First, the reason I'm starting this thread: I'm seeing 'GLBT' as if it were somehow a replacement for the word 'gay'. It is not. What the initialism GLBT and its variations mean: It stands for various groups who have formed a coalition to advance and defend the rights of its member communities: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender: GLBT. Over time the letters have been shuffled ('LGBT' is just as common as 'GLBT', if not more so). Additional letters have been tacked on to represent additional groups, but there is no singular initialism that enjoys wide acceptance beyond the four core letters 'GLBT', the order of the letters varies, and the inclusion of the umbrella category of 'transgender' represented by the 'T' is not without controversy. It's a real mess. The linked Wikipedia article (yes, I'm referencing Wikipedia for this post, get over it) says there are even acronyms like "FABGLITTER' and "QUILTBAG" floating around. Plus attempts at a more generic description like 'Minority Sexual and Gender Identities' (MSGI). Enough already! I am not some alphabet soup initialism or acronym. I have my own identity, and I don't care to be lumped in with a bunch of other stuff or absorbed by a political coalition - one whose goals I don't always support. If you're using the GLBT initialism because you think it's more 'politically correct' than using the word 'gay', you're mistaken in that assumption. Truthfully, I'm not all that fond of the word 'gay', either - but I'm even less fond of pejoratives like 'queer' or 'homo(sexual)'. I'd prefer others didn't think it their place to label me at all. It's a shortcut to ignoring all the other aspects of who I am as a human being. If there's a need to reference sexual identity, I prefer the accuracy of 'primary same-sex orientation (of attraction)' to describe my personal situation. I know, way too long. So I settle for 'gay', as an adjective. I dislike it's use as a noun, and even more so it's use in plural ('gays'). So please. do NOT call me a 'GLBT'. I am no such thing.
Homosexual is not pejorative, is the technical word. Homosexual is as pejorative as heterosexual, in conclusion nothing. And queer, also is not pejorative in some context. But homosexual never.
Labels are fine, people just read too much into them and apply stereotypes. In the end, I think we've benefitted form them more than been hurt by them. There's no reason we must be identified by them, but if the majority culture won't support your right to be left alone on its own, it can be a necessary evil to group together under an arbitrary identity. I still think you're LGBT though ;-P
Sorry, that was the product of my poor construction; I was referencing the shortened form 'homo', which is commonly used in a pejorative manner. But I have no great love for the word 'homosexual' either. For one, it's a linguistic Frankenstein's monster, a "barbarous hybrid" word composed of greek and latin roots. It also conjures up images of failed 'therapies', like shock therapy and aversion therapy, formerly applied as 'cures' for 'homosexual' 'mental illness'. So, not a fan.
I think the problem centers around the natural ambiguity associated with aberrant sexual behavior. That is...homosexuals are either male or female (typically, outside of odd mutations) yet their sexual actions run aberrant to typical human behavior. This, IMO, causes all kinds of labeling and mis-labeling. This is only natural when a human being is far afield from the accepted 'norm.' For instance, a person with a physical deformity is often emotionally labeled by other normal folks. 'Deaf and Dumb' was an old label applied by most folks to the profoundly deaf. Education and study into deafness and the causes, etc. served to bury that label. Homosexuality is different though, it is decidedly aberrant to human nature however, instead of studying it and trying to find a cure, cause, etc. We are being mandated just to 'accept' it so, each person comes up with their own label for what it is.
I don't try to give offense, but if we're going to talk about this, you have to call it something. If we're going to just call it "that thing you do" or whatever, it's confusing. We can't talk about racism without having to group people into races, we can't talk about sexism without grouping people by gender. If I get X and you don't simply because of some group you're identified with, you can't express than without grouping people. On the streets, you're George or whatever your name is, you're into whatever sports you like, you like Justin Bieber or Lil' Wayne or Garth Brooks. but this forum section is about discussing sexuality, and as such we have to group for the conversation to make sense. I still think of you as a Cubs fan, for what that's worth.
Exactly. There is no problem with the group identity, and it can be helpful in discussion and organization. but the op is correct that thcorrect that there are unintentional and negative consiquences. You create the group label, and it opens up the possibility for incorrect stereotypes to be applied, and to get "bound into " political movements, parts of which you may disagree with, or that you simply think you need to adopt because of the identity. The consiquences can be bad, but at the same time I don't know how the identity can be avoided...
Yes, and my further point is that "GLBT" isn't itself an identifier of some group, but of a coalition; one whose members come from the groups represented by the letters contained in that initialism. It is not representative of the entirety of those populations, and should not be applied as an identifier to individual persons. If we have to label sexuality to talk about it, then use 'gay' or 'homosexual". "GLBT" isn't a descriptor of an individual's sexuality.
