You don’t get to claim you’re uncomfortable with inclusion because of how others might react to it
They didn’t
Yes, one can do that. It’s like feeling uncomfortable about something a kid does because you know how the parents would react. You might not care what the kid does, but you know how it’d make the parents feel, and that causes the feeling of discomfort.
They quite literally did, and lets just be clear - are you comparing LGBTQIA2s+ people to misbehaving children, and bigots to their long suffering parents we need to feel bad for? Or is it the other way around, and that queer people are somehow responsible for the behaviour of bigots? I honestly don’t know which is worse.
Either way, what you are still saying is: lets not do inclusion, because it’ll make bigots uncomfortable.
OP is clearly more concerned with bigots’ feelings or reaction, than they are with being inclusive of marginalised people. You can do as many mental gymnastics as you like to try and convince them and yourself otherwise, but they, and you in your defence of their bad take, have made your priorities clear - make sure bigots are comfortable, then consider inclusion.
You are the bigots making a big fuss over the “alphabet soup” or whatever, not some imaginary “other” you want to project your shit take on to so you don’t have to admit to having it (sure, others exist, but you are no different to them).
At least have the conviction to be honest with yourself, the rest of us can see right through you.
If they literally did that, could you quote it, please?
I also understand what you’re trying to do with the example I gave, but I’m not really going to entertain it. Just because I said two things can bring about similar emotions doesn’t mean I’m saying those two things have anything in common (aside from bringing about similar emotions).
I think one of the key points in fighting bigotry is to understand what it stems from. If we tell people that it’s not inclusive to say “LGBT”, what we’re doing is cutting off the people who are trying. Lumping together with bigots the people who are trying, but are simply unaware of all the extra letters they need to add to be “fully inclusive” is counterproductive imo.
Frankly, I just say “queer” when speaking aloud. I’m probably never going to be up-to-date on the entirety of what needs to follow LGBT, and I don’t need to be – I’m not part of that group, and I shouldn’t be expected to know the terminology, especially when it changes fairly rapidly.
At least in my case (because I can’t speak for anyone else), you are arguing against an ally who supports queer rights – it’s been a major consideration in every vote I’ve ever placed.
I even probably know what all of those letters stand for. But I’m not saying them or typing them out every time I want to refer to the broader group. It’s the same reason I’ll sometimes say “America” instead of “The United States of America”. Fewer syllables, and gets the idea across without offending anybody (the majority of the time).
I think one of the key points in fighting bigotry is to understand what it stems from. If we tell people that it’s not inclusive to say “LGBT”, what we’re doing is cutting off the people who are trying.
But the now-removed top post was stating ‘I didn’t want to try, it’s too long’.
Pandering to those who actually don’t want to try is not supportive, it is destructive.
Pandering to those who actually don’t want to try is not supportive, it is destructive.
I get what you’re saying, I just disagree that that’s what this is.
I believe that what you’re hearing from OP is “I don’t need to be fully inclusive, we don’t need to recognize people that fit into my worldview of what LGBT is”. I think that’s too harsh of an interpretation.
I think the comment was more along the lines of “It’s a lot to remember all the letters, and forcing others to memorize and understand all the letters (least be accused of bigotry) is harmful to the cause”.
And to reiterate my position, I don’t think the original comment was bigotry, nor do I think I’m bigoted by referring to the diverse group of people as LGBT or just queer. It’s about efficiency in communication for me, and I understand the argument about optics as well.
If someone says “I hate gay people now because the acronym is too long”, THEY ALWAYS HATED GAY PEOPLE.
You’re right. Nobody said that though.
They quite literally did, and lets just be clear - are you comparing LGBTQIA2s+ people to misbehaving children, and bigots to their long suffering parents we need to feel bad for? Or is it the other way around, and that queer people are somehow responsible for the behaviour of bigots? I honestly don’t know which is worse.
Either way, what you are still saying is: lets not do inclusion, because it’ll make bigots uncomfortable.
OP is clearly more concerned with bigots’ feelings or reaction, than they are with being inclusive of marginalised people. You can do as many mental gymnastics as you like to try and convince them and yourself otherwise, but they, and you in your defence of their bad take, have made your priorities clear - make sure bigots are comfortable, then consider inclusion.
You are the bigots making a big fuss over the “alphabet soup” or whatever, not some imaginary “other” you want to project your shit take on to so you don’t have to admit to having it (sure, others exist, but you are no different to them).
If they literally did that, could you quote it, please?
I also understand what you’re trying to do with the example I gave, but I’m not really going to entertain it. Just because I said two things can bring about similar emotions doesn’t mean I’m saying those two things have anything in common (aside from bringing about similar emotions).
I think one of the key points in fighting bigotry is to understand what it stems from. If we tell people that it’s not inclusive to say “LGBT”, what we’re doing is cutting off the people who are trying. Lumping together with bigots the people who are trying, but are simply unaware of all the extra letters they need to add to be “fully inclusive” is counterproductive imo.
Frankly, I just say “queer” when speaking aloud. I’m probably never going to be up-to-date on the entirety of what needs to follow LGBT, and I don’t need to be – I’m not part of that group, and I shouldn’t be expected to know the terminology, especially when it changes fairly rapidly.
At least in my case (because I can’t speak for anyone else), you are arguing against an ally who supports queer rights – it’s been a major consideration in every vote I’ve ever placed.
I even probably know what all of those letters stand for. But I’m not saying them or typing them out every time I want to refer to the broader group. It’s the same reason I’ll sometimes say “America” instead of “The United States of America”. Fewer syllables, and gets the idea across without offending anybody (the majority of the time).
Bro I’m bisexual but I just tell people I’m queer. It’s all encompassing and I’m lazy and it’s only one syllable.
You are a good, well-spoken person.
Haha, I try my best. Thank you.
But the now-removed top post was stating ‘I didn’t want to try, it’s too long’.
Pandering to those who actually don’t want to try is not supportive, it is destructive.
I get what you’re saying, I just disagree that that’s what this is.
I believe that what you’re hearing from OP is “I don’t need to be fully inclusive, we don’t need to recognize people that fit into my worldview of what LGBT is”. I think that’s too harsh of an interpretation.
I think the comment was more along the lines of “It’s a lot to remember all the letters, and forcing others to memorize and understand all the letters (least be accused of bigotry) is harmful to the cause”.
And to reiterate my position, I don’t think the original comment was bigotry, nor do I think I’m bigoted by referring to the diverse group of people as LGBT or just queer. It’s about efficiency in communication for me, and I understand the argument about optics as well.