Support NeoGAF

[Poor GRIMES]

More reading:

"There are a lot of gay folks who get angry when we suggest asexual people belong [in the LGBT community]," said asexual blogger Julie Decker. "And that's primarily based on the supposition that asexual people do not experience oppression and that any prejudice, discrimination or discomfort we experience is not ‘as bad' as theirs, which I think is odd because queerness is not — or should not be — defined by negative experiences."

"On top of that, we actually do experience many of these things," she added, pointing out that many aces have a "coming out" period and struggle with discrimination and alienation.

Other ace activists say that some individuals don't agree with including asexuals in the LGBT alphabet soup because asexuality is not seen as a kind of sexuality but rather a lack thereof.

In the 2011 documentary "(A)sexual," prominent queer activist and media pundit Dan Savage appeared to mock the ace community's involvement in Pride parades. He implied that asexuality is a preference and that choosing not to have sex, as he saw it, does not necessarily deserve attention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/lgbt-asexual_n_3385530.html

Interestingly enough, trans people have been excluded in the past as well:

"The T is under the LGB umbrella now, but that wasn't always the case," he said, referring to an older, though similar argument that had been used to reject the trans community from the acronym.

"Ultimately, as an ace and as trans, I'm a minority of a wider group. There are a lot of things that unite us," Micah added. "As an asexual, you experience the world just as gays and lesbians experience it. You think you're broken, you think you're wrong, and you're forced to internalize these negative feelings because you're not like everyone else."

LGBT+ people should not partake in oppression Olympics. At the end of the day, I state this again, it only benefits the systemic oppressors and excludes another group from claiming their identity in a safe space. It does no good.

 

[royalan]

Allowing cishet aces a space within the larger LGBT+ umbrella is not equalizing the levels of oppression. Recognizing that they, too, need a platform in which they can express themselves and their ideas is important. Also, I'm not cishet ace, and I navigate my life as a POC cis gay man, but, I can absolutely be more inclusive and not poo-poo on people because their "lesser" struggles are just as legitimate as my own.

There has been de jure legislation and a history of beatings that the overall queer community has had to face. There have been a grave number of injustices that have been enacted against us. But, that doesn't make it within our right to exclude cishet aces because they are an invisible marginalized group that has been, essentially, erased from history because of coerced rape and the denial that asexualism is even a thing.

I'll still have my struggles. I'm not belittling myself for advocating for the inclusion of the asexual spectrum in the LGBT+ umbrella.

I agree with you, and I said as much. I have no problem with the inclusion of asexualism. But highlighting important distinctions between asexualism and other queer identities is not trivializing the asexual identity. I actually think that the distinctions are so severe that to not acknowledge them would have the opposite effect of trivializing the history of the LGBTQ identity.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Is it appropriate to start making jokes about the length of that acroynm yet? It's getting longer than actual words and people that actively pay attention are already discussing what it means.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

I agree with you, and I said as much. I have no problem with the inclusion of asexualism. But highlighting important distinctions between asexualism and other queer identities is not trivializing the asexual identity. I actually think that the distinctions are so severe that to not acknowledge them would have the opposite effect of trivializing the history of the LGBTQ identity.

Absolutely. For the sake of conversation, I've never known or have come across any cishet ace claiming that the injustices are equal. They're merely advocating access to the resources that the greater LGBT+ community provides them: a safe space, a platform for visibility, and the celebration of their queerness.

The Ls, the Gs, and the Bs will always be the most prominent in the umbrella because of the sheer amount of them compared to everything else under the entire GSM umbrella, and for the most part, I believe that we have made very good strides in making ourselves heard. Trans people, rightfully since they are probably the most shit on group in the spectrum, are now getting the platforms and acknowledgment from our community, and they're becoming more visible in the mainstream as well.

