Reader comments · Organisation proposes replacing the ‘limiting’ term LGBT with ‘more inclusive’ GSD · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Organisation proposes replacing the ‘limiting’ term LGBT with ‘more inclusive’ GSD

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Leigh Hamilton 25 Feb 2013, 6:57pm

    GSD also stands for German Shepherd Dog. This could get confusing…

    1. To say nothing of “Guy Sucks Dick!” I so can’t believe I just said that.

  2. Daft idea – someone clearly has far too much time on their hands !

    By analogy with STDs, it would doubtless become known as Gay Sexual Diseases… :-(

    1. Or Gender and Sexual Disorders

  3. This has been the topic of conversation on another forum for the last week or so already.

    and the consensus is that the idea is completely idiotic.

    I am a gay man, I am not a “gender and sexual diversity”.

    This is a completely wrong-headed attempt at political correctness gone completely overboard.

    First of all, why would “allies” be included? “Allies” are not a sexual orientation.

    Secondly, what the hell is “queer”? Why is that fictional word included? We’re all either men, or women. We are either attracted to someone of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, or a bit of each. Why does that require any words other than Straight, Gay and Bi?

    I don’t even approve of the word “lesbian”. Why do gay women need to have a completely distinct word to describe the exact same state as “gay”? oh yeah, I forgot, womyn hate men and anything to do with them.

    I’m ranting.
    I know.
    I’m ranting because this is all getting completely fu**ed up and farcical in its extremism.

    1. There isn’t even any good reason to include trans people under the umbrella. They are a completely distinct and separate situation. Trans people want to be the opposite sex from that which they were born. No gay people do. The two issues are completely different.

      Sure, if a trans woman is attracted to other women it’s not that complicated: SHE’S GAY. She just happens to be a trans woman.

      But a trans woman who wants nothing more than to live a happy little life with a husband, and a picket fence, etc… THAT has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues being dealt with by gay and bisexual men and women.

      These “therapists” want to include fetishists, and S&M practitioners, and swingers and polyamorous people under the same umbrella category as gays and bisexuals. WHY?

      1. If they want their little clinic to give services to all sorts of people, then fine, let them. But it’s is completely wrong of them to try and redefine who we are as a community by FORCING the inclusion of people who don’t belong.

      2. There are a huge number of similarities between being gay, lesbian or bi, and being trans. Both groups fail to fit into traditional gender roles and suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result. Both groups have their relationships questioned and have struggled to have them legally recognised. Both have particular healthcare needs, including increased risks of mental health problems and STDs. Both groups tend to require adoption or aritificial insemination to have kids, and tend to be seen by many as unfit parents. Bars, charities and pressure groups often cater to both groups. Trans people are more likely than the general population to be gay or bi (I suspect the reverse is true, too). Cross-dressing is certainly popular among LGB people. Besides all that, there is strength in numbers, and I don’t see any downsides to grouping LGBT people together.

        Which therapists want to include fetishists, swingers, etc. under the LGBT umbrella exactly?

      3. Mikey if you studied your gay history you would know that many trans people were at the Stonewall riots and many of them were in the gay bar that was raided. Google Sylvia Rivera who is a historic icon in LGBT history. She was a T woman.

      4. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 9:34pm

        You don’t seem to understand most of these terms. Transgender people don’t “want to be the opposite sex from that which they were born.” They ARE the gender they feel themselves to be, and their internal and external genitalia don’t match that. They share similar social problems with gay/bi people because they face similar misconceptions from the community at large. So, incidentally, asexual and intersex people. Fetishism, sadomasochism, swinging and polyamory are behaviors, and are practiced by straight, gay, bi, and trans people. Why would a therapist dealing with gay and bisexual people not treat people who engage in these behaviors? In an of themselves, none of these behaviors is a problem, and there is no reason for a therapist to attempt to change these behaviors. They sometimes involve some shame, and therapists should help people overcome that shame. But what consenting adults do in private is just that: PRIVATE.

