I mean, I don’t identify as queer and plenty of my friends don’t. One of my exes did and great for him but this just seems like the wrong argument. There likely just needs to be a technical, non-inflammatory term.
I like it, even tho usually I include a “R” there for romantic minorities(eg people who might not be a sexual minority but are a romantic one) when discussing this with other people, but I guess it could be argued that they still fit into “sexual”.
R or not, I like that it includes everyone without any identity being shoved into a letter or a “+” along with lots of others as if they’re an afterthought, not as important as the ones that get to show up as their own letters.
I mean, I don’t identify as queer and plenty of my friends don’t. One of my exes did and great for him but this just seems like the wrong argument. There likely just needs to be a technical, non-inflammatory term.
I’m glad you like it though.
The most all-encompassing term I’ve seen is sexual minority. Basically non-cis or non-straight
There’s some argument over adopting the term GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) as an inoffensive general term.
I like it, even tho usually I include a “R” there for romantic minorities(eg people who might not be a sexual minority but are a romantic one) when discussing this with other people, but I guess it could be argued that they still fit into “sexual”.
R or not, I like that it includes everyone without any identity being shoved into a letter or a “+” along with lots of others as if they’re an afterthought, not as important as the ones that get to show up as their own letters.