But being antagonistic about it isn’t really effective in educating, imo.
Being antagonistic is effective in telling people that I, personally, find inclusiveness more important than listening to people who say “the acronym is too long”.
If I want to use LGBTQIA+, or more, that’s my business.
Hmm I’m gonna reply to this against my better judgement.
I think you’re absolutely right that inclusivity is important. You’re still skirting around two issues:
- Queer is plenty inclusive (see my original comment). Is queer insufficient? I would love to know as well, as a queer person.
- Being antagonistic might allow you to express your thoughts, sure. But I doubt it will allow the other person to internalise anything meaningfully.
You’re also right that it’s no one’s job to police how you use terminology. I think the rest here are taking issue with how you are communicating this (and ironically enough, policing others on terminology).
Either way, I think it might be worth examining why the response to someone’s ignorance felt so visceral and rage-fuelled. Not saying it’s a bad thing, we could all use more inclusivity in our lives! But hopefully we could take a step back and ask ourselves why do we react a certain way? It’s a good exercise to understand ourselves a bit better.
Have a nice day, yea. And have an upvote too! Sick of the downvotes in this thread.
Sick of the downvotes in this thread.
My downvote button doesn’t even work on my instance of Lemmy.
Queer is plenty inclusive (see my original comment). Is queer insufficient?
Queer is great. Not complaining about the existence and use of long acronyms is also great. I am not two spirit, I have no qualms with 2S being part of a longer acronym.
