#GSRM Issues | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

knick-nudiex · 3 days ago

Text

LGBTQ (also commonly seen as LGBT, LGBT+, LGBTQ+, LGBTQIA, and LGBTQIA+) is an initialism for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning. It is an umbrella term, originating in the United States, broadly referring to all sexualities, romantic orientations, sex characteristics, and gender identities that are not heterosexual, heteroromantic, cisgender, or endosex.

In the 1990s, gay, lesbian, and bisexual activists adopted the initialism LGB. Terminology eventually shifted to LGBT, as transgender people gained recognition. Around that time, some activists began to reclaim the term queer, seeing it as a more radical and inclusive umbrella term, though others reject it, due to its history as a pejorative. In recognition of this, the 2010s saw the adoption of LGBTQ, and other more inclusive variants.

Some versions of the term, such as LGBT+ and LGBTQ+ add a plus sign, to represent additional identities not captured within the acronym. Many further variants exist which add additional identities, such as LGBTQIA+ (for intersex, asexual, aromantic, and agender) and 2SLGBTQ+ (for two-spirit), LGBTQQ (for queer and questioning), or which order the letters differently, as in GLBT and GLBTQ.

LGBTQ people collectively form the LGBTQ community, though not all LGBTQ people participate in or consider themselves part of a broader community. These labels are not universally agreed upon by everyone that they are intended to include. For example, some intersex people prefer to be included in this grouping, while others do not. Various alternative umbrella terms exist across various cultures, including queer; same gender loving (SGL); and Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities (GSRM).

History of the term

Further information: Terminology of homosexuality

First use of the words Monosexual, Homosexual, and Heterosexual in a letter written on 6 May 1868

The first widely used term, homosexual, now a term used primarily in scientific contexts, has at times carried negative connotations in the United States. Gay became a popular term in the 1970s.

As lesbians forged more public identities, the phrase gay and lesbian became more common. A dispute as to whether the primary focus of their political aims should be feminism or gay rights led to the dissolution of some lesbian organizations, including Daughters of Bilitis, which was founded by Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, but disbanded in 1970 following disputes over which goal should take precedence. As equality was a priority for lesbian feminists, disparity of roles between men and women or butch and femme were viewed as patriarchal. Lesbian feminists eschewed gender role play that had been pervasive in bars as well as the perceived chauvinism of gay men; many lesbian feminists refused to work with gay men or take up their causes.

Lesbians who held the essentialist view that they had been born homosexual and used the descriptor lesbian to define sexual attraction often considered the separatist opinions of lesbian-feminists to be detrimental to the cause of gay rights. Bisexual and transgender people also sought recognition as legitimate categories within the larger minority community.

In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, after the elation of change following group action in the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City, some gays and lesbians became less accepting of bisexual or transgender people. Critics[like whom?] said that transgender people were acting out stereotypes, and bisexuals were simply gay men or lesbian women who were afraid to come out and be honest about their identity. Each community has struggled to develop its own identity including whether, and how, to align with other gender and sexuality-based communities, at times excluding other subgroups; these conflicts continue to this day. LGBTQ activists and artists have created posters to raise consciousness about the issue since the movement began.

LGBT publications, pride parades, and related events, such as this stage at Bologna Pride 2008 in Italy, increasingly drop the LGBT initialism instead of regularly adding new letters and dealing with issues of placement of those letters within the new title

From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States. Not until the 1990s within the movement did gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people gain equal respect. This spurred some organizations to adopt new names, as the GLBT Historical Society did in 1999. Although the LGBT community has seen much controversy regarding universal acceptance of different member groups (bisexual and transgender individuals, in particular, have sometimes been marginalized by the larger LGBT community), the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion.

Beginning in the 1990s, the term queer was beginning to be adopted by the community to support gay-pride and reclaim the term from its earlier pejorative use as scholars have shown. The field of study of the LGBTQ community is called queer studies, in recognition of this reclamation and used as an umbrella term for the wider community as the academic response to the Stonewall riots. The acronym LGBT eventually evolved to LGBTQ in recognition of the community's reclamation of the term.

In 2016, GLAAD's Media Reference Guide states that LGBTQ is the preferred initialism, being more inclusive of younger members of the communities who embrace queer as a self-descriptor. Some people consider queer to be a derogatory term originating in hate speech and reject it, especially among older members of the community.

Variants

For a more comprehensive list, see List of LGBTQ acronyms.

2010 pride parade in Plaza de Mayo, Buenos Aires, which used the LGBTIQ initialism

Many variants of the term LGBT exist, such as the more inclusive LGBT+, and variations that change the order of the letters or include additional letters. At least some of the components of sexuality (regarding hetero, bi, straight), and also gender are stated to be on different spectrums of sexuality. Other common variants also exist, such as LGBTQIA, with the I standing for intersex and the A standing for asexual, aromantic, or agender, and LGBTQIA+, where "the '+' represents those who are part of the community, but for whom LGBTQ does not accurately capture or reflect their identity". Longer initialisms have been criticized as confusing or unwieldy, sometimes being referred to as "alphabet soup", and mocked with labels such as LGBTQWERTY, LGBTQXYZ, and alphabet mafia. The implication that the initialism refers to a single community is also controversial.