I think cishet aces aren't trying to one-up anybody, nor do I think anyone needs to fret about equalizing the levels of aggressions in the community. Opening a dialogue with cishet aces and those that fall in the overall ace spectrum to understand the distinctions is fairly easy, I think: the first step to doing that is accepting them into our spaces rather than pushing them out to fend for themselves. For the most part, they already understand that certain groups need more help than others, which is good.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I agree with you, and I said as much. I have no problem with the inclusion of asexualism. But highlighting important distinctions between asexualism and other queer identities is not trivializing the asexual identity. I actually think that the distinctions are so severe that to not acknowledge them would have the opposite effect of trivializing the history of the LGBTQ identity.

I agree fully.

 

[royalan]

"There are a lot of gay folks who get angry when we suggest asexual people belong [in the LGBT community]," said asexual blogger Julie Decker. "And that's primarily based on the supposition that asexual people do not experience oppression and that any prejudice, discrimination or discomfort we experience is not ‘as bad' as theirs, which I think is odd because queerness is not — or should not be — defined by negative experiences."

This is a hopelessly naive quote. Maybe queerness shouldn't be defined by negative experiences, but it is. Queerness is defined by everything.

Taking off my "gay" hat for a second and putting on my "black" one, my blackness is defined by negative experiences whether I want it to be or not. Slavery and cultural deprivation, legalized discrimination that in many ways still continues today. This informs my blackness just as much as anything else, because it is the baggage that my community carries. What I was raised in, how I view my place in the social order, and how I operate within that.

Likewise, the knowledge of what it means to truly be gay in this country today and yesterday helps shape my queerness.

 

[Staccat0]

I don't think the world needs me to weigh in on this as a straight white guy, but I did wanna say that I have an asexual acquaintance and talking to her about it has really opened up my mind a lot over the years. So, hopefully they have some platform for people to be more exposed to their existence and feel less inclined to hide. Just cuz I think it's a good group to be exposed to.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

This is a hopelessly naive quote. Maybe queerness shouldn't be defined by negative experiences, but it is. Queerness is defined by everything.

Taking off my "gay" hat for a second and putting on my "black" one, my blackness is defined by negative experiences whether I want to be or not. Slavery and cultural deprivation, legalized discrimination that in many ways still continues today. This informs my blackness just as much as anything else, because it is the baggage that my community carries. What I was raised in, how I view my place in the social order, and how I operate within that.

Likewise, the knowledge of what it means to truly be gay in this country today and yesterday helps shape my queerness.

While naive, I think that they were using queer in the context of that quote to speak about LGBT+ safe spaces rather than informing themselves about their identity. Being in a marginalized group is built upon negative experiences and navigating one's life because of that. Considering the topic of the article: I don't think they're inherently wrong that safe spaces should be about celebrating diversity and allowing ourselves to be off guard, even if just for a moment.

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

Because you're not looking hard enough to know it is.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is a hopelessly naive quote. Maybe queerness shouldn't be defined by negative experiences, but it is. Queerness is defined by everything.

Taking off my "gay" hat for a second and putting on my "black" one, my blackness is defined by negative experiences whether I want it to be or not. Slavery and cultural deprivation, legalized discrimination that in many ways still continues today. This informs my blackness just as much as anything else, because it is the baggage that my community carries. What I was raised in, how I view my place in the social order, and how I operate within that.

Likewise, the knowledge of what it means to truly be gay in this country today and yesterday helps shape my queerness.

Pretty much, to pretend like the oppression and the shadow of oppression isn't part of what shapes a queer identity and a queer community is almost basically ignorant.

Especially because oppression shapes how a community fights for their rights.

We can look at what happened with BLM Toronto and the whole no police uniforms at Pride thing. Black queer folk were speaking to their oppression that intersects both with their racial identity and their Queer identity. The response however from a lot of privileged white queer folk was to talk as if both white and black folk experiences queer oppression at the same level (and specifically at their level) and thus were much less willing to rock the boat and stand against the police, which meant that they weren't really willing to be allies to queer people of colour within the community. If that makes sense.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Pretty much, to pretend like the oppression and the shadow of oppression isn't part of what shapes a queer identity and a queer community is almost basically ignorant.

Especially because oppression shapes how a community fights for their rights.

