
2
0
Sure is a lot of acronyms.

Too many for me to ever keep track of, which probably doesn't bold well for the general public.
 

Sai-kun

Banned
Sep 16, 2007
22,465
9
0
Chicago, IL
I pretty much agree with your pros and cons. Especially in regards to how over inclusive GSRM could be.

For me, it's one thing to talk about LGB and T rights, and 'GSRM rights' just doesn't convey the same weight, in my eyes.

Until things change in a major way, I'll stick with saying LGBT. I still have issues with that acronym too, though, like the inclusion of allies, but that's for another place, I think.
 

Unbounded

Member
Apr 8, 2012
2,832
0
0
Wouldn't GSRM save a ton of work since people tack letters for everything else on the end of 'LGBT(QIA)' anyways?
 

impact

Banned
Aug 14, 2011
12,137
0
0
Why not call us 'special-people'. That will totally distract everyone from the fact that we still get discriminated.

or just 'people' like the rest of us

you guys aren't that different, I dunno why you need a label to try and be :|
 

gerg

Member
Dec 6, 2008
7,278
0
0
Like any identity, I don't think there's any way of identifying the LGBT+ community without in some way being disjunctive and excluding a group of people who might otherwise fit into that definition, unless you manually list every possible identity (and its permutations), which is impractical. Even a broad term like "queer" has its issues, as you describe, in not relating to people who aren't "straight" but don't feel "queer", like myself.

I wonder if a solution is, perhaps paradoxically, the disestablishment of these identities to begin with, or some way of configuring them as plastic and flexible, rather than concrete.
 

Platy

Member
Nov 26, 2009
37,140
6
880
Brazil
"Gender Minority" has 2 problems :

1 - you can put cis women there
2- most transgender people have the same gender of all cisgender people. "transgender" is NOT a gender. "male" is a gender and "female" is a gender and you have both transgender and cisgender people who has those genders.
 

Always-honest

Banned
Jan 11, 2008
41,668
1
0
Boy, people from the US sure love the use of acronymes :p
I'm not from the US and i have never heard of these or why i should use them.
 

Hours Left

Member
Jun 28, 2006
33,614
1
0
LGBT and GSMR are not interchangeable IMO. GSMR is too catch all/diluted.

When it comes to issues like this, I'm sticking with LGBT for now.
 

Juicy Bob

Member
Sep 13, 2009
13,186
0
0
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but is there not an element who wish to reclaim 'queer' as a positive, all-encompassing term?
 

gerg

Member
Dec 6, 2008
7,278
0
0
or just 'people' like the rest of us

you guys aren't that different, I dunno why you need a label to try and be :|

I think the framing of the label "LGBT+" (and its constituents) as a way of trying to be different is unhelpful, insensitive, and partly mischaracterises the reason labels such as that exist, namely that they are useful ways of describing and locating a keenly felt difference by those that prescribe them. Certainly, those labels then go on and encourage people to perceive difference, but it is ultimately a two-way relationship.
 

collige

Banned
Nov 12, 2012
4,892
0
445
The average person has enough with the L and G parts of LGBT so I don't think changing it will make too much of a difference right now, but GSRM is way better than tacking more letters onto LGBT.
 

Mumei

Member
Dec 31, 2005
19,823
0
1,580
I had never heard of GSRM. I don't suppose I can think of a reason to be against it, but I don't think I'll be adopting it myself.
 

HUELEN10

Member
Feb 29, 2008
26,480
3,008
1,820
Prefer QUILTBAG
Not gonna lie, I don't hate QULITBAG myself...

For those not in the know: Queer, undecided, intersex, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, asexual, gay)
"Gender Minority" has 2 problems :

1 - you can put cis women there
2- most transgender people have the same gender of all cisgender people. "transgender" is NOT a gender. "male" is a gender and "female" is a gender and you have both transgender and cisgender people who has those genders.
1. No, you can't. Last I checked, the world was full of female-identifying people who were born with female genitals; it doesn't cover them.
2. Well, yeah; no one is saying otherwise. Problem is, male and female are quite binary, GSRM covers those people. Besides, Sexual orientation, Gender identity, and romantic preference are all 3 different things.

For the record, one of my friends is a male-born female transexual (as in actually got the surgery down there) who identifies as an agendered gynephiliac. They have been shunned by their LGBT community for being "special snowflake material" as they put it. GSRM covers people like this.
 