Although identical in meaning, LGBT may have a more feminist connotation than GLBT as it places the "L" (for "lesbian") first. LGBT may also include additional Qs for "queer" or "questioning" (sometimes abbreviated with a question mark and sometimes used to mean anybody not literally L, G, B or T) producing the variants LGBTQ and LGBTQQ. The order of the letters has not been standardized; in addition to the variations between the positions of the initial "L" or "G", the mentioned, less common letters, if used, may appear in almost any order. In Hebrew and Peninsular Spanish, LGTB (להט"ב) is used, that is, reversing the letters "B" and "T". Variant terms do not typically represent political differences within the community, but arise simply from the preferences of individuals and groups.

The terms pansexual, omnisexual, fluid and queer-identified are regarded as falling under the umbrella term bisexual (and therefore are considered a part of the bisexual community). Some use LGBT+ to mean "LGBT and related communities". Other variants may have a "U" for "unsure"; a "C" for "curious"; another "T" for "transvestite"; a "TS", "2S", or "2" for "two-spirit" persons; or an "SA" for "straight allies". The inclusion of straight allies in the LGBT initialism has proven controversial, as many straight allies have been accused of using LGBT advocacy to gain popularity and status in recent years, and various LGBT activists have criticised the heteronormative worldview of certain straight allies. Some may also add a "P" for "polyamorous" or "pangender", an "H" for "HIV-affected", or an "O" for "other". The initialism LGBTIH has seen use in India to encompass the hijra third gender identity and the related subculture.

Adding the term allies to the initialism has sparked controversy, with some seeing the inclusion of ally in place of asexual/aromantic/agender as a form of LGBT erasure. There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, unsure, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and aromantic, and gay and genderqueer). Similarly LGBTIQA+ stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, asexual and many other terms (such as non-binary and pansexual)".

In Canada, the community is sometimes identified as LGBTQ2 (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two spirit). Depending on which organization is using the abbreviation, the choice of initialism changes. Businesses and the CBC often simply employ LGBT as a proxy for any longer abbreviation, private activist groups often employ LGBTQ+, whereas public health providers favour the more inclusive LGBT2Q+ to accommodate twin spirited indigenous peoples. For a time, the Pride Toronto organization used the much lengthier initialism LGBTTIQQ2SA, but appears to have dropped this in favour of simpler wording. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also criticized for using the 2SLGBTQQIA+ initialism. As of July 2023, the Government of Canada's official term is 2SLGBTQI+. Trudeau's new acronym was criticized by some social media users.

Transgender inclusion

The term trans* has been adopted by some groups as a more inclusive alternative to "transgender", where trans (without the asterisk) has been used to describe trans men and trans women, while trans* covers all non-cisgender (genderqueer) identities, including transgender, transsexual, transvestite, genderqueer, genderfluid, non-binary, genderfuck, genderless, agender, non-gendered, third gender, two-spirit, bigender, and trans man and trans woman. Likewise, the term transsexual commonly falls under the umbrella term transgender, but some transsexual people object to this.

Intersex inclusion

Main article: Intersex and LGBT

Those who add intersex people to LGBT groups or organizations may use the extended initialism LGBTI, or LGBTIQ.

The relationship of intersex to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans, and queer communities is complex, but intersex people are often added to the LGBT category to create an LGBTI community. Some intersex people prefer the initialism LGBTI, while others would rather that they not be included as part of the term. Emi Koyama describes how inclusion of intersex in LGBTI can fail to address intersex-specific human rights issues, including creating false impressions "that intersex people's rights are protected" by laws protecting LGBT people, and failing to acknowledge that many intersex people are not LGBT. Organisation Intersex International Australia states that some intersex individuals are same-sex attracted, and some are heterosexual, but "LGBTI activism has fought for the rights of people who fall outside of expected binary sex and gender norms". Julius Kaggwa of SIPD Uganda has written that, while the gay community "offers us a place of relative safety, it is also oblivious to our specific needs".

Numerous studies have shown higher rates of same-sex attraction in intersex people, with a recent Australian study of people born with atypical sex characteristics finding that 52% of respondents were non-heterosexual; thus, research on intersex subjects has been used to explore means of preventing homosexuality. As an experience of being born with sex characteristics that do not fit social norms,intersex can be distinguished from transgender, while some intersex people are both intersex and transgender.

Asexual, aromantic and agender inclusion

Main articles: Asexuality, Aromanticism, and Agender

In the early 2010s, asexuality and aromanticism started gaining wider recognition. Around 2015, they were included in the expanded initialism LGBTQIA, with the A standing for asexual, aromantic, commonly grouped together as a-spec along with agender.

