Should we drop this GLBT thing, as it seems to exclude as many as it includes?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2009 12:53 AM GMT
    I've noticed a number of Bisexual men here at RJ, that when they are with a women / wife they are pseudo straights, and when they are with a man they in their minds are now gay, and never a bisexual, neither one or the other yet both.

    Now we have the T's since now we have women thank to medical science, that are able to create the illusion of being a male, and now their lesbian lovers, now become their straight partnericon_rolleyes.gif They are not lesbians anymore, as they are straight now too.

    So should we get ride of this GLBT thing, and just go back to being Gay and Lesbians? Since many of the bisexuals don't like the label bisexual, and now when some-one has a sex change, not only are they abounding the gender they were born with, but their sexuality too.

    I'm sorry I never did understand this GLBT thing anyways, and the labels seem too be excluding, as many as they include. One of the things that got me the most about the gay community; whatever that is? is all they labels, ones that come from within, and not forced onto it. But when I don't accept a bisexual as a gay man, they feel I'm robbing them of something, yet as a pure homosexual, it's they who are doing the taking. I did not create the labels.

    Yes I know bisexual men exist. I have a brother who is one, and he stands under the label, or banner of straight, and I've had lovers who have sex with both men and women; albeit not always at the same time. Yet are open and happy with being bisexual, they look at it as having the best of both worlds.

    But I'm sorry what is the use of this GLBT thing, when it's excludes, as many as it includes?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2009 1:09 AM GMT

    Pattison, go to your closet! We'll pray, Pattison, we'll pray!


    In a word, HELL NO, it's more inclusive than you seem to think and really, what would take it's place? Anonymity is not a position, we need to be identifiable. GLBT covers just about all of us despite the anti gay gay's protests. Cece is trans gender, she is still one of us. You know that the heteros aren't as accepting as all that, I doubt her hand crafted penis would make grade.

    You gotta remember PRIDE, GLBT, and all that aren't new, they were created to precipitate togetherness, understanding, unity....it's lost it's effect because we've bought into the stereotype that we just care about what happens between the sheets. If that's all that mattered, no, we wouldn't need to unite or have a flag, but we live in the world and we enjoy and want certain rights. Whether you are Cece Bono, me, you, a lesbian, a disgusting pig boy who falls to bended knee and sucks a group blindfold....we are all QUEER. I mean, changing your sex so that you could be with a woman when you were already a lesbian?? She's still with us, honey. She's even more queer now than she was before.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2009 1:49 AM GMT
    icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2009 4:57 AM GMT
    I started a gay-straight alliance in high school and learned a couple things about what it means to be GLBT...

    1) Anonymity does no good
    2) Being in people's faces about it does no good

    Just be yourself, tell if asked and tell as necessary, and the rest will follow. If you don't act the stereotype, you won't be stereotyped. If you are the stereotype, chances are you won't be well-liked. Don't fit the label, make your own label. GLBT is nothing more than a foundation to build up from and hardly a mold to force yourself into.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2009 6:40 AM GMT
    I posted this on my blog a year ago. It's as relevant now as it ever was:

    The ever-expanding acronym LGBT/LGBTQ/LGBTQQIAA is a manifestation of the impossibility of discretizing the many dimensional continuum of human sexuality. In its longest forms, it is certainly cumbersome, but in its shorter forms it is certainly very recognizable as something more inclusive than "gay": We do not all need to be boxed together, but sometimes we do need a rallying cry to be free. However much one dislikes the acronym, one can hardly envisage setting up an LGBT group that did not have some combination and permutation of the people it was supposed to include.

    It is also, however a statement inseperable from its history and within that aesthetic is unsurprising that it has grown. It has grown because many people over time have disagreed with the status quo, and have been disheartened by remaining prejudices within LGBT society: race, class, age, mysogyny, prejudice against transgender people etc. The growth of the acronym is a reflection of its users understanding of these prejudices and a consequential affirmation of inclusivity. It would be churlish and counterproductive to condemn people for attempting to be inclusive! Labels such as "politically correct" denigrate the utterly laudible actions of those who are sufficiently analytical to try to care about the way they talk.

    Nonetheless, those who do perpetually extend the acronym are misguided: there will never be a satisfactory acronym or label that describes the sexuality of everyone since any label that affirms who it includes must do so by omitting those who it excludes. We can rid ourselves of the question of who to include by understanding the fundamental principle at stake: that discrimination for any irrelevant reason whatsoever is unjustifiable. I would contend that the labels we choose ought to communicate this truth as fully as possible. Metaphors like "Spectrum", liberating statements like "Out" are far better than boxes like "LGBTQQIAAS".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2009 6:45 AM GMT
    why not get rid of all labels instead??? why on earth do you continue to post?