https://www.advocate.com/news/glaad-lgbtq-acceptance-decrease
GLAAD's annual "Accelerating Acceptance" report finds there's still supermajority support for equal rights, but there are some less positive signs.
The specific question was “I support equal rights for the LGBTQ community”
Seems early to assume an actual decline. 2023 might have been weird. Election years might be weird. Who knows? But it is worth keeping an eye on.
Side note: If your chart has two years, and an assigned color for each year… Don’t use both colors for both bars.
If not for this specific case being tied to some text about going down from 84 to 80, I would not have been able to understand the rest of the charts.
That means a specific sampling issue. If the margin of error is only 1% this would not be within margin of error
To calculate, you need the sample variance of the polls
I think lgbt+ or lgbtq+ is fine. Things got weird at lgbtqia+ then at lgbtqia2s+, it got too long for me. This is the sort of thing that makes even centrists cringe at and republicans make alphabet jokes at.
I agree. At a certain point attempting to be too specific is counterproductive, even if the intent is positive.
Most people I know covered under these labels, including many people very close to me, also think it got silly. The + is there for a reason. Heck, so is the Q.
I don't see the extra long ones outside of small communities and whenever some right wing talking head wants to complain about "clown world" shit for clickbait. No one cares as long as you treat people with dignity.
i never understand why people try to add inclusivity to things that are inclusive.
the pride flag is the rainbow. you know, the thing that's associated with representing the entire spectrum. adding triangles and circles and extra colors is redundant. you can just say it represents all these things too because it's the fucking rainbow.
same with lgbtq+. like, q already represents all of it kind of, but ok we also have a + to mean everything else. what's the point of adding more...
i know it feels like the letters are more important than what's bundled into the + sign but the answer to that isn't adding a new letter for every single person, it's to find a better, more inclusive shorthand that means all of it. as a cishet obviously I'm not going to declare anything unilaterally but personally i think something like GSNC (gender and sexuality non-conforming) would be inclusive of all of it and wouldn't need expansion.
We had our Amsterdam Pride event earlier this month. Flags were a big issue of contention within the community. Not just whether or not flags like Israel or Palestinian would be welcome, but also regarding the rainbow flag itself.
There’s two schools of thought: the people who see the original rainbow flag as inclusive enough, and the people who want a flag that they feel represents their niche specifically. That one being the ‘Progress’ flag that you’re referring to.
The argument is: by adding more and more of that ‘social awareness’ stuff to it, the overarching message of it gets lost. Basically, people want pride to be about pride and not have it hijacked by other social issues. Which of course leads to animosity with people who do want to protest for social issues.
Personally, I’m a big fan of vexillology and I feel the original flag is still the best, most representative and least devise symbol.
i wish the entire thing got a facelift by someone with at least basic knowledge and interest in graphic design and vexillology. pride flag is the best but it's mostly because the bar is super low. the individual (gay, lesbian etc) flags are just eyesores imo. terrible color combos. and the progress flag is probably the most egregious.
again i understand people's concerns with representation but i think we can redefine what is representative of what.
i am also supportive of intersectionality and see why the black and brown was added but i think we're past the need for it: you can use the original flag to include all of it. it's a difficult situation because people who are passionate about this will have learned the historical significance of these and might not be easily convinced to rethink how they see the older flags.
as I said I am an outsider, but as an ally and graphic designer i just can't help but wish for a reimagined set of flags.
To be clear: I’m not in the community as such, but I fully support them and have a fair few gay friends. And guess what? I feel represented by the original flag too. Because it represents good values. From an interview with Gilbert Baker:
Each color of the rainbow flag stands for something. "Pink is for sex, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sun," Baker told ABC7 News. "Green for nature, turquoise for magic, blue for serenity and purple for the spirit. I like to think of those elements as in every person, everyone shares that."
Nowhere does it mention things like race. Or even a particular sexuality! As a white, heterosexual dude, that flag represents me just fine. It also represents someone black, brown and by golly, those blue people from Avatar if we ever discover them.
I definitely agree that most pride flags aren’t very good. I understand peoples enthousiasm to have their own flag, but some are just terrible.
You might be familiar with that old XKCD comic about competing standards. I imagine any attempt to make a new, better flag just results in one more getting added to the mix :D
If I was organising something, I’d just stick with the 1979 six color and call it a day. It’s iconic and it represents everyone, whether they like it or not.
Things got weird at lgbtqia+ then at lgbtqia2s+, it got too long for me.
Then I hope it gets even longer. I don't care about your feelings about letters, I care about queer people feeling included.