    2. “We’re all either men, or women”
      Well, except for those who are not, of course. And yes, they do exist. Intersexed people, for example.
      And what about transgendered people? Not men, not women.

      “We are either attracted to someone of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, or a bit of each”
      Well, except for those who are not attracted to either. Around 1% of the population is reckoned to be asexual, for starters.

      “Why does that require any words other than Straight, Gay and Bi?”
      Because there are people who do not fit into any of those categories. Are they to continue to be completely ignored, swept under the carpet, and told to be quiet because they don’t fit conveniently into your 3 categories?

      Hopefully one day we as a species will become enlightened enough that such matters as gender etc are so irrelevant as to be label-less. Until that time, however, if we are to use labels, let’s not get so caught up on our own little rants that we leave people out.

      1. I disagree with the “transgendered people? not men, not women”.
        I find that a shocking lack of respect. I find it actually incredibly offensive.

        I thought the whole POINT of respecting trans people was to acknowledge their preferred gender?

        A trans man is a man. period.
        A trans woman is a woman. period.
        Why should we view them as anything other?

        BUT! their issues are most assuredly NOT the same as those of gay men and women.

        And leaving people out is perfectly fine, if it’s done for the right reason.
        For example, LGBTQA… really? “allies”? that isn’t a sexual identity of any sort. “Queer”? completely meaningless. It’s just “queer/feminist studies” gobbledygook.

        The more definitions there are, the more business these people have.

        1. I note you completely fail to address the whole issue of interest, for a start – a prime example of why your binary “male:female” labelling doesn’t work.

          And regarding transgendered people, when you say “man” do you mean physically or mentally or emotionally or sexually or…?
          It is a REALLY massive area, and again your binary labelling just plain does not work. Period.

          1. ...Paddyswurds 3 Mar 2013, 3:04pm

            People are humans, not computers and I get really piss*d of when trannies start spouting this “binary and cis” shyte. Start your own group and you can add the entire alphabet if you wish for all I care. Your problems, fake or else, are nothing to do with being Gay Bi or Lesbian as y’all are so ready to point out and frankly we would rather you phucked off and whined elsewhere. Gay people have enough to be going on with without being tainted by your constant whinging!

      2. Gene in L.A. 25 Feb 2013, 8:45pm

        Trans men are men. Some are male-affectional, some are female-affectional and some are both. Trans women are women. Categorizing people by whom they love is what’s wrong, not the number of categories.

    3. “I don’t even approve of the word “lesbian”. Why do gay women need to have a completely distinct word to describe the exact same state as “gay”? oh yeah, I forgot, womyn hate men and anything to do with them.”

      Erm what? Lesbian pre-dates gay as a word to describe a sexual orientation. Don’t let the truth get in the way though.

      You seem almost as crazy as these pink therapy people but luckily for you they make even less sense.

      1. I know what you mean Joss, but it was originally a euphemism, like “Sapphic” (and for the same reason), and I’m not sure if that’s the ideal basis for a formal description today.

        I have to say that I too don’t know why we can’t just be described as gay men or gay women. My gay women friends seem to use the terms ‘gay’ and ‘Lesbian’ interchangeably.

        1. I think you’re missing my point. Mickey offensively inferrred that “womyn” hate men and have decided to segregate themselves with a lesbian label, which is factually incorrect and offensive. The only person I’ve ever encountered who had a problem with women describing themselves as, or being described as, “gay”, was a gay man. Not a very clever gay man and this piece of anecdotal evidence isn’t supposed to say anything about gay men in general.

          I don’t know why you consider lesbian and sapphic to be euphemistic and not gay?

          I can’t actually read what I’ve written because I’m using my phone and it doesn’t work well with pn so appologies for poor grammar, typos and half finished thoughts.

          1. Oh, I see what you mean – I read too quickly.

            I think the only reason I don’t consider ‘gay’ euphemistic in the same way is that it’s largely – as far as I know, anyway – a self-chosen definition. But I suppose you could say the same about ‘Lesbian’, come to think of it.