Asexual individuals experience minimal to no sexual attraction to others; asexuality may be considered a sexual orientation or a lack of a sexual orientation. Aromantic individuals lack romantic attraction to others, yet they can still forge profound emotional connections and strong bonds with people without the romantic component. Agender individuals either have no gender identity or possess a neutral or genderless gender identity.

Some people have mistakenly claimed the A stands for ally, but allies are not a marginalized group and mentions of A for ally have regularly sparked controversy as a form of LGBT erasure.

Criticism of the term

The initialisms LGBT or GLBT are not agreed to by everyone that they encompass. For example, some argue that transgender and transsexual causes are not the same as that of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people.This argument centers on the idea that being transgender or transsexual has to do more with gender identity, or a person's understanding of being or not being a man or a woman irrespective of their sexual orientation. LGB issues can be seen as a matter of sexual orientation or attraction. These distinctions have been made in the context of political action in which LGB goals, such as same-sex marriage legislation and human rights work (which may not include transgender and intersex people), may be perceived to differ from transgender and transsexual goals.

A belief in "lesbian and gay separatism" (not to be confused with the related "lesbian separatism") holds that lesbians and gay men form (or should form) a community distinct and separate from other groups normally included in the LGBTQ sphere. While not always appearing in sufficient numbers or organization to be called a movement, separatists are a significant, vocal, and active element within many parts of the LGBT community. In some cases separatists will deny the existence or right to equality of bisexual orientations and of transsexuality, sometimes leading to public biphobia and transphobia. In contrasts to separatists, Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights group OutRage! argues that to separate the transgender movement from the LGB would be "political madness", stating that:

Queers are, like transgender people, gender deviant. We don't conform to traditional heterosexist assumptions of male and female behaviour, in that we have sexual and emotional relationships with the same sex. We should celebrate our discordance with mainstream straight norms.

The portrayal of an all-encompassing "LGBT community" or "LGB community" is also disliked by some lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Some do not subscribe to or approve of the political and social solidarity, and visibility and human rights campaigning that normally goes with it, including LGBT pride marches and events. Some of them believe that grouping together people with non-heterosexual orientations perpetuates the myth that being gay/lesbian/bi/asexual/pansexual/etc. makes a person deficiently different from other people. These people are often less visible compared to more mainstream gay or LGBT activists. Since this faction is difficult to distinguish from the heterosexual majority, it is common for people to assume all LGBT people support LGBT liberation and the visibility of LGBT people in society, including the right to live one's life differently from the majority. In the 1996 book Anti-Gay, a collection of essays edited by Mark Simpson, the concept of a 'one-size-fits-all' identity based on LGBT stereotypes is criticized for suppressing the individuality of LGBT people.

Writing in the BBC News Magazine in 2014, Julie Bindel questions whether the various gender groupings now, "bracketed together[,] ... share the same issues, values and goals?" Bindel refers to a number of possible new initialisms for differing combinations and concludes that it may be time for the alliances to either be reformed or go their "separate ways". In 2015, the slogan "Drop the T" was coined to encourage LGBT organizations to stop support of transgender people as they say that sexual orientation, LGB, does not share similarity with gender identity, the T. The campaign has been condemned by many LGBT groups as transphobic.

Alternative terms

Queer

Main article: Queer

Many have expressed desire for an umbrella term to replace existing initialisms. Queer gained popularity as an umbrella-term for sexual and gender minorities in the 21st century. The term remains controversial, particularly among older LGBT people, who perceive it as offensive due to its historical usage as a slur, as well as those who wish to dissociate themselves from queer radicalism, and those who see it as amorphous and trendy. Some younger people feel queer is a more politically charged, more powerful term than LGBT. In a 2018 U.S. study, about 1 in 5 LGBTQ people identified as "queer".

SGM/GSM/GSRM

See also: Sexual minority, Gender minority, and Romantic minority

SGM, or GSM, an abbreviation for sexual and gender minorities, has gained particular currency in government, academia, and medicine. GSRM is also used to include romantic minorities such as aromanticism.

In New Zealand, New Zealand Human Rights Commission uses "Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities" to discuss LGBT rights.

In India, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India, when decriminalizing homosexuality in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), said:

Individuals belonging to sexual and gender minorities experience discrimination, stigmatization, and, in some cases, denial of care on account of their sexual orientation and gender identity. However, it is important to note that 'sexual and gender minorities' do not constitute a homogenous group, and experiences of social exclusion, marginalization, and discrimination, as well as specific health needs, vary considerably. Nevertheless, these individuals are united by one factor - that their exclusion, discrimination and marginalization is rooted in societal heteronormativity and society's pervasive bias towards gender binary and opposite-gender relationships, which marginalizes and excludes all non-heteronormative sexual and gender identities.