We can look at what happened with BLM Toronto and the whole no police uniforms at Pride thing. Black queer folk were speaking to their oppression that intersects both with their racial identity and their Queer identity. The response however from a lot of privileged white queer folk was to talk as if both white and black folk experiences queer oppression at the same level (and specifically at their level) and thus were much less willing to rock the boat and with the police, which meant that they weren't really willing to be allies to queers of colour within the community. If that makes sense.

I'm familiar with this as well. QPOC have it differently than gay White men. Similarly, feminine gay men have it differently than more straight-passing White men. Cisgendered QPOC have it differently than Trans QPOC. I agree with you. You need perspective and voices from everyone, because you only use your own personal frame of reference for the rights that you advocate for. I know a Cis QPOC that was vehemently ignorant about Trans rights. I know a Cis gay man that participates in bi-erasure and pan-erasure.

As a community, we need to do better and allow every voice to be heard.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm familiar with this as well. QPOC have it differently than gay White men. Similarly, feminine gay men have it differently than more straight-passing White men. Cisgendered QPOC have it differently than Trans QPOC. I agree with you. You need perspective and voices from everyone, because you only use your own personal frame of reference for the rights that you advocate for. I know a Cis QPOC that was vehemently ignorant about Trans rights. I know a Cis gay man that participates in bi-erasure and pan-erasure.

As a community, we need to do better and allow every voice to be heard.

Agreed but we also can't pretend that some suffer more oppression than others, thus why the argument that oppression doesn't define your queer identity isn't true.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Agreed but we also can't pretend that some suffer more oppression than others, thus why the argument that oppression doesn't define your queer identity isn't true.

I didn't state it was. I said it rings true when discussing the inclusivity of safe spaces for marginalized groups, not the context of navigating one's life as queer. We're on the same page here.

To be honest, I'm very happy that this thread was created. It's going pretty well so far by allowing gaffers access to a thread to read up on a mostly invisible group.

 

[Kitsunebaby]

You get me. I thought asexuality was disinterest/disgust in sex but apparently you can want to have sex and actively seek sex out yet still be asexual.

My mind is trying to square a circle and now my head hurts.

Edit- Before anyone says anything, I understand that sex can be like letting out a troublesome fart for some people but the way this conversation is going seems like we're dealing with a different scenario.

Asexual is kind of a vague term. While it can refer to people with no interest in sex or people who lack arousal, it also refers to people who lack sexual attraction to either sex.

I identify as asexual. Not because I don't get aroused (on the contrary, I masturbate way more than the average person), but because I'm not sexually attracted to men or women. I've been romantically attracted to both, and I find many men and women to be aesthetically attractive. But a person, in and of themselves, will never turn me on. Instead, I find that the only things that arouse me are when I find myself in certain emotional states. And while I'm quite open to the possibility of sex with others, it's not exactly something I seek out.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Yeah, I don't agree with this.

I don't personally have a problem with asexuality being recognized along with LGBTQ+, but I won't stand by and allow my shared history as a gay person be watered down to make asexuality feel like it has an equal role in the struggle.

Queer people have been outlawed, legally discriminated against, experimented on, tied to fences and beaten. We have been murdered in our safe spaces, discarded from our families and our children taken from us.

And this is just the US.

Nobody is ignoring what asexuals face, but are instead refusing to have other queer identities trivialized by implying that what they face is the same.

Infighting is the number one way to make things better, turns out

Seriously, nothing is being trivialized about the movement by acknowledging asexual people. To me, it is a demonstration of incredible fragility if it bothers you so much. I also find the rhetoric of trivialization incredibly worrisome, for reasons I outlined earlier. I've heard that same reasoning used to say that trans women are diluting women's rights, because they don't go through the misogyny that cis women experience growing up. It'd also be like trans people talking about how the L and the G water down the movement because trans people have it way more difficult.

It's pointless, and spending a moment caring about this from your perspective does nothing but harm.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Infighting is the number one way to make things better, turns out

You think this is in fighting?

 

[A Link to the Past]

You think this is in fighting?