    4. You call yourself a gay man Mikey, just fine with me. I call myself a lesbian and have done for the last 30 years. I don’t care whether you approve or like the word not.

    5. Liam the God 2 Mar 2013, 11:23pm

      And there was me thinking that until the 1960’s/70’s “Gay” simply meant Jolly, happy, or cheerful!

      1. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 9:40pm

        Yeah. Before we became gay in the 1960s/70s we were queer. You know, that “fictional” word?

    6. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 9:20pm

      Queer is as legitimate a term as gay. The equivalent term to bisexual and transgender is homosexual, not gay. And before we were gay, we were queer. Not only is it NOT fictional, it has a much longer history in our community than gay. As for the word lesbian, lesbian is to homosexual as sedan is to car. Just as not all cars are sedans, not all homosexuals are lesbians; but that doesn’t mean the sedans is an invalid name for some cars or lesbian is an invalid name for some homosexuals. They are more specific terms.

      Lesbians are a very diverse group. A few hate men. A few gay men hate women. So what? As a group, lesbians do not hate all men any more than you hate all women.

      Use whatever term you prefer for yourself. In various situations, I refer to myself as gay, lesbian, queer, LGBT, LGBTQ, GLBT, GLBTQ, and sometimes even by my given name! The labels don’t define me, they allow me to clarify who I am, because I define them.

  4. Would ‘Gender and Sexual Diversities’ mean that, as a gay person, I’d be Sexually Diversified’? I’d rather be just gay, thanks all the same.

  5. That There Other David 25 Feb 2013, 7:47pm

    I’m quite happy to continue using LGBT thanks. GSD sounds like a date-rape drug.

  6. What happened to gender and sexual minorities? That seems to have become popular among some LGBT groups and the more forward-thinking governments and international organisations. I also like QUILTBAG (Queer/Questioning, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual/Ally, Gay).

    1. Without realising it you probably included a large chunk of most communities in with that acronym. Perhaps a majority? But we will never know for sure.

    2. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 9:44pm

      If that’s the way you’d like to describe yourself, more power to you. It’s a bad term for the community as a whole. We need to stop focusing on labels and start focusing on issues.

  7. Well at the University of Wolverhampton, we have been using LGBT+ ,its very inclusive and include everyone ^^

    1. What do you mean by everone? I hope not paedophiles? I think not, so LGBT+ is just as bad as GSD.

      1. WHat a stupid comment!

  8. This is a terrible idea – People against us are immediately going to jump on the whole ‘gender and sexual deviancy’ bandwagon. Also, they complain about how LGBT is limiting as it doesn’t encompass Asexual, questioning etc. What I don’t understand is why these extremely contrasting groups need to be grouped together in the first place. I am gay, not LGBT because I’m not lesbian, bisexual or transgender :P

  9. Why don’t we just use queer? It’s the simplest, oldest, and most inclusive option

    1. how about “gay” which is technically older and just as inclusive..

      1. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 9:55pm

        Actually, queer is older and more inclusive. Historically, queer meant anybody who didn’t fit into the majority, sexually. Homosexual, bisexual, tranvestite, transgender, asexual, intersex–all of these people were “queer.” Gay has applied to homosexuals only since the 1950s, and became common use for homosexual in the 1960s/70s. Queer for sexually non-normative dates back to the early 1800s.

        I get that you like to refer to yourself as “a gay man.” Great. Do so. But these other terms you are putting down are, for the most part, older, more accurate, and the preferred terms of many other people.

    2. If you were called “queer” often enough by homophobes, it probably wouldn’t be a word you’d want to use to describe yourself.

      I know all about the idea of claiming words for ourselves, but some of us don’t buy into that – we don’t want to call ourselves “queer”, “faggot” or the like! If some people choose such words, then that’s up to them, but the rest of us would prefer not to.

      1. Brett Gibson 26 Feb 2013, 12:39am

        It’s what black people did with the word ‘nigger’ and if you look now on YouTube or anywhere online where kids and adults alike can post freely with no restriction, kids especially and white ones at that now use this word in a positive way. So maybe it does actually work, however gay people don’t have a big cultural output like black people had with RnB and Hip Hop – possibly because 80% of the world’s gay population still live in secrecy and in fear.