In the US, the term "Sexual and Gender Minority" has been adopted by the National Institutes of Health,[119] the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services[120] and the UCLA Williams Institute, which studies SGM law and policy. Duke University and the University of California San Francisco both have prominent sexual and gender minority health programs. An NIH paper recommends the term SGM because it is inclusive of "those who may not self-identify as LGBT ... or those who have a specific medical condition affecting reproductive development". A publication from the White House Office of Management and Budget states, "We believe that SGM is more inclusive, because it includes persons not specifically referenced by the identities listed in LGBT."

A UK government paper favors SGM because initials like LGBTIQ+ stand for terms that, especially outside the Global North, are "not necessarily inclusive of local understandings and terms used to describe sexual and gender minorities". An example of usage outside the Global North is the Constitution of Nepal, which identifies "gender and sexual minorities" as a protected class.

Further umbrella terms

In Canada especially, the term 2SLGBTQ+ is seen, with the first two characters standing for two-spirit; the whole term stands for two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and questioning, and is intended as a term encompassing all sexual- and gender-minorities. For some indigenous people, two-spirit invokes a combination of identities, including sexual, gender, cultural, and spiritual.

Some people advocate the term "minority sexual and gender identities" (MSGI, coined in 2000) for the purpose of explicitly including all people who are not cisgender and heterosexual or "gender, sexual, and romantic minorities" (GSRM), which is more explicitly inclusive of minority romantic orientations, but those have not been widely adopted either. Other rare umbrella terms are Gender and Sexual Diversities (GSD), MOGII (Marginalized Orientations, Gender Identities, and Intersex) and MOGAI (Marginalized Orientations, Gender Alignments and Intersex).

SGL (same gender loving) is sometimes favored among gay male African Americans as a way of distinguishing themselves from what they regard as white-dominated LGBT communities.

Clinical

In public health settings, MSM ("men who have sex with men") is clinically used to describe men who have sex with other men without referring to their sexual orientation, with WSW ("women who have sex with women") also used as an analogous term.

MVPFAFF

MVPFAFF is an abbreviation for Māhū, Vakasalewa, Palopa, Fa'afafine, Akava'ine, Fakaleitī (Leiti), and Fakafifine. This term was developed by Phylesha Brown-Acton in 2010 at the Asia Pacific Games Human Rights Conference. This refers to those in the rainbow Pacific Islander community, who may or may not identify with the LGBT initialism.

0 notes

cavenewstimes · 8 months ago

Text

Marlon Wayans shares Pride photoshoot in honor of his son and responds to haters

r/lgbt Sign our Pride Yearbook A safe space for GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minority) folk to discuss their lives, issues, interests, and passions. LGBT is still a popular term used to discuss gender and sexual minorities, but all GSRM are welcome beyond lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people who consent to participate in a safe space. Members Online Read More

View On WordPress

0 notes

willowlark369 · 6 years ago

Quote

Asexuals are queer and belong in queer spaces. Y'all are just idiots.

Magi Silverwolf, an ace who is tired of being told that she’s not queer.

#Quotations #LGBT+ Issues #GSRM Issues #Asexuality #Sorry Not Sorry

4 notes · View notes

ask-asexual-crystal-gems · 3 years ago

Text

Tumblr ad: Enlarged prostate?

Me: No but thanks for the multiple doses of low grade dysphoria while I scroll your hellsite

#transmasculine #dysphoria #gender issues #transgender #lgbt #gsrm #mogai

3 notes · View notes

cryptidcalling · 4 years ago

Text

It’s midnight and I’m not ready to sleep so I’ve decided I want to ramble about something I’ve been thinking about for a lil while.

So like, I feel like most people who are gonna decide to actually read this know about the Scott Cawthon thing. And I watched MattPatt’s response video to that whole thing since his channel is so closely tied to FNAF as a franchise. The beginning of it was totally fine. Like, he explained that he’s gonna keep making FNAF content since Scott is no longer involved with the project, but he understands why many people are no longer interested in supporting the series at all. He also acknowledged why so many people were so so hurt, because a large portion of FNAF fans are LGBT+ (GSRM) and it was their money being used to support politicians and literally want to take their rights away. But then like halfway in Matthew Patthew turned the vid into a theory video and it kinda disgusted me. Like, he started going on about how he thinks it’s actually ok that Scott financially supported anti-LGBT+ (GSRM) politicians because Scott liked their other policies and found those issues more important. And like, yea maybe?? So??? Matt can sit there and theorize and justify all he wants, because at the end of the day he’s at no risk. It’s not his rights that are still considered a debate by our politicians. He’s not going to lose anything. It left an incredibly bitter taste in my mouth that he could just sit there and say “Scott probably just cared more about their economic or foreign policies than he did about their stance on GSRM rights” (he used LGBT+ but I’m trying to use GSRM more because I like it more) as if that still doesn’t mean that Scott was willing to sacrifice the rights of the people who gave him all that money in the first place for his own gain. So I don’t really plan on supporting MattPatt or game/film theory anymore. I don’t think Matt is a -phobe of any kind, and I feel confident that he didn’t realize how twisted what he was arguing was, but it still upset me enough that I can’t view him the same way anymore.

