 |
| The logo of the University of Sheffield LGBT Committee |
As some of you may be aware by now, I am a part of my university’s LGBT committee. It’s a really great thing to be part of, and I enjoy being a representative of the LGBT students, but it’s not always easy or without controversy. In fact, it is often very definitely with controversy, as you’d maybe expect when we’re trying to represent such a diverse and passionate group of people. The most recent source of controversy is over, of all things, our name.
We are the LGBT committee, no pluses, no Q’s or I’s or A’s, or any other letter. Just LGBT. But representing everyone who would fall under that plus, or any number of additional letters. This presents a problem, because no matter how many times you remind people that ‘in our definition of LGBT, everyone of a minority gender or sexual identity is included’, they still don’t necessarily feel represented.
Now, I am bisexual, so I suppose I don’t really understand the feeling of not being represented in the title of this group, this movement, which is meant to represent me, but I do understand the feeling of being excluded and left out in the cold by a movement more generally.
I am an LGBT woman, and a Christian, so I have very recently had to realise that groups I trusted my whole life, with leaders who I thought represented my views, are not necessarily so inclusive of me. I’ve had to deal with listening to the people who speak for these groups, who seek to represent me, say things that I fundamentally disagree with. I suppose in a way, these feelings come close to those who feel like they are estranged from our LGBT group because the initial of their identity isn’t an L, a G, a B, or a T.
Of course, in our group we aren’t trying to say anything bad, or push people away, but perhaps we are unintentionally. People may not approach a group if they aren’t sure that that group will accept them. The problem is, however, that whatever title you use for a group like this, someone will always be unhappy.
Rainbow Society, MSAGI, GSRM, LGBTQIA, LGBT+: all possible titles with flaws.
Rainbow Society is too ambiguous and, in the words of a friend who I was discussing this with, ‘too gay’. MSAGI and GSRM are both lesser known acronyms, and hence pretty obscure and also ambiguous. Not many people I would imagine, even within the LGBT community, would know the meaning of one of these acronyms if it appeared out of context within wider society. As a group trying to gather together students, some of whom may be new to the community, so we can talk to them, interact with them and ensure they have a good experience at university, these types of acronyms can be problematic, even if they are arguably the most inclusive.
As for LBTQIA etc., the problem I thin with adding letters is that there are so many varied and complex identities and labels out there that it is impossible to include everyone just by adding letters. If you add a Q, asexuals feel left out, if you add a QIA then what about pansexuals, or demisexuals, or anyone else falling under a different initial? Adding letters begins to feel like a thoroughly exclusive exercise, unlike the inclusive one it is intended to be. The plus, on the other hand, seems to trivialise gender and sexualities that aren’t LGBT. It acknowledges the fact that there is a representational problem, but goes little way to solving it. In some ways it too is more exclusive, as it tells people that they’re thought of, but not deemed important enough for an initial.
Really, it is an impossible situation.
Every name has a reason counting against it; each one excludes some group of people who are less represented by it. Basically, it is impossible to completely include everyone while making it thoroughly obvious that they are included. Writing a note about inclusivity never seems to cut the mustard, as people either don’t see it, or don’t consider it to be enough.
In the end, my personal preference for a title for a group of people of minority gender and sexual identity is still LGBT. It’s short; it’s succinct, it’s visible; it’s starting to be nationally and internationally recognised, and understood by the general population. If you want people to be able to find you this seems to be the way to go. And clearly it starts a conversation. What more could you want?
Having people talk about your group is a good thing, and being asked questions that allow you to openly state your inclusions policy and tell people about it also seems more positive than a halfway or ambiguous attempt at an inclusive name. After all, what’s in a name? As long as people find you and talk to you, and you become integrated (both as a small group, and a part of a larger movement) into both general society and the LGBT community, then surely nothing is too bad.
We are the LGBT committee, no pluses, no Q’s or I’s or A’s, or any other letter. Just LGBT. But representing everyone who would fall under that plus, or any number of additional letters. This presents a problem, because no matter how many times you remind people that ‘in our definition of LGBT, everyone of a minority gender or sexual identity is included’, they still don’t necessarily feel represented.
Now, I am bisexual, so I suppose I don’t really understand the feeling of not being represented in the title of this group, this movement, which is meant to represent me, but I do understand the feeling of being excluded and left out in the cold by a movement more generally.
I am an LGBT woman, and a Christian, so I have very recently had to realise that groups I trusted my whole life, with leaders who I thought represented my views, are not necessarily so inclusive of me. I’ve had to deal with listening to the people who speak for these groups, who seek to represent me, say things that I fundamentally disagree with. I suppose in a way, these feelings come close to those who feel like they are estranged from our LGBT group because the initial of their identity isn’t an L, a G, a B, or a T.
Of course, in our group we aren’t trying to say anything bad, or push people away, but perhaps we are unintentionally. People may not approach a group if they aren’t sure that that group will accept them. The problem is, however, that whatever title you use for a group like this, someone will always be unhappy.
Rainbow Society, MSAGI, GSRM, LGBTQIA, LGBT+: all possible titles with flaws.
Rainbow Society is too ambiguous and, in the words of a friend who I was discussing this with, ‘too gay’. MSAGI and GSRM are both lesser known acronyms, and hence pretty obscure and also ambiguous. Not many people I would imagine, even within the LGBT community, would know the meaning of one of these acronyms if it appeared out of context within wider society. As a group trying to gather together students, some of whom may be new to the community, so we can talk to them, interact with them and ensure they have a good experience at university, these types of acronyms can be problematic, even if they are arguably the most inclusive.
As for LBTQIA etc., the problem I thin with adding letters is that there are so many varied and complex identities and labels out there that it is impossible to include everyone just by adding letters. If you add a Q, asexuals feel left out, if you add a QIA then what about pansexuals, or demisexuals, or anyone else falling under a different initial? Adding letters begins to feel like a thoroughly exclusive exercise, unlike the inclusive one it is intended to be. The plus, on the other hand, seems to trivialise gender and sexualities that aren’t LGBT. It acknowledges the fact that there is a representational problem, but goes little way to solving it. In some ways it too is more exclusive, as it tells people that they’re thought of, but not deemed important enough for an initial.
Really, it is an impossible situation.
Every name has a reason counting against it; each one excludes some group of people who are less represented by it. Basically, it is impossible to completely include everyone while making it thoroughly obvious that they are included. Writing a note about inclusivity never seems to cut the mustard, as people either don’t see it, or don’t consider it to be enough.
In the end, my personal preference for a title for a group of people of minority gender and sexual identity is still LGBT. It’s short; it’s succinct, it’s visible; it’s starting to be nationally and internationally recognised, and understood by the general population. If you want people to be able to find you this seems to be the way to go. And clearly it starts a conversation. What more could you want?
Having people talk about your group is a good thing, and being asked questions that allow you to openly state your inclusions policy and tell people about it also seems more positive than a halfway or ambiguous attempt at an inclusive name. After all, what’s in a name? As long as people find you and talk to you, and you become integrated (both as a small group, and a part of a larger movement) into both general society and the LGBT community, then surely nothing is too bad.
Follow @FRW