Whether or not one or more of LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIA2S+, GSRM etc. are 'fine' is not so much the issue as this: are you fine? Are you okay? If you were okay, do you think you would get over Asexual and Two-Spirit people being included? They do exist, after all.
This is the sort of thing that makes even centrists cringe at and republicans make alphabet jokes at.
Explain to me why I care about the opinions of people who purposefully make the world worse. Here's the deal: I'll care about the opinions and morality of the majority when all children are fed. Until then, I don't give a shit.
SLook, I’m bi, I support my LGBT brother, sisters, and others, but this is a stupid fucking thing to attack someone who is otherwise an ally over.
The obsession with labels detracts from the real discussion that needs to be had
A problem with extending the acronym to specifically include more edge cases is that it makes the omissions more obvious. Another is that having a bunch of syllables is clunky in speech. "Queer" is pretty inclusive, though many are still uncomfortable with the term as it has been used as a slur. I've always been fond of SAGA (Sexuality and Gendered Acceptance) because it covers everything, is memorable and meaningful, and has no baggage. And using preferred labels when they are known, also a fan of that.
A problem with extending the acronym to specifically include more edge cases is that it makes the omissions more obvious.
Good! Then we will think about who we are omitting, and why.
You sure have a stick up yours. Imagine being so stuck up that you need to create conflict about an acronym whose entire purpose is acceptance.
I've found people most uptight about nonsense like this, aren't even queer. They are trying to do some nonsense virtue signaling, but end up just looking foolish.
Do you enjoy creating non-existent problems or what? Lol
LGTBQ+ is the way to go, but sure man, enjoy staying angry I guess. That's so funny too. I know several members of the LGBTQ+ community (my partner is a member ) and even they think LGBTQ+ is the right size, and that adding all the extra letters is ridiculous. I bet you aren't even a member of their community based on your behavior here. You sound like a virtue signalling clown getting pissed off over something nobody in the community is remotely worried about.
If you ARE a member of the community, you really need to re-evaluate your approach here, because you sound ridiculous. Btw, thats straight from my partners mouth on the subject.
I hadn't heard a variant "all the gay people I know think LGBT is going too far!!!" for a while. Nice to know bullshit is still popular. I'm not eating any, you can have as much as you want.
I bet you aren't even a member of their community based on your behavior here. You sound like a virtue signalling clown getting pissed off over something nobody in the community is remotely worried about.
I bet you generate so little self-worth that you have to be rude to strangers to feel like you're superior to someone.
I'm a queer person in a same sex relationship for the longest time. Honestly even hearing the term LGBT (without the plus, without anything else) makes me kinda happy. Granted I'm in a place where acceptance is barely normalised.
I'm not even aware of the longer variants myself; I personally just use "queer" in describing myself (see above) and my friends. Even the aces I know seem to just call themselves queer and don't really seem bothered by the lack of explicit asexual inclusion in LGBT or LGBT+ or LGBTQ+.
I don't think we should get really stuck on terminology, to the point where we get into arguments with strangers online. I believe labels are important for helping us understand ourselves, but only to a certain point. Either way, queerness to me is quite all-encompassing, so representation here is not an issue? Maybe you could educate me on this.
The flipside being: I am aware that I would like to be more specific in describing myself to people, but it's difficult to explain bisexuality to others (even queer folk!). I use queer as a shortcut. I don't really fault them for not knowing the ins and outs of my sexuality though. I'm just queer at first glance. Wanna know more? Fantastic. Lemme tell you about the bicycle.
I get it's upsetting to kinda "dilute" who we are at times. But being antagonistic about it isn't really effective in educating, imo. These people are trying. Let them try, fuck up a little, and then gently nudge them in the correct direction.
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:
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.
On one hand that guys a cunt.
On the other I'm bisexual, some sorta genderqueer, and I only l usually leave it at lgbt. Then again I'm not butthurt about the additions I'm just a lazy fuck lol.
Still, that guys a cunt.
I don't think that person is a cunt.
When speaking, I tend to summarize it as queer. Google says "Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender", which seems to cover the bulk of what comes up in casual conversation.
It's one syllable, people get what you mean, and it's generally non-offensive (unless you try).
The line is at policing other people using long initialisms. Using a short one yourself is fine, telling others not to use long ones is a dick move.
it got too long for me. This is the sort of thing that makes even centrists cringe at and republicans make alphabet jokes at.
You don't get to claim you're uncomfortable with inclusion because of how others might react to it, especially since you're reacting the same exact way as the centrist straw person you've created to shift the blame away from yourself and make yourself feel better, does.