#I’m misspelling mattpatt on purpose to hopefully keep this out of search results if I can?#I’m not here to ‘cancel’ anybody or some shit #(as if one person with no fanbase is capable of cancelling anyone anyways lol but still not what I’m trying to do)#am just a gay talking about my feelings

2 notes · View notes

be-the-freedom-to-change-blog · 4 years ago

Text

First Post

Have you ever felt just so shackled down by how you feel about everything? You can’t help but feel imprisoned and entranced by the negativity in your life; but at the same time you just want to let go of it all.

There are no easy answers. Humans by very nature are socially engineered to focus on the negativity. People are more likely to leave a bad review for a product they hate than one they like. [source]

Nobody can just stop caring about the political climate and societal injustices. You shouldn’t. Never.

For a few years I searched for answers to try to find some peace with this part of me, the side of me so deep in vitriol, hate, self loathing, anxiety and anger that I started to search for it. It was self-destructive.

I was spending sometimes upwards of 4 hours or more a day browsing a constant barrage of hateful content towards me, actively looking for things that I dislike to see how it was doing or to see the reactions of people vs said thing. Engaging in pointless online arguments that I knew would bring me no joy or satisfaction partaking in. Yet I did.

At that point I told myself I had to stop. I watched a YouTube news broadcaster explain how he did so, and it helped. So I thought I’d make the first step. I deleted every Social Media App I had on my phone to make it more difficult to browse to that page. It worked for a bit. I even logged out of all places on my computer. Having so many passwords had an advantage to it.

The only exception? Youtube. I watched videos on it and barely commented anyway. The months I had them deleted were exceptional. Liberating. I felt so free and had so much time to be a person again. I stopped getting annoyed at Reddit and Twitter it was like I sprouted wings and started flying away!

So what even is this?

A Hope. It may seem way off but I hope to inspire a movement, a world in which people actively help each other. Communicate with each other and respect each other. The goal is to start with recruitment. Invite friends or close relatives who feel like you need something better.

Helping others is one first step to self improvement, self reflection and a freedom from some heavy emotions. We feel weak when we can’t do anything; or at least feel like we can’t do anything. The fact of the matter is, if you want the world to change. You need to be that change.

The world seems way off. If you’re a member of the LGBTQ+, GSRM Movement, a minority, suffering from mental health issues, disabilities or feel like you just have a lack of purpose. I want this to be here when you need it.

See it more as a religion, a group or a following. To make the world a better place and to be part of something truly brave, beautiful and tranquil.

I will explain in far greater detail in a later post, but please watch this space. I have more to offer the world. Actions speak louder than the motivational daily quotes.

The Summary

The goal, is to create a world wide community. With the Freedom to Change I want to create a community with the goal of positive activism. Charity drives, encouraging community by sharing resources, guidance and just doing the right thing.

It begins with small acts of kindness, these positive things we do elevate our feelings and emotions and will make you feel enlightened, happy and also spread it to others around you. Being a positive person doesn’t only benefit you, it benefits your friends, family, pets and strangers who pass you by.

#positivity #wellbeing #life #community #LGBTQ+#GSRM #Movement #Self Improvement #respect #freedom #freedom-to-change #helping others #wellness

1 note · View note

13-reasons-ideas · 5 years ago

Note

fiction or not fiction. you’re excusing an awful character’s behaviour because they’re good looking. i worry for you if you don’t see/understand that’s bad, and how it promotes a toxic attitude towards shitty attractive people. also you’re erasing an lgbtq+ characters sexuality. with the lack of representation of lgbtq+ characters in film and television is honestly so rude that you erase their sexuality. no matter if they’re bad or not. they’re enough straight characters, write about them

So by that logic you also have an issue with making straight characters gay? It can’t be okay one way and not the other. As a member of the GSRM community I have no issue with it because it is FICTION. I’ve already addressed this. If you want to message me off anon like an adult then cool, but I have NEVER ONCE excused his actions. And ESPECIALLY not because he’s an attractive actor/character. You don’t need to worry about me-nor do I care if you do. I do not write for him because Tim is good looking. I write for him because he’s a dynamic character. Again, no one is forcing you to read my content. There are plenty of people who read it and enjoy it. Also it’s “there are” not “they’re”. If you’re gonna send hate, proper grammar helps.

#grow up #again it is fiction. relax #dont put words in my mouth

1 note · View note

drumpfwatch · 6 years ago

Text

The Debate Soapbox

There are so many ways that the Trump Presidency has changed me as a person. One of them is by changing the dynamic of my conversations I have with other people, for better or worse.

See, I used to love debating. Talking to people and trying to reach a conclusion about the nature of the world together, that we both can agree on. Not just because I’m a confrontational person, but because I like to learn. Debate is a wonderful way to sharpen your wit, practice your improv skills, and learn new things.