      2. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 10:10pm

        You should choose labels for yourself that describe you as you see yourself. For me, referring to myself as queer says that I refuse to be ashamed of something about who I am just because someone else thinks I should be ashamed of it.Homophobes can call me queer.No problem.Just because someone implies I should be ashamed to be something doesn’t mean I am or that I should be.And because I’m NOT ashamed to be queer, there is no reason for me to care, even a little bit, whether someone calls me that.

        That, by the way, is what “claiming the word” means.It means “I’m not ashamed to be what you called me, because it’s NOT shameful.” It’s not like you grimace and suffer through it.If being queer is, in your mind, like being tall, or blonde-haired, just something you ARE, homophobes can’t hurt you by calling you queer, any more than people who hate tall people could hurt you by yelling “TALL!” at you.You can’t be hurt by a word you don’t give any power to.You’ve given the word queer power.

    3. Why do I get the impression that you are younger than 30?

    4. Staircase2 26 Feb 2013, 3:26pm

      Well said,

      ‘Queer’ IS already used re ‘Queer Studies’ etc and is the one all encompassing word which is actually pronounceable

      LGBTQi (I like the look of it with a little i – it stands out far more and is more graphic …and Apple…) was ok up to a point until all the other newly formed student activism bodies decided to add spurious other letters which were usually already included in the first six!

      It would make sense if we’re gonna use letters for it to actually SPELL something pronounceable…

      I currently disagree that it should encompass sexual practice vs sexual identity (ie BDSM) although I do believe it should include the trans community which has historically been a part of the overall gay community

    5. Spanner1960 26 Feb 2013, 6:38pm

      For the same reason we don’t call ourselves “faggots”: It’s offensive.

      1. Liam the God 2 Mar 2013, 11:25pm

        When I was a kid “Faggots” were pork offal in a rich gravy. You can still buy them in Sainsbury’s.

        1. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 10:14pm

          and cigarettes.

        2. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 10:15pm

          and a bundle of sticks…

      2. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 10:28pm

        If you find either offensive then you’ve bought in to the homophobes’ contention that you have something to be ashamed of. Neither implies that one has done anything wrong. Offensive would be saying you had. Both simply imply you are homosexual. And you’re not ashamed to be homosexual, right? I’m not. I call myself queer (faggot implies male, and I’m not male) because being queer is nothing to be ashamed of. It’s impossible for homophobes to hurt me by calling me queer, because I am not ashamed to be queer. I am, in fact, PROUD to be queer. It’s HARD to grow up queer, and I did a damned fine job of it! Calling you queer or faggot is only offensive if you believe there is something WRONG with being queer or a faggot. There isn’t. Don’t give them that power.

    6. Because gay people aren’t queer.

  10. I am fed up with all this crap. They keep adding to the alphabet soup and one can’t keep up. I am a gay man. When you see alphabet soups which are LGBTIQ plus more letters it gets idiotic. I will and never will be a GSD. I wish we would just get back to LGB or LGBT whatever, but I do think the T have a different set of objectives.

    1. casparthegood 25 Feb 2013, 10:51pm

      Agreed. As a gay man I am sure who and what I am, but if you do feel the need to label me I won’t really get precious about what you call me as long as you do it with a smile on your face

    2. That was the point of the scam. How do you get LGB people to subordinate their interests, to expend their political capital, and their human and financial resources on behalf separate groups of people, i.e., the various groups that make up “transgender,” who are overwhelmingly heterosexual?

      Well, you can try to be allies with the gays. But allies have the right and the ability to say “no” and to limit the alliance to terms that make sense. So that wouldn’t work for the Ts. No, instead you create the fiction that there is something called “LGBT people” and that – all of a sudden- heterosexual crossdressers and transsexuals are co-owners of the gay community. Now they don’t have to ask; they can simply demand. In the US, the gay movement has suffered innumerable setbacks because it has been bullied into the position that no gay rights can be proposed unless they come bundled with all manner of issues that relate to crossdressing and transsexuality.