I do, yes. I find it incredibly pointless. No one is trivializing the movement by representing asexual people. As people pointed out earlier, there is bigotry against asexual people. Asexuality, if a person is ever open about it, very often does get met with bigotry. Someone in this very thread said some pretty bigoted shit about asexual people. There doesn't need to be an official hierarchy of who is more oppressed, and I don't think that most people believe that bigotry for someone's asexuality occurs equally with being gay, being trans, etc. I certainly do not see many people in this thread making that argument.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I do, yes. I find it incredibly pointless. No one is trivializing the movement by representing asexual people. As people pointed out earlier, there is bigotry against asexual people. Asexuality, if a person is ever open about it, very often does get met with bigotry. Someone in this very thread said some pretty bigoted shit about asexual people.

That's not what royalan said at all.

And rest of the thread also has nothing to do with royalan.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That's not what royalan said at all.

And rest of the thread also has nothing to do with royalan.

Firstly:

" I don't personally have a problem with asexuality being recognized along with LGBTQ+, but I won't stand by and allow my shared history as a gay person be watered down to make asexuality feel like it has an equal role in the struggle. "

I don't know what watered down means if not trivialized.

Secondly, his reply was to me, and I can tell you that i made no such statement affirming that bigotry against asexual people is equal or that asexuality had an "equal role in the struggle." All I did was point out that blame space was ignoring the bigotry asexual people face, and royalan either misread my post or takes issue with that acknowledgment. *shrugs*

 

[Fast Forward]

First of all, I'm with Carlin on this. Term "pride" is overused.

Second of all, like only 1 percent of people are true asexuals, as opposed to being celibate. Two are often confused. Not the same thing.

Third of all, not much public awareness on the subject, and really, not a need for public acceptance, as there is not much public shamming of assexuals.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Firstly:

" I don't personally have a problem with asexuality being recognized along with LGBTQ+, but I won't stand by and allow my shared history as a gay person be watered down to make asexuality feel like it has an equal role in the struggle. "

I don't know what watered down means if not trivialized.

Secondly, his reply was to me, and I can tell you that i made no such statement affirming that bigotry against asexual people is equal or that asexuality had an "equal role in the struggle." All I did was point out that blame space was ignoring the bigotry asexual people face, and royalan either misread my post or takes issue with that acknowledgment. *shrugs*

I won't royalan claim to speak for but that post was likely speaking to you invoking the whole concept of oppression olympics.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I won't royalan claim to speak for but that post was likely speaking to you invoking the whole concept of oppression olympics.

That phrase was invoked in reply to "special representation," which given the topic I assume means representation in pride. The point was that there's no value in exclusion of asexual people from the narrative regardless of how much or little oppression they suffer for being asexual in particular.

 

[excelsiorlef]

That phrase was invoked in reply to "special representation," which given the topic I assume means representation in pride. The point was that there's no value in exclusion of asexual people from the narrative regardless of how much or little oppression they suffer for being asexual in particular.

Ok.

So at most maybe there was misconception of what you were saying. However the points raised from that misconception are still valid as they extend beyond your post.

Thus dismissing the subsequent posts with a flippant accusation of infighting isn't in itself helpful.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Ok.

So at most maybe there was misconception of what you were saying. However the points raised from that misconception are still valid as they extend beyond your post.

Thus dismissing the subsequent posts with a flippant accusation of infighting isn't in itself helpful.

I mean, of course I'll call it infighting, because as far as I could tell, royalan was not replying to anyone who argued that being asexual is met with as much oppression as other identities under the label. I also find the idea of taking so much issue in the first place with that for the reasons I stated, that ranking how oppressed a subgroup is versus others is unhelpful outside of a context where a determination has to be made about that.

 

[Van Bur3n]

It's the 5th flag on this poster

There is a flag of BDSM and leather fetishists or is that last one a joke? I can't keep up with this shit anymore.

 

[Exclamation-One]

Oh ffs.

It's time for LGBT to be destroyed.

Growing up, LGBT was fine.
I welcomed LGBT+ with open arms.
I frowned at LGBTQ+ and gritted my teeth as more and more letters were added and debated.

What the fuck is LGBTQIA? LGBTQQIAAP? LGBTQIAPK? LGBTQIAS+? LGBTQQIP2SAA?

