Has the Time for “Queer” Finally Come?
We need to have a difficult conversation. It’s about the acronym. Our umbrella term is a sensitive topic, I know, but I really think we need to talk.
It’s going to be okay.
The acronym has a job to do, an important job. It’s a broad descriptor of our community and its role is to represent us — all of us — and that’s the tricky part. As we grow and change as a community — indeed, as we expand our identities and genders and morph into communities (plural) — I wonder if it’s still fit for purpose.
LGBTIQA+ communities. Does it serve us well? Does it do the job for which it was intended? Is it future proof? I’ve been wondering about this lately and thinking it might be time to give the acronym a performance review.
It started way back with just the G (gay) and the L (lesbian), and then shifted the order to start with the L and follow with the G. Fair enough. That was a good call. The B (bisexual) has been around for a while and in that same spot. No issue there.
Then the T (trans or transgender) was added which was important — another good call — but sometimes it’s TGD, (trans and gender diverse) and these days it sometimes includes NB separately for non-binary (but NB can also mean non-black, I’m told) so I think what we’re looking for is actually ENBY not NB, or maybe just N? And there’s generally a Q in there somewhere which can have either of two meanings, queer or questioning or maybe both at the same time.
Okay. So, we’re trying to do our best to include everyone — I get that — but at this point I’m thinking we might be losing something on consistency and clarity.
The I (intersex) is sometimes in and sometimes out. (There’s actually a very good rationale for when and why the I should be included — if the context specifically relates to I’s — but that’s not well understood, and its absence often causes confusion or worse.) Then there’s the A (asexual or aromantic) and finally the + sign and, honestly, help me out here, because I’ve never actually known who that’s meant to represent.
The order’s getting a little mixed up at the end here too: QIA+? IQA+? IAQ+? And, interestingly, I see our state governments and our peak bodies are all using slightly different variations — and if you Google it, well, you’ll be there all day.
And that’s not the end, is it? Sometimes, 2S, the Native American term meaning two spirited, is tacked on the end, or the Australian equivalent, SB, sister girls and brother boys which is better, and I see the intent and the aim is laudable, but I’m not sure it’s the answer.
And here’s the thing, and I don’t mean to be rude, truly, but LGBTQIAPN+? Seriously! What the…?! Stop! Really. I think we need to stop.
As a broad descriptive term, I think the acronym may have run its course. Personally — and I’m just going to say this out loud — I find it clunky and awkward and, honestly, a bit annoying. Try running a half day workshop and saying LGBTIQA+ twenty times an hour. And I get not everybody has to do that, but we are asking a world of people out there to remember it, get it right, and not fumble — and we’re pissed off with them when they don’t. And, actually, you know the average person can only recall between five and seven digits in a row so we’re kind of done already. People, we just can’t keep adding to it.
But that doesn’t mean we’re done with the acronym completely. Absolutely not. I think it might be better placed and more useful in a different area. Those smart people over in Policy and Research, and all those academics, they’re great with it. They are all about the individual letters, about ‘disaggregating’. They totally get we’re all different and we each have our individual experiences that require specific and targeted responses. They love it over there. Let’s send it to them and they can disaggregate until their heart’s content. I reckon that’s where it will do its best work.
So, if we think the acronym might not be able to support this period of growth and might not be the most useful partner in a time of expansion, where does that leave us? I think there are two candidates who could do a great job and I’m recommending a job-share arrangement.
First up, Rainbow. I love rainbow — with its confident, affirming connotations. It’s a gentle symbol, kind and unthreatening and has a broad range of applications: rainbow parties, rainbow action plans, rainbow families, rainbow champions, rainbow awards, rainbow positive organisations, and so much more. And thanks to Gilbert Baker, the American activist who created it in the 1970s, it’s also universally recognised.
Rainbow communities works for me.
But if you think rainbow is a little sanitised, a little too lightweight perhaps, and you want something with more guts then I think we can’t go past Queer! Queer is tough, courageous and uncompromising and refuses to go away. It comes with a radical history, a strong politics, and a no-nonsense take-me-as-I-am attitude.
Now I get there’s a generational thing here and that some older folks find it difficult but, to be honest, I think we may not be able to hold back the tide any longer. Language has a way of doing its own thing whether we want it to or not. The Gen Z’s and millennials use nothing else, and in fact, I rarely hear them referring to the acronym at all. Queer is commonly used by journalists, in films and TV, and is becoming increasingly mainstream. I recently saw a poster Support queer, shop here in the window of Woollies…in a leafy Melbourne suburb!
I’ll still always be careful about using it around some of our older folk, but I think it's time has finally come.
Queer communities works for me.
There’s a great scene in the movie Pride where Mark Ashton, the leader of the LGSM (Lesbians and Gay Men Support the Miners) is organising a fund-raising concert, and he says:
Now, there’s a long and honourable tradition in the gay community and it’s stood us in good stead for a very long time. When somebody calls you a name, you take it, and you own it.
I wonder if it’s finally time for us to take Queer and own it?
Jac Tomlins
April 2024