  11. Gene in L.A. 25 Feb 2013, 8:31pm

    I prefer to think of GSD as Gay, Straight and Different. If that doesn’t cover everyone, what does? “Gay” doesn’t necessarily denote sex; it’s also an affectional preference. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  12. Leave well enough alone!

    Internationally two things have symbolically come to identify our community LGBT and the Rainbow flag.

    Prior to this our community was known by slang and pejoratives which exuded hate and homophobic intolerance. LGBT changed that by becoming an acceptable way to be described or referred to. It provides great clarity of each definition.

    Like many people in life, I grew up in a time when LGBT was not a reference. I know as do others the hurt and abuse of many pejoratives that people of more recent generations are already trying to reclaim as definitions.

    I take great pride in the confidence and comfort zone of my rainbow umbrella and unique and explicit in the LGBT reference. As a community it is symbolic of the Human Rights we have accomplished! Leave well enough alone!

    1. Staircase2 26 Feb 2013, 3:30pm

      Actually it wasn’t the rainbow flag – it was the pink triangle – the rainbow flag was adopted from the US gay movement and sadly eradicated the pink triangle as the symbol for the gay movement

      1. True, I stated “have symbolically come to identify” The pink triangle wasn’t mentioned in my comment only because many people (not all) historically only associate it with the holocaust. I acknowledge it is still used recognized and respected. However in more recent terms LGBT and the flag appear to predominate, but don’t diminish the importance of Pink triangle association with our community.

  13. A consortium of private gender psychotherapists changing the taxonomy based on sex and sexual orientation to one of gender in order to get business! The medicalisation of LGBT by GSD how totally sic and innapropriate. I will never support these tactics!

    1. Well said, Sonny. I agree.

      And who the hell has ever heard about this group called “Pink Therapy”! I keep my finger on the pulse, and I’ve never heard of them before. They should stick to their own little business.

      1. I think that if one digs deep enough they will realsie that these gender therapists are in fear of losing their jobs counselling people who wish to have gender re-assignment because the NHS is reviewing trans services. This is a cynical and extremlly dangerous ploy to change the definitions of Lesbian & Gay female/male based on biological sex to one where everything is in a transitional performative cloud destroying our LGB movement which was always based on sexual orientation. A trans man is not the same as male and a transwoman is not the same as female. A transwoman cannot be a lesbian by definition. Thats why its important that lesbians retain this seperation and be gay at the same time which of course is what they are. This Pink Therapy Group probably has mainly straight students on its courses and that is where the difficulties for gays will arise when straight people will be taught through Transgender lens . Soon all gay people will be told they all have ‘dysphorias’.

        1. I think you’ll find that trans people can be any sexual orientation. I can tell you right away what you wrote is a whole load of bullshit, cause I’m a gay trans man. Also, separating trans men and women from cis men and women like they’re “different” is degendering and gross. Also, your “movement” owes itself to the trans women who started the riots that began the movement in the first place. Learn your own history. I cannot even begin to explain everything else that’s wrong with this post.

          1. Staircase2 26 Feb 2013, 3:36pm

            On one point of order, the Gay Liberation movement was already happening in the UK before the Stonewall Riots and, while inspired by that, already had its own focused agenda intent on bringing about Equality

          2. Lets not confuse gay male cross dressing in the late 60’s with transgender. Lets not confuse lesbians and gay men with Chicks with Dicks or chicks who want dicks. the use of the term cis gender was created to highlight difference by trans-activists. This is not a term used by gay people or straight people. I find the inaccuracy in your statement about the ‘movement created by trans women’ disturbing and historically incorrect. The proposed change in the LGB taxonomy will create further abuse of gay people and open up a can of worms. This may be ‘good business’ for pink therapy and I strongly recommend that Pink Therapy changes its name to reflect Gender by calling itself Gender Therapy because that is what it is in reality.

