The Conversation
Don’t Call Me LGBTQ
In the January/February issue, Jonathan Rauch made the case for adopting one overarching designation for sexual minorities. He proposed using a single letter: Q.
What a relief to read something about the absurdity of the “alphabet soup” designation for gay people. I totally agree with Jonathan Rauch that it has become a symbol “for the excesses of identity politics,” which have fueled animosity and intolerance toward homosexuals. I’m amazed that anyone would add more letters to this train wreck.
You will never promote more tolerance and peace in the world by diminishing individuals into ever more exclusive and reductive parts. Large, broad categories are much more efficient and easy to understand.
Patricia McAnulty
No, a thousand times, no!
Jonathan Rauch makes a valid point about the awkwardness of as a term to represent sexual minorities, but to substitute simply would be a huge error. While Rauch mentions the baggage of the word (which would inevitably reference), he gives no sense of the fact that was the primary name assigned by society to homosexuals before came into was not descriptive in a positive way. It was ugly, hateful, pejorative, demeaning, and diminishing. It is the right word with which to be labeled, if one must be labeled.
