hey my uni's LGBT society AGM is this week and one of their proposed constitutional changes is that it extends to LGBTQ. We are allowed to oppose this change and I really want to however I'm struggling to come up with a way to make my argument particuarly convincing to win people over (to get them to vote against the change).
I'm aware that some people chose to identify as "queer" but these people aren't excluded by not extending it as are they not normally part of LGB. There are lots of groups for example asexual who are not included in the LGBT acronym. If were to extend the acronym to include every category it would become incredibly long and more complicated than it already is. If we were to extend it I would hope we would prioritise groups that are not already included in the acronym first. LGBT is know and university understood, it is in line with other UK organisations, I don't feel like there is any need to make it more complicated or change it from what it already is.
Plus all the time and money that would be needed in changing our website, t shirts, business cards for what is a very small gain to a select number of people.
Does anyone have any ideas that I could use for my argument?
To clarify I'm not really asking if you prefer LGBTQ. I could come up with a million reasons for LGBTQ if required. I'm trying to find more reasons for LGBT
Last edited by lekky; 19-03-2012 at 00:56.
Thank you. I am very aware of the reasons why people do want to change it. I was hoping to find more reasons I can put into my speech.
(Original post by dbmag9)
Oxford's society changed this year (maybe the year before) to become LGBTQ; like you say, if you included every possibile adjective it would get stupid, but to my mind 'queer' is pretty all-encompassing - if it were starting from scratch I wouldn't have a problem with it just being the QueerSoc. So LGBTQ is a good middle ground in those terms, since there are people who identify as queer but not as L, G B or T. But at the end of the day it's not that big a deal to me, and I'm pretty sure people know what the society is for either way, which is the important thing.
I doubt the society would be planning on destroying everything with the old name, though, so cost seems like a pretty weak reason not to.
Personally I hate the word queer. Passionately hate it. Can't really explain why.
Last edited by lekky; 19-03-2012 at 02:04.
Sad times. I seriously hate the word queer. It's origins are so insulting and whilst I recognise language develops with time and most LGBT people would not find the word offensive, I'd personally want to hit someone that described my sexuality as queer.
(Original post by Terpsikhore)
No ideas for your argument at all I'm afraid, because I'm all for the addition of -Q to the acronym. Most societies use the Q as a catch-all term for non-hetero-normative/non-cis-normative groups excluded from the traditional LGBT acronym, and I think these groups do
have a place in LGBT* caucuses. Including bisexual people but not pansexual, and transgendered people but not genderqueer or intersex, seems odd to me when so many of the issues faced by the groups are similar.
The Bradford lot used to be called MSGI - Minority Sexual and Gender Identities. I still think that's a much more elegant way of phrasing the whole thing, shame it didn't catch on.
Would asexual people say that 'queer' represents them and their sexuality though?
In our constitution we have Bi* (covering pansexual,etc) rather than bisexual and trans* (covering intersex, genderneutral) rather than transgender. We are well aware that bisexual and transexual don't cover and so use these umbrella terms instead.
As we are so trigger happy with the stars * why don't we change to LGBT*? I mean that's even pretty
Last edited by lekky; 19-03-2012 at 02:04.
And yet gay is becoming/has become a derogatory term - should we shy away from that too?
(Original post by SuperSam_Fantastiche)
I really hate the word queer. You wouldn't find an African society calling themselves "N*****Soc" Would you? Why should we choose such a derogatory word to define someone who isn't L G B or T? I'm with Mike's suggestion of LGBT+, I think it's really damaging to the society's values to define their members with such a nasty word.
For simplicity sake I often "identify with" gay but I prefer queer. Gay ties you down to the homo- and the -sexual. Queer just demonstrates that you do not conform to sexual normativity. Otherwise, homodemisemiquaversexual suits me just fine.
Last edited by thurin; 19-03-2012 at 13:27.
As far as I know (there's probably many definitions, so this is the working definition that I have contrived), queer just means that you're not cis-hetero-sexual. Change one of those and BAM!, you're queer. Any gender or sexual deviance from the normative identities. I don't know whether that includes masculine/feminine social identities or sexual practices (eg. sodomy laws are prescriptive).
(Original post by Tortious)
Forgive my ignorance, but what does "queer" mean?
I've heard the term quite a bit, but generally only in relation to gender. If you don't mind me asking, would your description mean (simplistically) that you fall in the "middle" of the male/female gender spectrum but are attracted to men?
No, I'm most definitely male. I'm still attracted to men, it's just the attraction is rarely sexual. I find it hard to distinguish whom I'm attracted to - I don't think I get the 'primary attraction'. I guess sexual attraction only develops when I get to know someone well, like their insecurities, quirks, ambitions etc. It's not something I choose, believe you me - it's not like people saying 'oh I don't care about looks, I only care about personality blah blah blah *so profound*'. They're the most judgemental people.
No, it's just damn awkward, not knowing whether a relationship has potential Or, maybe I'm just gay and being difficult
Demisexuality and Grey-A
Last edited by thurin; 19-03-2012 at 14:04.