Hello! It's been such a long time since I could actually write one of these entries during midnight. Right now it is 11:10 PM, which is close enough for me. A few days ago I was thinking about this topic, and I guess we all do from time to time, about what's the deal with the never-ending LGBTQ+ acronym and what this could implicate for us as a community. Short answer: it's wrong.
Let me get this straight: I have a master's in communication. One of the I learned is that the simpler the message the clearer it will be. When you have an idea and present it in a simple yet direct way, most of the time it's going to have a positive effect on your public. Nothing new here so far, because I think we all know this to some degree, right?
However, the problem is when you're trying to include more information in as little space as possible. This is directly related to the LGBTQ+ acronym. As time goes by, the acronym keeps growing, until it becomes something totally difficult to remember, and even awkward to pronounce in a common conversation. Here's a copy-paste taken from Wikipedia so you know exactly what I'm talking about:
Some use LGBT+ to mean "LGBT and related communities".[25] LGBTQIA is sometimes used and adds "queer, intersex, and asexual" to the basic term.[39] Other variants may have a "U" for "unsure"; a "C" for "curious"; another "T" for "transvestite"; a "TS", or "2" for "two-spirit" persons; or an "SA" for "straight allies".[40][41][42][43][44] The inclusion of straight allies in the LGBT acronym has proven controversial as many straight allies have been accused of using LGBT advocacy to gain popularity and status in recent years,[45] and various LGBT activists have criticised the heteronormative worldview of certain straight allies.[46] Some may also add a "P" for "polyamorous", an "H" for "HIV-affected", or an "O" for "other".[17][47] The initialism LGBTIH has seen use in India to encompass the hijra third gender identity and the related subculture.[48][49]
Basically, if I were to include all these identities, then I'd end up with something like this: LGBTQIAUCT2SAPHOI. No, I'm not exaggerating. I included every single term that the text describes. I need to return my titles, start studying again, and begin psychiatric treatment if there's one single soul that tells me this is okay.
Although I stand for the idea of inclusion, and as much inclusion as possible, it is more important how you present a message than the message itself. In this case, both presentation and message carry the same importance, because one cannot work without the other. Being such a diverse community, the acronym has to reflect this, but also needs to be easy to remember for those inside and outside of it.
Enter the short version I've been using, LGBTQ+. It includes the four classical letters we are all familiar with, the Q for queer and questioning, which are open and vague enough, and the + for every single other terms that could be included. Based on emotions, all these identities and terms should be included, but since you can't do them all, how do you draw the line that marks which to use and which not to? Using something simple, familiar, easy to remember, and quick to pronounce, that's how.
I could say the same about the rainbow flag, which has been through SO MANY changes in recent years that it's becoming a circus. Seriously, how are app developers and phone companies going to be able to make an emoticon for the newest one? I think there comes a point when we need to stop, and that point seems too far. The six-color version from 1979 we all know seems inclusive enough for me. What could be more diverse than a rainbow with all those colors? There has been a lot of work done since then, we've changed as a community, welcoming BIPOC, trans people, intersex people, and every single one who wants to support the fight for equality. I don't see a need to keep using the new ones anymore.
I've seen those new flags and the new acronym in daily matters, and they just cause confusion, frustration, and finally disinterest. That's what happens when you come across something so foreign and seemingly so complex, you lose interest. People have asked about them, not knowing what they stand for and not knowing the difference between so many variants. It makes the message difficult to be understood, and the more open it tries to be, the more closed it is for straight, cisgender people.
art.jpg "Book Review: (he)art")
No comments:
Post a Comment