Sai-kun

Banned
Sep 16, 2007
22,465
9
0
Chicago, IL
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but is there not an element who wish to reclaim 'queer' as a positive, all-encompassing term?

Reclaiming words like that can be complicated. Me personally, I find it empowering sometimes, but since it's still a word based on a difference in power between the oppressed and an oppressor, it can still be tough to not be hurt by it since it still represents a discrepancy in power, and still is loaded with hatred because people still use it that way. Sorry if that's not totally clear. I understand it in my head but it's tough to put into exact words haha.

Soooo it's a weird thing, but I refer to myself as queer, but if someone on the street called me queer, I'd probably be upset.
 

gerg

Member
Dec 6, 2008
7,278
0
0
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but is there not an element who wish to reclaim 'queer' as a positive, all-encompassing term?

My personal criticism of the term "queer" is the assumption that being gay necessarily makes you (sufficiently) different, and thus queer, to begin with. Even if it is viewed as unreservedly positive, what of those people who aren't straight but don't feel so different from "straight" culture and identity?

1. No, you can't. Last I checked, the world was full of female-identifying people who were born with female genitals; it doesn't cover them.
2. Well, yeah; no one is saying otherwise. Problem is, male and female are quite binary, GSRM covers those people. Besides, Sexual orientation, Gender identity, and romantic preference are all 3 different things.

I believe the suggestion is that in certain, smaller, contexts, where there is a large bias towards male births, there are geographic areas with (local) minorities of women, cis or not. But I think that argument would be easy to refute by stating that "GRSM" would have a global context (or perhaps a biological context, if that is also defensible) in its definition.
 

Sai-kun

Banned
Sep 16, 2007
22,465
9
0
Chicago, IL
My personal criticism of the term "queer" is the assumption that being gay necessarily makes you (sufficiently) different, and thus queer, to begin with. Even if it is viewed as unreservedly positive, what of those people who aren't straight but don't feel so different from "straight" culture and identity?

masc4masc straight-acting only

kidding don't hurt me <3
 

gerg

Member
Dec 6, 2008
7,278
0
0
masc4masc straight-acting only

kidding don't hurt me <3

Lol, I actually think that the whole "masc" and "straight-acting" element of gay culture is really interesting, in that it highlights a not-insignificant percentage of the gay male population who don't find gay identity liberating and approachable, but actively restricting instead. Those terms are doubtlessly problematic in their own right (in only really perpetuating heteronormative or sexist power dynamics), but IMO it shows the inherent problem in locating an identity in a site of difference, whether or not that is desired by those who hold that identity.
 

azyless

Member
Jun 18, 2014
2,628
0
0
France
Me and my friends use LGBT as kind of an umbrella term these days (still not a fan of "queer" but I know a lot of people have started using it as well). GSRM would be too inclusive when I see the kind of stuff people claim being "oppressed" for.
I also think that con about Gay and Lesbian being redundant is pretty ignorant but eh.
 

HUELEN10

Member
Feb 29, 2008
26,480
3,008
1,820
"Ally" is such a dumb concept.
I don't have a problem with people, but I think the term is quite flawed when it is included in any LGBT-type acronym for obvious reasons (allies can't be queer).
 

Platy

Member
Nov 26, 2009
37,140
6
880
Brazil
1. No, you can't. Last I checked, the world was full of female-identifying people who were born with female genitals; it doesn't cover them.
2. Well, yeah; no one is saying otherwise. Problem is, male and female are quite binary, GSRM covers those people. Besides, Sexual orientation, Gender identity, and romantic preference are all 3 different things.

For the record, one of my friends is a male-born female transexual (as in actually got the surgery down there) who identifies as an agendered gynephiliac. They have been shunned by their LGBT community for being "special snowflake material" as they put it. GSRM covers people like this.

I mean more ... there 2 "popular" genders ... one of those happens more than the other. The other is a minority in comparison to the one who happens more.

GSRM covers MINORITIES. If there are more males than females in the world, trans men will not be minorities since they have the gender that most happens in the world. It is NOT a gender MINORITY.

"Ally" is such a dumb concept.

I read once that it was created so closeted people would feel welcome in LGBT spaces
 
Dec 11, 2012
22,028
2
0
Me and my friends use LGBT as kind of an umbrella term these days (still not a fan of "queer" but I know a lot of people have started using it as well). GSRM would be too inclusive when I see the kind of stuff people claim being "oppressed" for.
I also think that con about Gay and Lesbian being redundant is pretty ignorant but eh.



Why? Lesbian is just a more specified version of gay that only applies to girls, while gay can be used for both sexes.

