• rbn@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I guess it’s pretty discriminating that some orientations get more letters than others, one even is allowed to have a number and potentially many more have to share just one single +. Why not use only the + for everyone? ♥️

    • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Personally think GSRM should be more popular. Its short and includes everyone, and isnt making a a hidden declaration that some minorities are more special by having their own letter (thus the reason for appending more to the alphabet soup)

      • Of the Air (cele/celes)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        We believe it was coopted by pedophiles or they tried to claim it for themselves or join in with using it in some way, so sadly there’s a lot of baggage which comes with it and why any in the know don’t use it.

      • m0darn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Thanks for teaching-me-about/reminding-me-of that acronym.

        I’ve been advocating for the adoption of “people with minority Sexual Orientations and/or Gender Identities” ie “SOGI minorities” or “SOGIm”.

        I think I still prefer " SOGI minorities" because it’s inclusive, and the acronym sort of stands on it’s own e.g. I recently learned my province has SOGI curriculum as part of the school system. It’s not just about SOGI minorities, it’s about helping kids understand what gender is, and isn’t.

        I do like how GSRM articulates the difference between sexuality and romance though.