• 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?