• Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jesus. At this point can we just say LGBTO and have the O mean Others? It’s getting cringy af, and I’m saying that as a trans person.

      • macracanthorhynchus@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was the whole point of the “Q”! In fact, we could ditch the LGBT and just stick with a fully inclusive “Queer”.

        • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d love if we could get to a place where the Q encompasses all of the identities. As it stands, it feels like Queer has taken on an identity of its own.

      • n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t worry there are only 107 recognized genders. I’d like to hear any politician throw that one around

        • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why can’t those 107 genders fall under T for trans? I feel old for saying this, but if you don’t identify with your birth gender then doesn’t that make a person trans? Why do they need a extra letter on LGBT for it?

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s a Native American term that has been in use for thousands of years longer than whatever newbie civilization your ancestors came from.