LG+

LGBTIQQAP….?

I am Queer. “Queer” is almost purged of prejudice: in the Universities, people do queer studies, many of us call ourselves queer, though I have met men who have been bullied and assaulted with the word. I want the big tent, including everyone, for nobody is “normal”- a woman who was insistent to me that she was Not Lesbian-

oh, you poor thing, having to have sex with heavy, sweaty men-

has more recently told me that she was thinking of experimenting.

I want to include as many as possible. I don’t know the difference between bisexual and pansexual, but pansexuals do. So stop growing the abbreviation. LGBT is recognised, but does not include everyone. There are far fewer trans folk than gays- four thousand gender recognition certificates in the UK- but T deserves to be in, because for everyone it is a gender identity issue: nobody fits the stereotype “man” or “woman”, but queers fit it less than most.

Intersex, or Disorders of Sexual Development? Is having physical differences different from having mental differences? If they feel it is, then it is; but trying to identify with the Normal people means always having to put on an act, never being able to be yourself; it means that for everyone, not just queers.

What about those extremely feminine men with masculine women? They are heterosexual, but hardly stereotypical. Some of them keep very very quiet about it, and we don’t even have a name for them. Bring them in.

The other Q is “Questioning”, which means most teenagers. A is for Asexual, and Ally- so all decent people are in. So “Queer” means everyone. Welcome to the big tent.

Degas, at the milliner

9 thoughts on “LG+

  1. I am the first to admit that the abbreviation is beginning to get silly – I have taken to using “LGBTQIA” as a ‘catch-all’, despite the fact that it still has limitations.

    When you think about it, it is bloody abysmal we have to use labels in 2015. After all, one does not see anything to do with “cishet” issues – and most cisgender / heterosexuals wouldn’t know what the hell “cishet” means anyway. But then again, because of privilege, cishet people don’t need labels.

    Pansexuals do not differentiate in sexual partners, be they cis, trans, straight, gay, bi, intersex, whatever – we see the person, not the gender or sexuality. As you can see, that is a far cry from bisexuality, yet I still don’t add the “P” in my abbreviation but rely on “B” as a (somewhat innacurate) catch-all.

    You say it yourself that LGBT is recognised but it excludes some. Herein lies the problem. As a genderqueer pansexual, I take personal exception to that. There are some who try to add genderqueer under the “transgender umbrella”. Now, I think that’s wholly inaccurate, and I’m sure as a trans woman, you would agree with me on that.

    I really don’t have a problem with “queer”, in the context of describing genderqueer. I am also quite fond of referring to myself as queer (beleive me dear, they don’t come much more ‘queer’ than me – in all contexts of the word).

    LG+? Nope, sorry, I don’t like it. It sounds like a bloody motor oil. I have seen LGBT+ a few times, and I kind of like that.

    However, if I’m getting you right here, perhaps we should all of us (that is anyone neither cisgender or heterosexual) throw of the negative connotations of ‘queer’ and use it as a catch-all for all of us?

    Like

    • Yes. I like the word “Queer”. If it loses its negativity, and even “gay” has had some negativity, it fits as well as anything, and draws people together.

      I understood “trans” was coined to include everyone. In Law, there is the great gulf between the transsexual- permanently committed to changing expression across the binary, and causing physical changes- who is protected by the Equality Act, and everyone else, who might be referred to as “transgendered”. Trans covered both, but- not necessarily consistently- trans* means those escaping the binary.

      Sometime today, I am dropping electronics for a week, including the blog.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Wow,very thought provoking post! When talking about non – Hetero – normative/ non traditional male/ female archetypes, you don’t normally think about straight people. Makes sense though! It’s an interesting paradox in a way. On one hand, people obsess about the ‘norm’ when it comes to sexuality and gender identity, yet, not all straight people, the ‘normal ones’ so to speak, don’t always fit the pigeonholes themselves.

    Like

How do you feel about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s