To that end, whenever I would get into an argument with someone, there would be times when I couldn’t convince them. In part because these discussions would be about opinions - I’ve talked before about how politics is part fact, part opinion, and I’ve also spoken about how solutions are a thing worth talking over, and frankly I could write an entire article about how there are some things that not only don’t have answers that can be considered anything but opinion, but debating those things is actually super important.

To a degree, I still believe that. But it no longer is my primary motivation for starting a debate. I also no longer have debates with people who I know disagree with me on political issues, and the reason why is pretty simple. These people are no longer interested in debates.

They are interested in preaching.

Let’s ignore the fact that most men who argue do so to inflate their egos. Look how smart I am, intellectually eviscerating this person! That could honestly be an entire post in and of itself. And before you “Not All Men” me, I am aware that not every one of them is like that and there are plenty of women who are the same way - I used to be that way - but it is usually men and there’s something about the way society has gotten men to do it that is especially condescending. The sexism isn’t the point here, the point is something a little deeper.

When a cisgendered white heterosexual man debates about the rights of, say, transgendered people, he has no stake in it. To him, it is an abstract concept. Whether or not GSRM people get put into camps to be “reprogrammed” is more or less meaningless to them because it won’t ever affect them. They may have empathy to the situation, and may be able to put themselves in others shoes (usually because they happen to know someone who is a member of the GSRM community), but they can’t ever really know what it’s like to be in that position. And that’s what leads to the real problem.

To them, debates on politics in the arena of social justice become abstract concepts. The laws and policies they advocate for are just words on paper without real effects. It’s easy to distance yourself from people, and when the government itself is trying to get you to dehumanize those people it gets VERY easy to from arguing about this stuff from a position of ignorance to then be convinced that the “correct answer” is one that leads to pain, and even, if they’re in the right place, to turn them to hate.

At the risk of starting a fight, let’s talk about the ever-loved euphemism of States Rights. Now, I am aware that this is still something that gets used to this day to deny people rights and the what have you, so I ask any travelers from the right side of the aisle to be polite and consider the point being made here. At the end of the day, the history is true, and even if it isn’t, the situation I’m describing works to help illustrate the point I’m trying to make. Because let’s face it, I could write an entire article on any number of these tactics.

So let’s go back to the 1960s and talk about States Rights.

See, Silverwater and his ilk knew that they could garner enough support in their own states to get what they wanted within their own states. Alabamans were never going to vote for blacks to have the right to vote, partly because the people who cared were mostly the black people. Who, you know, couldn’t vote. They also used other techniques to make that happen, but the point is the only way it would happen anytime this century was if the Federal Government made it, and it was getting dangerously close to doing so.

B vaSo instead of just admitting that they’re racists and want to be racists about it, they concocted the argument of “States Rights”. The idea was that if they made it sound like they weren’t being dicks about it, the more people would pick it up. You have to make it sound intellectual, which gives people the excuse. So they went around saying that, “No, we’re not racists! We’re not racist at all! We just believe that votership is a sacred right of the states, and the federal government has no right to be sticking their fingers in the sacred state pie!”

And people bought it. People still buy it today. The effect of this is two fold. First, it shifts the conversation. The debate we’re having is “should black people be allowed to vote,” not “who has the right to decide who gets to vote.” Or at least, that’s the debate we should be having. Suddenly though, we’re not. The topic has changed. This distracts from the conversation and changes it to a discussion that you’re not necessarily prepared for.

The second effect is not on you, it’s on the one making the argument. They feel like they’re making a compelling point. Whether or not you refute the point, whether or not the point is actually relevant to the discussion, if you can’t address it they feel like they’ve won. And that, of course, leads to them using it again because it scores a point.

From there, it only gets worse. These guys who think they’re paragons of logic suddenly have what they feel is a logical reason for not being hateful - they don’t think they’re discriminatory, they think they’re just being fair.

There are a million guises this nonsense can come in. Another good example comes from the feminism section of the discourse. You’ll hear MRAs talk about how “men in the military are way more likely to die then women,” or how “Men don’t have housing shelters to protect them from spousal abuse like women do” and then use that to argue that feminism is ineffective or wrong. What they don’t realize is that, say, men die a lot more in the army then women because until recently women were actually forbidden from having combat roles, and that even accounting for the underreported statistics of woman on man spousal abuse, men are still far, FAR more likely to be the ones abusing. There also ARE shelters that cater to protecting men, but yes, not nearly as many as there should be.

Or how about gentrification? “They’re bringing in new businesses and fresh market blood to the area, why is that a bad thing? Why is that a racist thing?” This one is actually a really perfect example of this exact problem. On the surface yes, it does seem like by gentrifying a town you’re making life better for the people who live there, but the truth is far, far more complicated. I could write an entire article on it, but the two biggest problems are that the money brought in to the town by the gentrification is great, none of it really goes back into the local area. It all goes into the pockets of the companies and people “improving” the area. The second problem is that because that area of town is suddenly a lot better, the cost of living can go up, and because the cost of living can go up, the poor people who already live there are suddenly in an environment they can’t afford to live in. Oops! So the poor people are forced out of the area. And since America is a late capitalist hellscape built on racism, those poor people tend to be black. So black people are being kicked out of their homes because wealthy whites people want the space for another strip mall. And that, my friend, is racist.

