I leave the + (and sometimes the Q) out because the initialism is already such a mouthful, but that doesn’t mean that people who don’t quite identify as one of the letters aren’t included. It just means that maybe at some point we need a better term for gender-non-conforming people as a group.
I like the push for blanket “queer” to replace the initialism entirely. I also think the original rainbow flag was perfect and every addition muddles the poignant symbolism of it. It’s all a spectrum, it’s that easy. Granular inclusion is a slippery slope to internalized segregation.
Thats why ‘queer’ gets it. Doesn’t force people into categories doesnt use the inherent hierarchy of linearity doesn’t exclude by silence AND it makes clear the sociopolitical reason why these groups cluster.
I leave the + (and sometimes the Q) out because the initialism is already such a mouthful, but that doesn’t mean that people who don’t quite identify as one of the letters aren’t included. It just means that maybe at some point we need a better term for gender-non-conforming people as a group.
By then we will discover that EVERYONE is in a group somewhere and we’ll have used the entire alphabet but everyone will be a member.
I like the push for blanket “queer” to replace the initialism entirely. I also think the original rainbow flag was perfect and every addition muddles the poignant symbolism of it. It’s all a spectrum, it’s that easy. Granular inclusion is a slippery slope to internalized segregation.
Thats why ‘queer’ gets it. Doesn’t force people into categories doesnt use the inherent hierarchy of linearity doesn’t exclude by silence AND it makes clear the sociopolitical reason why these groups cluster.
Maybe sexual and gender minorities (SGM)? I think I’ve seen that one in academic papers.