The Alphabet soup of Identity from LGBTIQ… to XYZ
This site aims to enumerate, explore, and examine, the 100+ identities now used to describe sex, gender, sexuality, and romantic attraction – or lack of sexuality, gender, and attraction.
- LGBT – These 4 letters do not cover all the sexes, genders or sexualities
- Variant and inconsistent additions: LGBTI, LGBTQ, LGBTQIA, LGBTIQAP, LGBTQIA2S, LGBTQQICAPF2K, LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP etc
- Acronyms: FABGLITTER, QUILTBAG, GIBLETS
- Alternatives to LGBT: MSG, GSD, SGD, GSRD, MOGAI
But who or indeed what should be included?
Are Agender, Asexuality or Aromantic relevant, Kink or BDSM, which neuroscience has recently labelled “in the brain”, and less of a lifestyle choice and more of a (pre)programmed pleasure. Or Hebephilia – how do we evaluate geographically variant ages of consent that may vary for same-sex, or even Zoophilia – taken by some to mean virtual anthropozoomorphic sexuality and others to mean bestiality. What about Objectum Sexuality (OS) the attraction towards buildings and objects such as the former Berlin Wall and Eiffel Tower, statues or pianos.
These raise the question of whether LGBT… initialisms should only include non-heterosexual sexualities and non-cisgender gender identities. Some would argue that even the T being about gender has nothing to do with sexuality and others that Cis is a slur. But what constitutes a sexuality? Does it need to be same-sex or just marginalised to be included? What other minority sexualities merit inclusion? Some are minority and marginalised by virtue of being regarded as illegal, immoral, or deviant. Which paraphilias need destigmatising, which need to remain pathologised and/or criminalised – like many age-related philias? By including some, do we dilute the history of overcoming prejudice and gaining equal rights that many LBGT people have faced?
As such this site is about more than just LGBTIQ, hence the XYZ, but it also aims to add caution to indefinite inclusion of all minority sexualities where they would bring LGBT+ rights into disrepute. At the same time, we recognise that many marginalised identities were the bisexuals and trans people of the past, fighting for inclusion, and deserve the place as letters not just an asterisk or plus sign or subsuming under the Q – and which Q anyway, and isn’t Queer a term of abuse that shouldn’t be reclaimed? You see, navigating the trigger-infested alphabet soup is more contested chunky chowder than an agreeable clear consommé.