But, as I’ve already established, you can be entirely ignorant to the surrounding circumstances and think that it’s not. Or you could be familiar with them, but because it was a good-for-nothing liberal who told you, you don’t believe what they have to say. Either way, the argument at this point isn’t about how to prevent racism, it’s about what racism is in the first place. And that shift is one the Nazis and White Supremacists love to take hold of.

See, it doesn’t take much to go from “Logically, it cannot be proven that I am in support of a racist decision” to then go to “These people have been deluded into thinking I am a racist, even though I am just logical.” From there, our hypothetical Logic Boy is susceptible to the infections we’ve talked about before. Those filthy gays don’t want to just be left alone like they say, they want to all the straights to die. They’re out to get you, you have to try and stop them! Here’s the evidence for that!

And then the process is like every other conspiracy, and I’ve talked about that before.

What I’m saying is that these debates? Maybe there are one or two people left who are actually interested in having them, and maybe there are people out there who seek them out to try and truly find out who’s right and wrong. But most of the people out there goading you into it are not doing it out of a philosophical interest in being morally justified.

They’re using that debate platform as a soap box to draw other people in, and by arguing back with them, you give them access to your followers. By engaging them, you validate their position as “equal” to your own. Back in my days attacking creationism, this was actually a very interesting debate in its own right I say going on. I remember when Bill Nye debated Creationist Shill Ken Ham(‘n Cheese) a lot of people were telling him not to do it because it validated Ken Ham’s position as equal to that of the scientific consensus. I was on the other side of that debate, arguing that the intellectual evisceration that Ham was sure to receive would get people away from Creationism. I also argued that while Bill is an engineer and a popularly known scientist, he is an aeronautical engineer, not an evolutionary biologist, and he doesn’t even have a doctorate. If Ken Ham can’t beat Bill Nye then he sure as hell doesn’t even deserve to debate with actual biologists. It’s been years since that day, and I don’t know how many people that’s true for - I don’t think even the people for it is tr use would know it, leaving any cult tends to be a slow process that starts with things the person doesn’t even realize opened their eyes until later - but I do know that even on Christian Creaitonist websites, it was pretty unanimous that Ken Ham’nCheese lost.

But I don’t know if I still feel that way these days. Of course, creationism is a different sort of beast then White Nationalism and the other social ills that plague our planet, but I know that for now, at least, I have no real interest in debating white supremacists. I’ll rail on their points, day and night, because they’re wrong and deserve to be railed on, but I will never give them a platform. I will never debate them. I will never give them, personally, access to my followers, and I will never say any of their points without having a refutation immediately following. You shouldn’t either.

#Wednesday Essays #by Phoenix

2 notes · View notes

realtransfacts · 6 years ago

Note

I like the term: GSRM - Gender, Sexuality and Romantic Minority. Seems inclusive of everything without needing more constant letters n stuff

People have pointed out the issues with the term “sexual minority”, but yeah it is an option as well! I see people tag the posts they reblog from me with #gsrm every now and then so it is very much still in use.

#gsrm #acronym #sistershe

23 notes · View notes

baeddelml · 7 years ago

Text

Reminder that the creator of GSRM is an acephobe and that GSRM has been abused by cishet women, cishet people with kinks, and actual pedophiles who claim it includes them since they consider themselves marginalized orientations and/or genders.

(🔮 the first version of this said MOGAI, we misremembered which term was which, that was my bad specifically! Sorry. We still have a lot of issues with MOGAI.)

#gsrm #🔮 if im being honest i used to advocate this one when i was younger #queer #lgbt+#lgbtqia+

4 notes · View notes

willowlark369 · 6 years ago

Text

#ace positive #Aro Postitive #GSRM Issues #Meme #Hard Pill to Swallow

13 notes · View notes

ask-asexual-crystal-gems · 3 years ago

Text

Let me tell you a little story. Back in the day, we used to have threads on the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network forums (A.V.E.N.) where we asked each other the question, “Do you consider yourself queer?”

About half of the answers were No. And this wasn’t just because we were at times shunned from queer spaces. We just didn’t consider ourselves queer, full stop. Even if you had given us a golden ticket pass directly into acceptance by the LGBT community.

Some felt no desire to even enter said spaces, or shrugged when they got there.

Some felt specifically uncomfortable because there was such a focus on sex/sexuality.

Now, people who were gnc or homoromantic obviously often said Yes. But that was usually separate from their identity as an ace spec or aro spec.