Unless I'm missing something.
 
Apr 14, 2008
10,656
1
0
New Orleans
"Queer" just sounds insulting to me. Dunno why.

Can somebody help me to better understand the nuances differentiating bisexuality, pansexuality, and polysexuality?

From what I'm reading on Wikipedia, it seems that pansexuality/polysexualtiy came into usage as a response to a rigidness thought to be inherent to bisexuality, but to me bisexuality always just meant "somebody who isn't specifically gay or straight", with its name merely alluding to the idea that there are two choices (heterosexuality, homosexuality) because, at the time of the word's creation, we hadn't really identified any other alternatives.
 

Juicy Bob

Member
Sep 13, 2009
13,186
0
0
Reclaiming words like that can be complicated. Me personally, I find it empowering sometimes, but since it's still a word based on a difference in power between the oppressed and an oppressor, it can still be tough to not be hurt by it since it still represents a discrepancy in power, and still is loaded with hatred because people still use it that way. Sorry if that's not totally clear. I understand it in my head but it's tough to put into exact words haha.

Soooo it's a weird thing, but I refer to myself as queer, but if someone on the street called me queer, I'd probably be upset.
No, I totally get you.
 

gerg

Member
Dec 6, 2008
7,278
0
0
"Queer" just sounds insulting to me. Dunno why.

Can somebody help me to better understand the nuances differentiating bisexuality, pansexuality, and polysexuality?

From what I'm reading on Wikipedia, it seems that pansexuality/polysexualtiy came into usage as a response to a rigidness thought to be inherent to bisexuality, but to me bisexuality always just meant "somebody who isn't specifically gay or straight", with its name merely alluding to the idea that there are two choices (heterosexuality, homosexuality) because, at the time of the word's creation, we hadn't really identified any other alternatives.

I think people identify as "pansexual" or "polysexual" because, to them, "bisexual" implies a gender binary which they don't feel exists. Apparently "pansexual" then suggest an attraction to all genders and sexes, where "polysexual" would suggest an attraction to many different genders and sexes. I'm neither pansexual or polysexual myself, though, so I shouldn't be considered an authority on the matter.
 

azyless

Member
Jun 18, 2014
2,628
0
0
France
[/B]

Why? Lesbian is just a more specified version of gay that only applies to girls, while gay can be used for both sexes.

Unless I'm missing something.

I'm not talking about it in that sense, I'm a lesbian and I almost always prefer to use the word gay when referring to myself. This acronym is using gay as in "gay male" though, and I'm simply saying that gay males and females deal with different issues and lumping them together is (imo) not a good idea.
Not that I would go crazy if it was or anything, it's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
 

Kangi

Member
Dec 30, 2011
6,519
0
0
www.rainn.org
Can somebody help me to better understand the nuances differentiating bisexuality, pansexuality, and polysexuality?

From what I'm reading on Wikipedia, it seems that pansexuality/polysexualtiy came into usage as a response to a rigidness thought to be inherent to bisexuality, but to me bisexuality always just meant "somebody who isn't specifically gay or straight", with its name merely alluding to the idea that there are two choices (heterosexuality, homosexuality) because, at the time of the word's creation, we hadn't really identified any other alternatives.

In theory, the distinction is that bisexuals are still specifically attracted to male and female features, but pansexuals are potentially attracted to everyone, including anybody on the trans* spectrum ("love people, not their gender"). Bisexuals like both sides of the coin, but pansexuals like the rim between them just as well. There's a lot of overlap, though.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
No one's ever heard of that second acronym. Stick with what people know.

Also, seconding "Queer" being something that makes me uncomfortable as a term.
 
Apr 14, 2008
10,656
1
0
New Orleans
In theory, the distinction is that bisexuals are still specifically attracted to male and female features, but pansexuals are potentially attracted to everyone, including anybody on the trans* specturm ("love people, not their gender"). Bisexuals like both sides of the coin, but pansexuals like the rim between them just as well. There's a lot of overlap, though.

Yeah, I suspected there would be. I wonder if making the term bisexual so rigid renders it sort of useless.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Dec 5, 2005
51,641
6
0
I can see how the second term is trying to be more inclusive by including room for all varieties of non-mainstream orienations... but it might water down the mission a bit.

LGBT is like an agenda... a bundle of 4 action points that must be checked off which addresses specific types of marginalized people. "We want support for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Trangenders, no more no less". It has a clear goal that focuses the movement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.