Definitions of aberrant: "Departing from an accepted standard". "Diverging from the normal type". Neither of which supports leaping to a conclusion that there is a need for... This is presuming that same-sex orientation is a problem in need of a solution. I am not persuaded that this is true. Whining. You control your own mind. You decide what you will or won't accept. What is it that you imagine you're being 'mandated' to 'accept'? Its existence? Rather silly to pretend it doesn't exist. Is it your position that people should have a label forced upon them, rather than having the freedom to choose a label for aspects of their identity that they find fittingly descriptive?
On the contrary, it's my goal to shine a light on the abuse of language, and it's employment as a tool to abuse others.
On the same token, it would be inaccurate to say that "GLBT" or any other variation represents any single ideology, coalition, movement, political or social agenda... nobody "owns" the label, as far as I'm aware, and the goals and tactics of the groups and "members" within can be quite different. So even if you apply the "LGBT" label, to me it doesn't necessarily carry much meaning... the term itself is arbitrary and loosely defined by individuals who've faced similar discrimination and rejection for similar reasons.
Agreed. My point being that it doesn't carry any meaning, because it's not a label applicable to an individual. Are you lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? It is evident to me that no one can simultaneously be a lesbian, a gay man, and bisexual. To say they can renders the accepted meaning of those identifiers null and void. (emphasis added) Further making my point. GLBT encompasses a plurality of individuals. No one person is a "GLBT".
Homosexuality is departing from an accepted standard, and diverging from normal. Men have penises, women have vaginas, they were meant to couple and procreate. Homosexual marriage is being shoved down the throats of normal heterosexuals and AIDS has been unleashed on the population by Gays. If it weren't for that, nobody would care what homosexuals do to each other. No, I am saying that instead of getting all 'up in arms' when anyone mentions that homosexuality just might be aberrant maybe you ought to consider studying your condition? Find out why some folks go completely opposite of what nature has endowed them. Maybe it IS physical, maybe it is coerced by other aberrant folks....Who knows? Oddities are always labeled by others until a deeper understanding is forthcoming.
Which still doesn't mean it's a problem in need of a solution. Procreation is not the only use that humans make of those organs. This overly simplistic view of human sexuality likewise doesn't mean that homosexuality is a problem in need of a solution. More whining. No one has any obligation to pretend to be heterosexual or completely non-sexual for your comfort. False blame, demonizing. There is no evidence that HIV/AIDS is created by homosexuality, and no credible evidence that its initial introduction into the straight population came from contact with gay people. Demonstrably false. Laws criminalizing same-sex conduct existed long before the rise of HIV/AIDS or the current fight for marriage equality. People care because their religion tells them that homosexuality should be condemned. When the claim is made in an effort to demonize, I most certainly will point that out, and it's very clearly the case here. At the moment, I'm more interested in figuring out why some folks insist upon portraying their opinions (like the above) as fact. Having a penis or vagina doesn't endow someone with heterosexual feelings of attraction. The research surrounding the origins of same-sex attraction is incomplete, but continues to point in the direction of epigenetics, exposure and reaction to hormones in the womb environment as potential influences that create an inborn predisposition toward same-sex orientation in some individuals. You aren't in a position to say what someone is or isn't endowed with by nature on an individual basis, and most certainly not with regard to orientation. The idea that people of same-sex orientation are going "completely opposite of what nature has endowed" is an opinion shaped by personal bias, not an interest in the facts. Certainly not you, all pretense to the contrary notwithstanding. Trotting out the old "homosexuals recruit" propaganda noted. The prejudice being expressed here is so transparent as to be almost laughable. Referring to people as "oddities" is just another demonizing tactic - one that is not obscured by the pretense of expressing a desire for a deeper understanding. When people start asking persons of same-sex orientation for information about their lives instead of telling us what we're supposed to think, feel, or understand about our sexuality, perhaps they'll learn something. I don't see a desire to actually learn evident in the things that have been posted above; just a desire to control and demean a group of people you don't want to understand.
Well of course, and I don't think anyone uses the label in that way. The label doesn't imply that you are all such things at the same time, rather that they all debatably have something in common. I rarely hear the term used to describe one's individual orientation, so I guess I just don't see where your objection is coming from in the first place. The label itself can be applied to the individual, indicating they are part of the group of people that fall under that label because of the ridicule and discrimination they face for similar reasons: gender non-conformity. But that label need not indicate anything more than that.