YOU are uncomfortable, because YOU don't want to take 3 extra seconds to be inclusive.
At least have the conviction to be honest with yourself, the rest of us can see right through you.
You don't get to claim you're uncomfortable with inclusion because of how others might react to it
You might not care what the kid does, but you know how it'd make the parents feel...
If someone says "I hate gay people now because the acronym is too long", THEY ALWAYS HATED GAY PEOPLE.
They quite literally did, and lets just be clear - are you comparing LGBTQIA2s+ people to misbehaving children, and bigots to their long suffering parents we need to feel bad for? Or is it the other way around, and that queer people are somehow responsible for the behaviour of bigots? I honestly don't know which is worse.
Either way, what you are still saying is: lets not do inclusion, because it'll make bigots uncomfortable.
OP is clearly more concerned with bigots' feelings or reaction, than they are with being inclusive of marginalised people. You can do as many mental gymnastics as you like to try and convince them and yourself otherwise, but they, and you in your defence of their bad take, have made your priorities clear - make sure bigots are comfortable, then consider inclusion.
You are the bigots making a big fuss over the "alphabet soup" or whatever, not some imaginary "other" you want to project your shit take on to so you don't have to admit to having it (sure, others exist, but you are no different to them).
At least have the conviction to be honest with yourself, the rest of us can see right through you.
They quite literally did
If they literally did that, could you quote it, please?
I also understand what you're trying to do with the example I gave, but I'm not really going to entertain it. Just because I said two things can bring about similar emotions doesn't mean I'm saying those two things have anything in common (aside from bringing about similar emotions).
I think one of the key points in fighting bigotry is to understand what it stems from. If we tell people that it's not inclusive to say "LGBT", what we're doing is cutting off the people who are trying. Lumping together with bigots the people who are trying, but are simply unaware of all the extra letters they need to add to be "fully inclusive" is counterproductive imo.
Frankly, I just say "queer" when speaking aloud. I'm probably never going to be up-to-date on the entirety of what needs to follow LGBT, and I don't need to be -- I'm not part of that group, and I shouldn't be expected to know the terminology, especially when it changes fairly rapidly.
At least in my case (because I can't speak for anyone else), you are arguing against an ally who supports queer rights -- it's been a major consideration in every vote I've ever placed.
I even probably know what all of those letters stand for. But I'm not saying them or typing them out every time I want to refer to the broader group. It's the same reason I'll sometimes say "America" instead of "The United States of America". Fewer syllables, and gets the idea across without offending anybody (the majority of the time).
Bro I'm bisexual but I just tell people I'm queer. It's all encompassing and I'm lazy and it's only one syllable.
I think one of the key points in fighting bigotry is to understand what it stems from. If we tell people that it's not inclusive to say "LGBT", what we're doing is cutting off the people who are trying.
But the now-removed top post was stating 'I didn't want to try, it's too long'.
Pandering to those who actually don't want to try is not supportive, it is destructive.
Pandering to those who actually don't want to try is not supportive, it is destructive.
I get what you're saying, I just disagree that that's what this is.
I believe that what you're hearing from OP is "I don't need to be fully inclusive, we don't need to recognize people that fit into my worldview of what LGBT is". I think that's too harsh of an interpretation.
I think the comment was more along the lines of "It's a lot to remember all the letters, and forcing others to memorize and understand all the letters (least be accused of bigotry) is harmful to the cause".
And to reiterate my position, I don't think the original comment was bigotry, nor do I think I'm bigoted by referring to the diverse group of people as LGBT or just queer. It's about efficiency in communication for me, and I understand the argument about optics as well.
Honestly, idk why I even look at most Lemmy comments anymore. They're mostly just hostility and I really don't like that
I block people all the time, really improves my experience. Dissenting opinions aren't always worth hearing.
I was just mentioning that to my partner lol. If someone has a bad enough take on a subject, I just remove that interaction, and make sure I don't think about their opinions anymore. I'm sure some people will say that I'm not open-minded enough and shouldn't block people with other views but I don't have that kind of time, and I don't feel like making it my problem.
I mostly block people with egregiously bad-faith takes. I like an internet argument when at least one side is providing sources or well-reasoned arguments, it's an opportunity to learn, but when someone is just barely disguising their bigotry while "just asking questions" I'd just rather not see them ever again.
Polls are stupid. Did the people who took the poll last year change their mind or did they just get another random group of people who happened to be 4% different.
