this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
39 points (100.0% liked)

LGBTQ+

4771 readers
63 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 minutes ago

Nothing in the article explains why this should be considered an "emergency" situation. And which part even? The people fleeing part? The people moving to Seattle part? Is it overcrowded? Whats the emergency?

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 hours ago
[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Why WA and not OR? We are just as welcoming (and expensive).

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 15 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

appreciates the city's relatively decent cost of living

Ummm

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It actually makes more sense than it might seem upon first glance, at least in the context of people moving from Texas.

Texas' minimum wage is the federal rate of $7.25/hr. Washington's is $17.30/hr, while Seattle specifically has it even higher at $21.30/hr

Cost of living in Seattle is around 55% higher than in, say, Houston Texas, but its minimum wage is about three times the amount.

Add on to that the fact that Seattle has an expansive public transit network that costs much less than owning a car (about $108/mo for unlimited public transit rides on all buses, sometimes paid for entirely or in part by your employer), and there are definitely ways people can drive their cost of living down more if they want to.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 hour ago

Hopefully the state will rezone the land near the light rail stations for.high density housing

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

My property taxes went down considerably going from Texas to Washington (though I did not move to King County). I did buy a used EV up here though since gasoline is crazy expensive and the infrastructure is much better. Most other costs went down or stayed the same. Houston is expensive as hell.

[–] irotsoma@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago

Yeah property tax is really high in Texas because it makes up for all the tax cuts over the years and lower sales tax. I paid more in taxes for a small condo I had there that was about 1/5th of the value of a small townhouse I eventually bought here. I had kept it thinking I'd move back, but Seattle won me over and Austin became less welcoming, so the property taxes made it not worth it even as an investment with the prices starting to rise at the time. Back then the cost for small homes was about 3-4 times Austin, now it's around 1.5 to 2 times the cost from what friends have shown me. Looking at current average cost it looks like Seattle is about 875K, Austin is about 510K and Houston is about 260K. I don't know about rent now, but at the time it was about double Austin's in Seattle.

But other than property tax, which is just generally ridiculous in Texas compared to many other states, the cost of living here is significantly higher. Food (I miss HEB prices), gasoline, electricity, trash, car registration, rent/house prices, internet service (screw Comcast and their virtual monopoly, though it is getting better lately), almost everything was more here when I moved from Austin but that was over a decade ago. One thing that was cheaper is public transportation, though. I do appreciate that, living in the city.

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 3 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

You bought property in Seattle proper? Wow.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Seattle is in King County, ain't nobody can afford to live there.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 3 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

though I did not move to King County

People in Houston usual just live 1 hour away from Houston, but that still counts as Houston except according to people in Houston.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I lived in Houston proper (outside the loop). I had shell casings on my street.

I had shell casings on my street.

I hope the pricing at least reflected that.

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Oh I see. Yes. Good choice.

I’m happy you got out of Texas. Welcome to Washington!!!!!!

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

My family was already here, I'd been trying to get here for over a decade. The election just made it my top priority.

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 1 points 15 minutes ago

So how much longer until Canada?

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

That was the other person. Agreed with congrats to them

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 3 points 2 hours ago

Reading is hard. I’m so tired.

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

2SLGBTQIA+

These acronyms are getting absurd.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 1 points 25 minutes ago

I don't know why people in & out of the community can't understand that the +, in LGBT+ means all the extra letters, Q, I, A, 2S, and any future ones that may arise, it's future proof. "+" is the most inclusive you can get. I literally refuse to refer to the community as anything other than LGBT+. Our history of names was terrible, this is the most simple.

[–] Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 hour ago

In my head I just read it as 'queer' nowadays, though I don't really care what others prefer to use.

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Queer people are also unhappy about the acronym situation. Promise.

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago

I’m one of them.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

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?

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 2 points 3 hours ago

The acronym system is anti queer philosophically relies on strict taxonomies and fundamentally hierarchal exclusionary while not telling us why these people are lumped together their issues have so much in common its really liberally stupid and as as queer I take offense

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] austin@piefed.social 3 points 2 hours ago

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...

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Idk, as an ace person, I personally appreciate it. I don't really care if allies try to claim it because they are wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't mean to suggestion others shouldn't like it. Just how it makes me feel personally as someone who is aroace (and perhaps agender?).

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I’ve never even heard of GSRM, so that’s another new one for me.

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 1 points 3 hours ago

Its what phones used to use before 3g came along.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

The first time I heard of it, it was just GSM, but I guess then romantic minorities got added?

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 2 points 3 hours ago

No I think gsrm was the standard in Europe I still have an old gsm phone I think

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

This is how I know I’m getting old. Can’t understand what the dang kids are saying anymore!

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Its easily been over 10 years since I heard of GSM, after I was done with high school at least. No clue when I first saw GSRM used tho.

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 hours ago

I graduated high school 20 years ago. I think we barely had better than LGBT. I’m aware of it now at least. Better late than never!