I hate, hate, hate, hate the dipshit, alphabet soup with a passion.

-

Are you Gay? Lesbian? Bisexual? Transexual? Are you Asexual? Pansexual? Do you consider yourself Questioning your sexuality? Are you Intersex? Are you into Kinky sex play?

Congratulations, you are queer.

If you are Queer, or Queer-friendly, it means you are part of / are accepting of all the variety that comprises human sexuality. (Leaving out animals, children, or anything non-consensual.)

I have a lot more to say on this subject, but I define queerness through inclusiveness, not to defined by exclusion, discrimination or relative discrimination.

-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-tina-bruce/lgbt-acronym_b_1159004.html

Even in our own community, we are not clear on all the acronyms that represent us. If I, as a person in the LGBT community, am having a hard time understanding and knowing all the acronyms sprouting up every other month, how can we honestly expect mainstream America to understand?

Our message is supposed to about unity to obtain equality, although we cannot even communicate a clear and consistent message. I believe that we are doing ourselves a disservice by expanding our acronym for every micro group instead of projecting a simple and understandable message of equality for all.

 

[teacupcopter]

Part of the confusion here is that asexuality is also comprised of various more specific things
Wikipedia generally does a good job explaining such things specifically relevant is the section on "definition, identity and relationships" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality


I don't see where anyone saying only asexual people can post about asexuality

Someone posted that no one but asexuals can define asexuality, but with a sexuality as inherently- currently ill defined in mainstream thought this is pretty reductive. Someone made a comment about a failing marriage being asexual, which is obviously not correct however is it really that different? I mean a lot of the other letters in the lgbtq acronym are at least fairly well defined. If you are attracted to your own sex- gay, if you are attracted to the opposite, straight, both? Bi. Ect. However asexuality ... I mean a friend of mine never dated or picked up or had any kind of contact other than friendships with girls until he was like 28/29. When pressed he was always not interested or busy or whatever. People asked him about asexuality and he just said he didn't really think about dating or girls or anything like that. He then met a girl and have what seems like a normal relationship, they are trying for kids, etc. where does asexuality end and just not picking up, or being awkward, or a bad relationship, or a bad run in with a sexual encounter that scares you off begin?


Also, where does this necessarily take us? like to the thoughts of discrimination, would it be ok to not want to enter a relationship with someone who is asexual but likes relationships as you know you would never have that from them? Is this dscrimination at this point? I know many raise this question in regards to the trans community.

I guess this is kind of the first time I've kind of felt like a slightly older person who just doesn't get the fuss. I don't see the discrimination and I kinda don't get the whole thing in a way. Like it's fine to feel that way but sometimes can't people just have a low libido? For example if someone takes a medicine that affects their hormones and gives them a low libido are they now asexual? Is this something to be 'fixed'? Is that bad to say fixed now if we are accepting of "not wanting to have sex" as a lifestyle and gender identity that is to be protected now?

Edit- are high drive people on the list too? Sex addiction is treated like an illness? Etc

 

[DiipuSurotu]

It's the 5th flag on this poster

I thought the point of the first flag, featuring all colors of the rainbow, was to unite everyone already...

Why all these variations :/

 

[PabloBolivar]

I thought the point of the first flag, featuring all colors of the rainbow, was to unite everyone already...

Why all these variations :/

I'm going to state this plain and simple. People dont want to be united.

 

[Escape Goat]

I always saw the LGBT thing as a political alliance. The goal was equal protection under the law. Asexual persons have that. If we are just talking about pride then what's the big deal? It's clear some asexual people face negative reactions for being different. Let everyone celebrate their sexuality in spite of what "normal" people think about them.

 

[Drillary Clinton]

LGBTQIAS+ is the formal usage and most inclusive IMO

That is such a mouthful

 

[DemWalls]

It's the 5th flag on this poster

Man, some of these are downright unpleasant to look at.

 

[T.O.P]

It's the 5th flag on this poster

Yeah, imma stick to the vanilla one

 

[Kinyou]

It's the 5th flag on this poster

Rainbow flag aside those seem more like clubhouses than political statements

 

[Butterfly Witch]

I'm going to state this plain and simple. People dont want to be united.

