🇳🇱
Queer doesnt exist, its just a made up word with no meaning or utility.
Trans isnt a sexual orientation so it doesnt belong along side other orientations.
Therefore from now on I think im going to just refer to it as "LGB" which ill use for discussions about orientation. It might make sense to do "LGBP" to include pansexuals/poly people, as that too describes orientation.
Then maybe "TICN" for gender expression (Trans, Intersex, Crossdresser, and Nonbinary).
I think ill just start dropping these in conversations and use each distinctly different. The LGBTQ+ designation never really made much sense.
Then again maybe jsut "non-cis" and "non-straight" might just be more straight forward. But less likely to engage in useful conversation.
> Queer
It's a reclaimed slur if i remember it correctly, was similar to "fag"
> Therefore from now on I think im going to just refer to it as "LGB" which ill use for discussions about orientation.
It's widely used by transphobes, and i predict that people will at minimum feel uncomfortable with it, at most block you.
Of course, you can use whatever words you want, and it's okay to question why we use the words we do, but it's best to be careful with it if you want to be properly understood 😀
> It's a reclaimed slur if i remember it correctly, was similar to "fag"
Mostly yea. I also have no issue with people using it for themselves. But being a non-descript term with no real definition or meaning of use just dont expect me to use it since I dont find it useful.
> It's widely used by transphobes, and i predict that people will at minimum feel uncomfortable with it, at most block you.
If that is the case youa re probably right. I dont mind being blocked though and not being a transphobe (And in fact an ally) I really wouldnt loose sleep over that. That said im leanign towards "LGBP" anyway.
with no real definition or meaning
It actually has a real definition, and when you say it, people understand what you meant: it simply means "any non-straight and/or non-cis folks". Did you meant "it have no dictionary definition"?
I really wouldnt loose sleep over that.
It's not much about will you loose sleep or not, it's about a value of conversation and being able to get your point across correctly. If you don't care about it then you might as well reply with markov chain output or have no conversations at all 🤷♀️
That said im leanign towards “LGBP” anyway.
Well, you can definitely try it, i even wonder if people will accept and understand such logic 
You could then publish a mini-report 😀
> with no real definition or meaning
>
> It actually has a real definition, and when you say it, people understand what you meant: it simply means "any non-straight and/or non-cis folks". Did you meant "it have no dictionary definition"?
No I mean that advocacy groups for Queer themselves sstate in no uncertain terms that ther eis no universal definition and that people who use it define it differently and use it to mean wildly different things. What i myself am also saying is that it provides no functionally new information compared to the other definitions even if we were to try to define it. The other letters in the acronym already cover every possible orientations.
Anyway for reference here is the definition from a Queer advocacy group:
> This can include, but is not limited to, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and asexual people. **This term has different meanings to different people**. Some still find it offensive, while others reclaim it to encompass the broader sense of history of the gay rights movement. Can also be used as an umbrella term like LGBT, as in "the queer community."
So as is clearly seen from above while some use it as an umbrella term like you describe others people use it in completely different ways with different meanings. Regardless as i stated it has no place in the acronym as far as I can tell as it isnt providing anything useful or descriptive.
> It's not much about will you loose sleep or not, it's about a value of conversation and being able to get your point across correctly. If you don't care about it then you might as well reply with markov chain output or have no conversations at all 🤷♀️
As long as it gets across im talking about throse three groups specifically, then im happy. Now if someone is going to assume im transphobe with no basis and not bother to ask, then they are probably someone i dont want to engage with and care very little about the quality of the conversationa s it is a lost cause fromt he get go. In my mind its a feature not a bug as it ensures people who dont try to understand what is being said, but rather assume and inject toxicity, wont actually interact with me (as I prefer it).
> Well, you can definitely try it, i even wonder if people will accept and understand such logic :thonk: You could then publish a mini-report 😀
As per the above i care very little of how they react or accept it. As long as they understand what I mean or ask if they dont then thats all I need. If they are offended by it then im happy to have them filtered out of the convo.
> This term has different meanings to different people
Okay, then it does make sense.
...
I'm to some extent understand you since i sometimes call people niggers faggots and retards without really being racist, homophobic or abelist, and it's relatively easy to see it by my general behavior.
But if i would use these words in conversation with normies it will filter out hell damn a lot of people, and i'll likely would be banned.
(No i'm not trying to make a point that call people niggers and call people LGBP are the same thing, but mechanics is similar)