Pride and factions
Richard Burnett writes about the commercialization, fragmentation and attempted relaunch of “pride” parades and events, and the effects to be felt here during the parade on Sunday. Details about the parade and other events are included at the end of this piece.
I tend to feel that when you’re driven to construct terms like QTBIPOC and LGBTQ2S+ that you’re bound to also provoke feelings about who’s included. But I’m probably not someone who should even have an opinion about this.
Blork 11:48 on 2021-08-10 Permalink
There’s a general principle about inclusion in that the more precise to try to be by naming things, the more exclusive you end up being. For example, if you’re making a “garden salad” you can add basically any fruit or vegetable to it, and happily feel like the salad reflects whatever plant-based food you can think of. But if you call it a “tomato salad” then it’s pretty much just lettuce and tomatoes, and even if there are other vegetables in there, they feel left out because they’re not mentioned.
The same kind of thing happens when you try to include types of people in groups. The more precise you try to be by adding types, the more you exclude others who might no longer fit your more precise definition. For example, if you say “this washroom is for handicapped people” that basically means ALL handicapped people; those in wheelchairs, those who use crutches, the hearing impaired, vision impaired, people with brain injuries, etc. But if you say “this washroom is for people in wheelchairs” then you’re being very precise to the exclusion of all those other handicapped people who don’t use wheelchairs.
So you add “and who need crutches.” Then a week later you add “and the hearing impaired.” Next week you add “and the vision impaired.” On and on until the sign you need is bigger than the door to the washroom. Maybe just stick with “handicapped.”
I feel the same thing is happening with the queer community. It started with LGB but that excluded Trans, so it became LGBT, then it became LGBTQ, and then LGBTQ2S, and then the label-maker threw up their hands and added “+” and walked away.
I prefer the single syllable and all-encompassing “queer,” which 20 years ago basically meant anyone who didn’t identify as simply “straight.” By not trying to name-check specific groups it actually is more inclusive because it is self-defining; it can mean whatever you want it to mean.
SMD 12:35 on 2021-08-10 Permalink
Tangentially related, there’s an interesting history and semiological analysis of the pride flag in today’s Devoir: /www.ledevoir.com/politique/623841/politique-en-couleurs-sous-l-arc-en-ciel-de-la-diversite.
Tee Owe 13:34 on 2021-08-10 Permalink
Queer+ ? Includes everybody ?
Blork 15:15 on 2021-08-10 Permalink
Sure, but I would argue that the “+” is redundant. Like “people” includes all people; we don’t say “people+” unless you want to include things that are not considered people, like pets. So who is the + in “queer+?”
…ok thinking about this as a write. Maybe some trans people are more + than strictly queer, since not all trans people consider themselves to be non-straight. And some non-binary people might not feel particularly “queer.”
So yeah, actually. Queer+ totally works. (But this is coming from a straight cis guy, so it’s not like it’s up to me to decide…)
H. John 19:49 on 2021-08-10 Permalink
Like Blork, I’m most comfortable with Queer.
I think their question about trans would be easier to understand if they defined what they meant when they used “trans”.
I wasn’t sure which pronouns Blork uses.
I quick look at Wiki will show that the use of the terms transgendered, transexual, transvestite, cross-dresser, and drag queen/king (artist) have morphed, even in the Queer community, over the past 40 years (and RuPaul, willing to be politically incorrect, would throw in “tranny”).
It’s useful to think of the Queer community as an amorphous group of sub-communities; each of which is trying to find self-definition, space, and respect.
It’s an ongoing process.
People who identify as transgendered (or cross-dressers) arrived later to the parade; and, don’t even start to think about racial minorities within the minority and their effect on the on-going discussions.
It’s not for nothing that one of the first bars for people who self-identify as transgendered, or cross-dressers, isn’t in the gay Village (I.e., Café Cléopâtre).
And clients of Café Cléopâtre may have little in common with the artists of Cabaret Mado.
mare 22:12 on 2021-08-10 Permalink
I personally use QUILTBAG
(Queer/Questioning, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender/Transsexual, Bisexual, Allied/Asexual, Gay/Genderqueer)
It’s a bag, so it can contain everybody, even people who self-identify as something not on the list.
jeather 08:34 on 2021-08-11 Permalink
The terms for trans people are perhaps new, but as a group they aren’t new.
Kate 09:44 on 2021-08-11 Permalink
mare, nobody is going to adopt QUILTBAG.
The terms for trans people are perhaps new, but as a group they aren’t new.
No, although the sheer numbers of people openly unhappy with their own biological sex seems to be a new trend, but I think we’ll need to see it in retrospect to understand it.
EmilyG 12:53 on 2021-08-11 Permalink
It’s not so much a “trend,” though it might look like that to those used to status-quo, normalist society. It’s great that so many people now feel that they can be more open with talking about how they feel when they realize that they’re not cis.
Though sadly, comments that are openly or covertly hostile to trans people, show that many people still are dismissive at best, or hostile at worst, towards trans people’s openness about their issues. Which can harm trans people in ways that the people making those comments might not realize.