I’m similar. I have dithered for long periods of time over whether to identify as queer. I don’t view my ace identity as queer. I can construct an argument for it to be considered queer, based on the history of “queering,” which means deviation from norm. This of course, is how the term QueerPlatonic Relationship, qpr, is derived. And in that context, yes aro is explicitly queer. I will vehemently defend those who want to use aro or ace that way. But I will equally as vehemently defend those who want to self-determine, (as in, not allo people enforcing it) view ace and/or aro as a separate issue altogether, who don’t feel totally fitting with allo people, queer or not.

I’m non-binary like that.

Language is a construct.

Language can be ambiguous, have different associations in different subcultures, mean one thing to one person and another to another person.

Language itself is inherently non-binary, non-black-and-white.

I identified as totally agender for a long time (enby identities are common among aces). Now I understand myself as “most of the time agender/enby but leaning transmasc” kind of genderfluidity. I find that even though transmasc is the word that the culture has settled on that got nearest to describing me, so I am sort of obligated to have it because of usefulness, I do not quite vibe with “trans,” neither as this- nor as an umbrella term, but prefer “gnc” as the collective name for non-sexuality queerness.

LGBG, as it were.

Now, GSRM or MOGAI are obviously better, let’s note. Less awkward, less hierarchical/seniority-centered, more bases covered.

But this still causes problems for me in particular. I believe that most people would be agender or bigender or non-binary, absent heavily gendered social conditioning. So that “M” in GSRM suddenly isn’t numerically accurate for norms in a post-gender society of the future. I think binary homo (mono-sexuality) as in gay, lesbian, will always the sexuality minority, but have strong suspicions that bi (or multi- or whatever else you prefer) would be the majority (or mathematical norm, if you will) if heteronormativity were absent as well.

Especially if you included other types of attraction other than romo- or amato- attraction, as well you should.

Been thinking about “oriented aro/ace” and its implications to allocishets as of late:

In a post allohet society, I think most people would recognize and more deeply venerate the fact they had strong platonic (and possibly, even more subtle demi) attraction to the same-sex or same-gender alongside their more flashy het attractions.

(Ironically, similar sentiments lead to things like people objecting that demi “is normal” and shouldn’t be considered an identity in itself, for those who don’t experience primary attraction. Said people sometimes fit the description of demi themselves, just won’t accept the label. Demi could be quite common, and it’s not lesser, it doesn’t lose uniqueness points or something, for being a larger presence)

In this post society, relationships, including QPRs and PLPs and/or marriages on that basis- more than already happen- would form. People like those who have realized, oh yeah, I’m still falling in love with xyz people, but this friend is the one or ‘also-someone’ I want to commit to.

But even for romo, humans are extremely good at deflecting and repressing.

(Romance is in itself a construct. You especially tend to see this come into focus in aro discussion groups, trying to figure out what it even is and what parts comprise it.)

The way I think, as it’s typically used, “queer” is not a minority at all, but a label that emerged to designate itself as a reality beyond cis-het normative societal structures.

Had we never developed the allo-cis-het-patriarchal conditioning nexus, queer would not exist.

In other words, “queer” is born out of this presence, in reactionary fashion.

Now, for the present? That isn’t a problem. It’s useful, it’s linguistically sound, probably necessary, depending on how you define “necessity.”

But I look forward to a day when the word “queer” loses all its current cultural meaning and power, because it’s just ... entirely ordinary. No different from saying you have brown eyes. Even if minorities stayed at levels they are.

Once that has eroded, the “queering” of norms is complete, and with the norms gone, ironically “queer” ceases to be.

Now if we defined “queer” as what appear to be true minorities? That’s an entirely different question. One that I’m not gonna do any more of a deep dive on atm.

I don’t personally believe those parts make me an outlier. Aro? Aplatonic? Most definitely. The aspects of me, as in my gender, that are “queer” as it’s used in ace-exclusionary meaning? Nah. If I were binary trans? Yeah, probably. But all the rest, masc and femme and everything in between, I think those are the normal human experience. To quote someone somewhere on the topic, “Most human beings aren’t Barbie or G.I. Joe.”

Those gender spectrums are just ...... not queer, to my mind.

Regardless of chosen definition, I don’t and have never centralized “queer” in my identity even though it’s a nice shorthand, especially in- ahem- queer spaces.

Some textbook-definition lgbtq choose not to use the word for non-slur-related reasons. Just because they don’t vibe with it.

To be perfectly honest, I have passions and hyperfixations that are worlds more important to my identity than my gender or my sexuality. Is that because agender inherently means (to me personally!) that I’m not hung up on gender, and being gray ace (to me) means I’m not hung up on sexuality? Maybe! Idk. Either way, it’s how I think.

It is not very important to me that people of any walk of life see me as queer.

I’m just me, doing my thing, any word you apply to me is incidental.

So am I queer? Depending on context, yes or no. I’m non-binary like that.

#asexual #lgbt #asexuality #aromantic #aromanticism #asexual spectrum #transgender #lgbtqia #pride month #queer #discourse #queer platonic relationship #platonic life partners #PLP

6 notes · View notes