        2. Icertainly would not describe pink therapy as gender therapists. I think you’ll find that Pink Therapy are far more focussed on sexual orientation than gender identity. Last time I looked, their books were almost entirely to do with gay issues and there was only one chapter on transsexualism (and that looked at the issue from a sexual orientation perspective).

          Your comments also demonstrate an ignorance – of course a transwoman can be lesbian and a transman can be gay.

  14. One problem I have with the proposed terminology is that I take offense at having my orientation limited to “sex”. If I had never had sex I would still be gay. If I never have sex again I will still be gay for reasons that go FAR beyond my genitalia and the genitalia of the person I am emotionally, romantically and spiritually attracted to. We have enough of a hard time convincing straight people that we are far more than a sex act or a sexual attraction without voluntarily yoking ourselves to a term that insinuates just that. GLBT is enough of a box but at least we’re used to it. Changing to something that is no more accurate, or even less accurate, is a waste of time, effort and energy.

  15. Bad idea. So are paedophiles and necrophiles included too now? This will be the question asked millions of times and rightly so.

  16. What a ridiculous idea – I am a man who happens to be gay and very proud of that just as I’m proud to be a Briton and a Londoner. . GSD – playground bullies will love this one – they’ll soon be yelling “Gay Sexual Disorder” in the playground and using it as an insult “you’re so GSD”.

    1. …or “you’ve got GSD”!

      The term ‘Gender and Sexual Diversities’ sounds like an academic field of study at a college/university. It’s so patronising to expect anyone who is lesbian, gay or bi to described themselves as ‘sexually diversified’ or for trans-sexual/gender people to describe themselves as ‘gender-diversified’.

  17. Sing if you’re glad to be GSD.
    No, it just doesn’t sound right. I am Gay, not a diversity group. Don’t want the word sexual describing me. It’s just as clinical as “homosexual”.
    Not sure we should all (Gays and Trans) be lumped in together anyway. It’s totally different. I guess “people of colour” get lumped together in that term or as “ethnic minorities” but this is not appropriate for all contexts. Whoever heard a Back guy describe himself as an ethnic minority?

  18. Brett Gibson 26 Feb 2013, 12:52am

    This is clearly a move to add the word ‘sexual’ in the title to give homophobic people even more reason to distance themselves from it. I am a Gay man, not a lesbian, transvestite, transsexual, bisexual or asexual. Putting us all into one group is just as good as saying ‘Being straight is normal and everything else is “alternative”. Being gay is not ‘alternative’ it is ONE OF THE MANY different sexual orientations that have existed for as long as straight people have. Yup that’s right people even some cave boys wanted to kiss other cave boys, some wanted to be cave girls, some wanted to be with both girls and boys. It’s human nature. Why don’t they just call us PWASWM (People Who Aren’t Straight White Males) and lob everyone who is disrespected in society into one group. World – Y U NO EQUAL?!?!

  19. Cardinal Capone 26 Feb 2013, 12:52am

    If they are London based then why don’t they spell counselling with 2 l’s. Only Americans spell it with one.

    On the main point, sorry but GSD sounds like a sexually transmitted disease.

  20. I’m Pansexual although the closest words on that list would be Gay and Queer. It doesn’t bother me when people call me gay. At least they can understand that much. Queer is the closest to Pansexual. Am I the only person here to understand what Ally partners are? One of my good friends is an Ally partner in a committed relationship.

  21. I think the entire idea of renaming the community is a great idea. Since we keep adding letters to the acronym and it gets confusing and then another person is left out, we are continually changing. However, for reasons listed above about it getting confusing or about the D being disease or disorder and getting confused that way, I feel like it might not work. I do agree with the Gender and Sexuality portion. I am personally an advocate of the “Queer Community” thing that has been going around, but I completely understand that for some the term is still offensive and stings.
    As an activist and blog writer ( I work with a lot of individuals who complain about this issue. My college actually changed our Gay-Straight Alliance to the more inclusive Gender and Sexuality Alliance, and I thought it was the most inclusive two words that existed in our language.
    Again, the D gives me trouble as others have mentioned.