Heavens forbid intersex people would want to talk to other intersex people and have a symbol to identify each other by...

The different flags are merely sub-groups, not divisions. It allows the members of those groups to share some of their experiences within a more specialized group. Be it bisexual people who may want a space without gay folk or trans folk who rather have a space without cis folk.

 

[Exclamation-One]

I'm going to state this plain and simple. People dont want to be united.

THIS.

As a (mostly) straight, cis-gendered, polyamorous person who dabbles in light BDSM, I'd love to stand arm in arm with others in a 'Queer' pride parade.

I'd go so far as to say any sexual/gender expression outside hetero male/female pairings is queer. You like to spank? That's queer! Do you enjoy threesomes, voyeurism or exhibition? You're queer. Have any kind of fetish at all? Queer.

If you are not 100.00% vanilla, you are queer.

When you get right down to it, most people on this planet ARE queer in some form or another.

Thus, the push for 'Queer' rights encompasses most of humanity.

Stop fucking around with acronyms and include everyone - one banner, one flag, one label. Unite.

-

Heavens forbid intersex people would want to talk to other intersex people and have a symbol to identify each other by...

The different flags are merely sub-groups, not divisions. It allows the members of those groups to share some of their experiences within a more specialized group. Be it bisexual people who may want a space without gay folk or trans folk who rather have a space without cis folk.

Absolutely. But the handwringing over 'LGBT________+' has got to go. Kill it with fire.

 

[Principate]

I thought the point of the first flag, featuring all colors of the rainbow, was to unite everyone already...

Why all these variations :/

The Leather pride gets me, we having flags for kinks now? What's next feet pride, creampie pride etc

 

[Butterfly Witch]

THIS.

As a (mostly) straight, cis-gendered, polyamorous person who dabbles in light BDSM, I'd love to stand arm in arm with others in a 'Queer' pride parade.

I'd go so far as to say any sexual/gender expression outside hetero male/female pairings is queer. You like to spank? That's queer! Do you enjoy threesomes, voyeurism or exhibition? You're queer. Have any kind of fetish at all? Queer.

If you are not 100.00% vanilla, you are queer.

When you get right down to it, most people on this planet ARE queer in some form or another.

Thus, the push for 'Queer' rights encompasses most of humanity.

Stop fucking around with acronyms and include everyone - one banner, one flag, one label. Unite.

-



Absolutely. But the handwringing over 'LGBT________+' has got to go. Kill it with fire.

Are you implying that LGBT+ organizations as a whole push for the needs of all of it's members equally already? Should I remind you that trans folk still have to worry about using public restrooms without breaking the law, being harassed, abused, fined or jailed?

The problem with the acronym is that it should have stopped being one a long time ago, akin to PFLAG. When PFLAG was created it was solely focused on gay and lesbians but has since transcended it's acronym to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. PFLAG means PFLAG now, not "Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays".

As such, the LGBTQ+ acronym should just drop it's acronym status and be used as a single word meaning "gender and sexual minorities".

The Leather pride gets me, we having flags for kinks now? What's next feet pride, creampie pride etc

Yeah, lol! It's like people don't make flags about hobbies before! Oh wait...

Are we really that quick to forget how intertwined the BDSM and LGBTQ+ communities have been and how they were cradles of the current communities?

 

[royalan]

I mean, of course I'll call it infighting, because as far as I could tell, royalan was not replying to anyone who argued that being asexual is met with as much oppression as other identities under the label. I also find the idea of taking so much issue in the first place with that for the reasons I stated, that ranking how oppressed a subgroup is versus others is unhelpful outside of a context where a determination has to be made about that.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Pointing out the distinctions between the histories and oppression of various groups is not "ranking them." That's your read. It's pointing out the very real differences between these groups and how we function within society in order to understand and empathize with these different groups.

The experiences of an asexual person and how their identity as an asexual person positions them in society is different from that of my own as a gay person, who on top of having to deal with awkward comments, mean names, have to also deal with the possibility of getting my ass whooped for just walking down the street. Just as I as a sexual person will never fully understand what it's like to experience the world through the lens of someone who is not sexually attracted to anyone.

