A question, fellow CoSonauts: today for the first time I encountered the acronym Q+ as a stand-in for LGBTQ (and all of its extended variations).
Have you encountered this?
How does it feel to you?
@Bliss I hear you, and I share your concern about that.
On the other hand, I think it could be a way to enhance solidarity -- one label to belong to.
@sumpnlikefaith I wouldn’t want it to be misinterpreted as Qanon.
I actually saw a car this week with a large Q sticker in their back window. I know it was the crazy Q bc they also had a “where we go one…” sticker too and other Trumpy stuff.
@AverageCitizen Right. You're not the first to make that association.
That whole thing is so far removed from me, but I could see that interpretation if there was no context. And I want no part of that, for obvious reasons.
Considering how many people object to being called queer, it doesn't seem like it'd catch on.
I like SGM, sexual and gender minorities. It's used in sociology and has some traction in England, but hasn't caught on in the US.
@tyghebright Oh, I could get on board with SGM!
Most of the LGBTQ+ people I share life with are okay with queer, but you're right -- that is a regional and not universally-accepted thing.
@sumpnlikefaith @tyghebright As a married, heterosexual, and biological male that acronym doesn't affect me much. That said, when an acronym (!), which is already used as shorthand for a longer phrase, keeps growing then something is fundamentally wrong with it. People can call themselves whatever they like but I like @tyghebright's suggestion of SGM. It's simple and resolves the issue cleanly. The difficulty in being adopted in the US probably lies in the tacit admission of being a minority.
@danielbsmith @tyghebright
I don't think there is any doubt about LGBTQ+ people's minority status, considering the way US politicians keep drafting legislation targeting them. :-/
And pockets of Canada are joining suit. Blech.
@sumpnlikefaith @tyghebright That's actually what I'm talking about. The minority label is seen as a stigma as you have demonstrated.
The truth is they would still be a minority if the government was neutral or even favorable. There's broad support in the US for LGBTQ but actual members of that label are far fewer than a majority. The actual majority is heterosexuals which it must be and which must remain to maintain our national population.
@danielbsmith @tyghebright Hmmm, I'm not concerned about the national population being alarmingly affected by LGBTQ+ people.
For one thing, many SGM (I'm taking it for a test-drive) folks are starting families and having children. 🙂
Further, I don't think a reduction in population is the end of the world. While our global economy is predicated on perpetual population growth, that seems unsustainable. So we need to fix the system -- global population shrinkage seems inevitable.
@sumpnlikefaith It would save some typing.
@sumpnlikefaith
Never seen it before, but then again I'm out of the loop for everything trendy. Initially I thought it referred to those Q-anon folks till you explained. Don't know how I feel about it but my gut reaction is that it feels like folks are being overlooked in the shortened acronym.