    1. Sorry you have a problem with being gay. It doesn’t surprise me that you like the term “queer.” Most self-loathing homosexuals who see themselves as marginal actors in society do.

  22. So there’s a lot of arguments going on here but no one is bring up the real problem… they spelt organization wrong…

    1. Because they used an ‘S’ in the title? I suggest you locate a dictionary, and fast.

    2. Not as far as standard UK practice goes – even the OED, the last UK dictionary to prefer Z to S, offers both spellings.

      1. Spanner1960 26 Feb 2013, 6:39pm

        Only to appease the yanks.

        1. *sigh*

          The OED has no reason to ‘appease the yanks’, it sticks with the usage it has ALWAYS had. For goodness’ sake, learn a little more about the language you’re so keen to mouth off about.

          I refer you to the fourth sentence of the second paragraph.

  23. Jacob Dugan-Brause 26 Feb 2013, 7:57am

    Having barely survived several other “what’s in a name” contests, it’s likely to come down to popularity.

    A bit like clothing fashion, acronyms indulge our urge to try something different.

    Have a bit of a wait and see if anyone else wears it.

    I kinda doubt it.

  24. GulliverUK 26 Feb 2013, 8:42am

    In a word, NO. Or two words, NO WAY!

    It’s taken the heterosexual community long enough to understand and recognise LGBT, now is not the time to confuse them. In some places people are still using GLBT, which is now in error. Whilst we must make sure it is explained that LGBT encompases many different groups, when asked, some of us don’t understand all these various groups and terms, so keep it simple, whilst pointing out that LGBT includes all those who are not heterosexual, or are transgender – where they might be transgender heterosexual or transgender gay. LGBT is universally recognised and it’s taken a lot of effort to get people to use it, we can’t afford a name-change – and everybody knows companies who changed their names and then disappeared completely !

    1. Bloody well said!

  25. Algernon and Beatrice are a happy couple, getting on in years now, who have always welcomed all types of people into their home and family. They are active, loving and hold back on judging people.

    Usually they are know as Algy and Beattie, though when she was younger Algy just called her Bea – but since she appeared in those telephone commercials a while ago she is happy to be know as Beattie.

    They aren’t perfect and sometimes grumble at each other but whenever one of their friends or relations get into trouble from the big bad world they unite, gather people together and fight to defend those under attack.

    It usually works well enough and most people in town know who they are and that they will make a noise if injustice and discrimination fall on any of their friends.

    Why on earth should we want to shut the door on Algy and Beattie and move to the shiny new GSD corporation who want to take over? Doesn’t GSD stand for Generally Stupid Discussion?

  26. Peter & Michael 26 Feb 2013, 11:00am

    No thanks, keep LGBT as it is !

  27. Two irrelevant people that want to make themselves known … Piss off

  28. ...Paddyswurds 26 Feb 2013, 11:51am

    Absolutely not, GLB or indeed BGL has served us well and there is no need for the long hair and sandals brigade to change it. The only change I would be happy with is dropping all these johnny come lately hangers on like T and Q what ever that means….

  29. Absolutely not! I am quite happy being gay. I am in a committed long term relationship and don’t need to be included in the same group as swingers.

    Stupid idea….

  30. Jock S. Trap 26 Feb 2013, 1:00pm

    Don’t agree with this at all. The term LGBT personally bring in a community term and I am Gay and proud of it. Just as some is Lesbian or Bi etc.

    As for members of the BDSM/kink etc they are still Lesbian, Gay, Bi so why make it more silly. Leave it alone. If it ain’t broke….

  31. Kim Berlin 26 Feb 2013, 1:03pm

    We are all seeking equality, however, the section of the community which can be identified as “same sex attracted” – originally called the “gay community – is now just a dumping ground for anyone that does not fit into the traditional opposite sex attracted boxes created by the majority of society.