And I as a gay male will never, ever be able to use my experience to claim that I fully understand, or that my experience in society is completely comparable to, that of a transperson, for example

Talking about the differences in gender and sexual identities is important for understanding them and making them visible, and to NOT do that is erasure. To argue that our experiences are all fundamentally the same, or different in ways that aren't worth discussing, is also erasure.

What you're basically arguing here is another form of #AllLivesMatter.

 

[Exclamation-One]

Are you implying that LGBT+ organizations as a whole push for the needs of all of it's members equally already?

I am implying that they do not. A transgender individual should fall under the 'queer' umbrella, the same as a straight female dominatrix.

Should I remind you that trans folk still have to worry about using public restrooms without breaking the law, being harassed, abused, fined or jailed?

Yes, and it's a shame the gay and lesbian communities often sideline or are unwelcoming to trans people.

The problem with the acronym is that it should have stopped being one a long time ago, akin to PFLAG. When PFLAG was created it was solely focused on gay and lesbians but has since transcended it's acronym to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. PFLAG means PFLAG now, not "Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays".

I had to google PFLAG. I hadn't heard of it before.

My take is that individuals should be either Queer-friendly, or Anti-queer.

Obviously, anti-queer attitudes have got to be phased out, particularly when the idea of 'queer' can involve the majority of humanity, not a minority.

Yeah, lol! It's like people don't make flags about hobbies before! Oh wait...

Are we really that quick to forget how intertwined the BDSM and LGBTQ+ communities have been and how they were cradles of the current communities?

Nothing at all wrong with a flag. Use it, embrace it.

But don't dare expect anyone to know what all the flags mean, or what all the letters in LGBT_____ on it are supposed to stand for, especially when there's nothing approaching consensus at the moment.

 

[Butterfly Witch]

I am implying that they do not. A transgender individual should fall under the 'queer' umbrella, the same as a straight female dominatrix.



Yes, and it's a shame the gay and lesbian communities often sideline or are unwelcoming to trans people.



I had to google PFLAG. I hadn't heard of it before.

My take is that you individuals should be either Queer-friendly, or Anti-queer.

Obviously, anti-queer attitudes have got to be phased out, particularly when the idea of 'queer' can involve the majority of humanity, not a minority.



Nothing at all wrong with a flag. Use it, embrace it.

But don't dare expect anyone to know what all the flags mean, or what all the letters in LGBT_____ on it are supposed to stand for, especially when there's nothing approaching consensus at the moment.

The problem is that when you make a single community "one size fits all" you end up with the current model where most organizations are staffed, spear-headed or have a majority of cis white gay men at leadership positions.

Individual communities have individual needs, it's okay to have these communities to operate as sanity check for the movement at large.

As far as the BDSM flag again, no one expects you to know it. It's used by community members to be recognized by other community members. It's purpose is to help community members spot each other, not for non-BDSM folk to identify BDSM folk.

The purpose of symbols is ease of recognition, not understanding of it's components. Go ask people out in the street what the individual components of the flag of the US are, what each of them mean and see how many give you a right answer.

 

[Exclamation-One]

The problem is that when you make a single community "one size fits all" you end up with the current model where most organizations are staffed, spear-headed or have a majority of cis white gay men at leadership positions.

Individual communities have individual needs, it's okay to have these communities to operate as sanity check for the movement at large.

I understand and agree. There absolutely should be organizations for all flavors and colors under the rainbow.

What I'm arguing, however, is this:

There needs to be solidarity. Without solidarity, there can be no consensus.

So what we end up with is shit like this:

"Sometimes I get offended if people assume my pronouns without asking, you know?"

Or this:

It's embarrassing.

 

[royalan]

It's embarrassing.

If you don't live in Philly and understand the issues specific to this city that this flag is addressing, then you have no business posting it as if you do.

Not everything is global, or national. Some things are local as fuck.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

I could actually see the feet pride being a thing considering how foot fetishists get ridiculed (or outright considered as deviants) all the time.

