this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
62 points (97.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
4771 readers
118 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
GSRM or LGBT+ seem good enough. Guessing its a result of people trying to be exclusionary and people feeling the need to explicitly include those groups, but still think GSRM still would be clearly inclusive of most of those groups anyway?
2SLGBTQIA+ is a result of being more inclusionary, and it is the standard for the Canadian government. The 2S at the front represents two-spirit people, which is a term that Indigenous people use (also why it was placed at the front, as a sign of respect since they were here before everyone else). The QIA+ are literally additions to include queer (which is a catchall), intersex (who were previously medicalized and excluded), and agender/asexual/aromantic people (who have historically been excluded/ignored), and the + obviously is to include anyone who doesnt feel reflected by the other letters. This is literally the least exclusionary way to do it.
GSRM has been attempted many times but framing people as minorities when providing allegedly inclusive terminology is generally out of fashion.
I'm aware of what it stands for. But using 'A' as a catchall for several identities means aro-spec identities are still frequently neglected, allies try to claim it just stands for them instead of ace, aro, and/or agender people, so its still ends up being exclusive in practice while just being unnecessarily long given its failure to achieve the intended goal.
The plus sign being where it is probably contributes to it being seen as a catch-all, even though it's not supposed to be; the acronym goes LGBTQIAA...