    Each section of this community should stand up and demand equal rights for themselves, only then will the wider community see how diverse humanity really is.

  32. Liam the God 26 Feb 2013, 1:46pm

    Why not just refer to us as “PEOPLE”? This whole Gender/Sexuality identity thing is becoming really tiresome, and this, for me, is the last straw! PEOPLE!! We are PEOPLE! We’re not just Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender etc. any more than others are “Just” black, tall, freckled, or whatever!
    *wipes foam from beard, walks away*

  33. No. I would like LGBTI to officially go into place. GSD is the one that is limiting.

    1. Dex, thank you so much for recognising that intersex people exist and that our oppression is also motivated by homophobia. The silencing and erasure of intersex people in the UK and our non-inclusion in law reform is beyond disgusting.

      1. Dex (@MrDexB) 6 Mar 2013, 12:53am

        You’re welcome! And whoever disliked your comment needs to learn a lesson. I’m glad you’re happy about your comment. :)

  34. hows about DSP ?

    Disordered Sexual Perversions ?

    DSP ‘community’ etc

    DSP pseudo-rights etc

    1. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 10:40pm

      Well, I do advocate each of us choosing our own label, and if that’s the one that fits you best in your mind, go for it. I’ll stick with queer, thank you.

  35. spookiewon 3 Mar 2013, 9:08pm

    Isn’t it wonderful we have nothing better to do than worry about what to call ourselves? I mean, if we had to worry about discrimination or suicide or bullying or stuff like that, it would suck! Isn’t it nice that instead we can spend our time discussing whether the term GSD covers us better than LGBT? I’m lesbian. I’m gay. I’m queer. I’m LGBT, sometimes LGBTQ, occasionally GLBT or GLBTQ. I use all those labels for myself in one situation or another. I can do this because the label doesn’t DEFINE me, it helps me clarify who I am. That is, I define the label. OTOH, GSD sounds like it belongs in the DSM-V. No thanks.

  36. burningworm 4 Mar 2013, 11:21am

    A lot of you seem to miss the point.

    It isn’t a matter of how you view yourself but how we are collectively viewed. Think about the term; gender & sexual diversities. Its as if we have no notion of ourselves, not everyone is an anglo saxon gay male.

    Queer is our birthright not this cosy gay western existence where we fight for equality, equality isn’t enough!

  37. This is insane. Being gay has nothing to do with wanting to surgically alter your body. It has nothing to do with being born with male and female genitalia. It has nothing to do with “kink,” which is fetishistic behavior that can be indulged by people of any sexual orientation.

    “GSD” and “LGBT” and “LGBTQIAA” and all the rest of it is just an attempt to hijack gay identity and, more importantly, the gay civil rights movement for other ends. We should use LGB, which describes people who have, to one degree or another, a homosexual orientation. Or we should create one word to encompass LGBs. And we should leave it at that.

    For my part, I will not support in any way any group that calls itself queer or GSD.

  38. Master Adrian 5 Mar 2013, 10:13am

    GSD sounds like a disease….like ADHD or any other abbreviation for an affection…….

    LGBT has been around too long to be dismissed of, if dismissed we could also dismiss of other abbreviations….. MP for instance.

    1. Dex (@MrDexB) 6 Mar 2013, 12:54am

      Ahem! ADHD is NOT a disease thank you very much!

  39. ‘More inclusive’ to what end? If we add heterosexual into the mix then we include everyone – including all the oppressors. Yay! Most of these other elements are aspects of one’s core sexuality anyway. That is, if you are trans you still have a sexuality that is either approved (hetero) or frowned upon (gay or bi). Gay, bi, straight, trans & intersex can all wear leather & be kinky. Even asexual people presumably have an affective gender preference, ditto.

    Or to take a concrete example: in Iran many gay men are compelled to undergo a ‘sex change’ operation in order to be sexually with another man with some measure of social tolerance. The issue here is that due to homophobia gay men are being compelled to act out a transsexualism that is a violent, violating travesty of who they are. This issue is particular, and does not benefit from conflation.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.