 

[Butterfly Witch]

I

It's embarrassing.

What is? I don't see where you're going with that at all. You shouldn't assume someone's pronouns based on presentation alone and the flag makes sense for the community it was created for.

It's not meant to be used as "okay, this is rainbow flag 2.0 and all the old flags are now useless".

Recall that the actual flag has 8 colors:

They merely removed the pink stripe because it was hard to find the fabric and the flag was meant to be relatively easy to hand make.

 

[Exclamation-One]

If you don't live in Philly and understand the issues specific to this city that this flag is addressing, then you have no business posting it as if you do.

Not everything is global, or national. Some things are local as fuck.

My understanding was that flag was introduced in Philadelphia, and not intended for use only in Philly.

That said, co-opting an internationally-known symbol and adding a twist for your own particular community seems is ill-advised at best. It creates division.

My personal take is that adding the brown and black to the flag implicitly diminishes the original 'Pride' design.

 

[Butterfly Witch]

My understanding was that flag was introduced in Philadelphia, and not intended for use only in Philly.

That said, co-opting an internationally-known symbol and adding a twist for your own particular community seems is ill-advised at best. It creates division.

My personal take is that adding the brown and black to the flag implicitly diminishes the original 'Pride' design.

The rainbow flag in itself is a spin of an international symbol. The author of the rainbow flag decided to create the rainbow flag after seeing the Flag of the Races.

 

[Exclamation-One]

The rainbow flag in itself is a spin of an international symbol. The author of the rainbow flag decided to create the rainbow flag after seeing the Flag of the Races.

And that's fine.

However, it can't be denied that this particular design has been divisive, both inside and outside of Philadelphia.

Something like this (quick mock-up) may have gone over far better:

It's specifically identifying Philly here.

What is? I don't see where you're going with that at all. You shouldn't assume someone's pronouns based on presentation alone

Come again? If someone looks female, "she." If someone looks male, "he." Not sure? "They." If he/she/they are genderqueer and you know them to be, you can simply ask. It's not hard.

However, it's absurd that Ms. Dude-Looks-Like-A-Lady* would get offended if someone refers to her as 'she.'

Are you honestly suggesting someone should ask everyone they meet what pronouns they prefer?

* Yes, I know that song has been used derisively, but I've got a trans coworker (m->f) that appropriates it as a literal power ballad.

 

[Butterfly Witch]

And that's fine.

However, it can't be denied that this particular design has been divisive, both inside and outside of Philadelphia.

Something like this (quick mock-up) may have gone over far better:

Spoiler

It's specifically identifying Philly here.

Personal preference.

The flag took flak because people within the community didn't like to be called out on their shit and then people outside the target community decided to butt in for no good reason.

The flag is there to raise awareness. If it sparks discussion then even better. There's really not much else to say about it unless you want to split hairs and discuss personal preferences, which is mostly left to the individual person.

Come again? If someone looks female, "she." If someone looks male, "he." Not sure? "They." If he/she/they are genderqueer, ask. It's not hard.

Are you honestly suggesting someone should ask everyone they meet what pronouns they prefer?

Ideally? Absolutely!

Descriptors such as "looks male/female" are disingenuous because they are rooted in the gender binary. What about non-binary people? What about gender fluid people? What about gender non-conforming people? What about trans people who haven't socially transitioned?

Does it really take that much effort and time to say "May I ask you your pronouns please?"
Even if so, you don't need to ask everyone their pronouns since in most interactions with people you call them by their names or use the pronoun "you" so... where's the issue?

 

[royalan]

And that's fine.

However, it can't be denied that this particular design has been divisive, both inside and outside of Philadelphia.

Something like this (quick mock-up) may have gone over far better:

It's specifically identifying Philly here.

As a Philadelphian who went to our Pride two weeks ago, it wasn't divisive.

It also wasn't the only Pride flag there. I personally spotted at least a dozen different takes on the pride flag.

And there doesn't need to be a giant Liberty Bell on it because Philly isn't the only city with the specific problem of the visibility of queer people of color. This flag is simply how Philly chose to address to that new dialogue that we've been having here.