Also, as a gay man, I’d love to click on an article about LGBT issues and not see a drag queen. The only Queen I’m interested in plays rock music.
GLAAD's Accelerating Acceptance is the most comprehensive survey we have to determine changes in public sentiment about LGBTQ+ acceptance. It's literally what I cite when writing research papers about queer issues. The difference is absolutely believable, and they validated the results with sampling bias in mind. There is no reason for you to cast doubt on the result like this, and it reads as disengenuine for you to do so.
Also, you don't get to decide what queer lives deserve to be in articles about LGBTQ+ people. Thankfully.
He was a dick about it, but it does get tiring to see mostly femmes and drag queens representing gay men in mainstream media. There are so many of us that aren't femme or catty or flamboyant. Those things are fine but it starts to feel like a stereotype instead of true representation.
I'm cishet but it is so refreshing to see the occasional gay male characters on TV that are not stereotypical in any way.
I didn't love Star Trek: Discovery, but I did love that the gay couple were just a couple of guys who loved each other and were married.
Oh man, I agree that it's super refreshing when writers add "minority" characters whose character doesn't revolve around that one part of their personality.
A lawyer who happens to be gay. And a father. And raised by a single mom, etc. He's not "the gay guy", just a character who happens to be gay as much as another character is straight.
An engineer who happens to be black. And is really into origami, etc. His character isn't constantly pointing out "white guys" and "black guys". He's just a dude from St. Louis.
It feels much more progressive and realistic and respectful to me.
In the 90s+ it was good to start seeing a lot more diverse characters, but too many have been one-dimensional, sometimes to the point of being props.
Those things are fine but it starts to feel like a stereotype instead of true representation.
Popular media doesn't care about 'true representation'. It cares about getting clicks, readers and subscribers. Of course the media tends to sell stereotypes and fads.
Drag queens represent a general idea of 'gay' because they're flamboyant, and that sells, and the media doesn't have to care that this skews the idea of who gay people are. Furthermore, bigots won't learn that gay men can represent majority gender norms easily if they don't want to, because bigotry is not based on reality. I can imagine bigots generally reacting to pictures of gay dudes who look much like they do with "but they're not gay, they don't have nail polish".
I was hardly a dick. But it does get tiresome to never see people I can identify with in my own community. It just seems pretty exclusive.
Also, you don't get to decide what queer lives deserve to be in articles about LGBTQ+ people.
I think it's that the media wants a picture that 'looks gay'. It's pretty unpleasant stereotyping, but it's not the fault of drag queens as individuals or as a group that the media latches onto their flamboyant femininity in order to show a picture of 'gay'.
It also helps that drag queens are very popular right now, and the media is all about chasing fads.
It also helps that drag queens are very popular right now, and the media is all about chasing fads.
Couldn't possibly be because drag queens have very specifically been targeted and harassed over the last couple of years..
"Fad".. smfh..
I work with young adults. They love drag queen content. They're popular right now, and that popularity may wane as something new comes along. That's the definition of 'fad'.
The increased visibility through popularity has also caused bigotry to be turned against them, as happens to any visible queer person or group. Example: A female boxer is shown in the media being able to punch good > bigots see it > they make bigotry.
It would be nice if the bigotry was the initial driver for popularity, though, as that's a good social defence mechanism.
I understand perfectly well what the word "fad" means, It's why I'm criticising the use of it, and no amount of excuses you make for yourself will make it ok to frame why drag queens are all over the news now, as that.
Bigotry indulges in fads, too. That's why people are regretting having so much unsold anti-Biden merch.
I'm autistic, and I don't have a negative view of the word 'fad', because I approach terms in a logical and factual way. If you can explain to me why I should see the term 'fad' as diminishing the value and importance of things it applies to, I will change my language.
To me, humanity itself is a metaphorical example of a fad. All over the place for a bit, and then will inevitably disappear and not be remembered. That's just how things work, because conditioned existence is transient / impermanent.
If this is an excuse then, yes, fine, me being autistic and logical and not understanding what you mean is an 'excuse'. I'm bullied for that all the time, because society is ableist and others people for being different. As a member of the GSRM community in two ways, I experience it all the time for that, as well. You get to the point that you just move on from what strangers think.
I assume you mean to explain that 'fad' in pop culture and 'targeted and harassed' are mutually exclusive terms. I have absolutely no inkling how that can be possibly true, so I am all ears. To me, they often go together, because popularity > notoriety > bigotry. Just like how Tom Hanks was targeted by QAnon for being involved in CSA - they weren't going to pick some other Tom who wasn't famous, were they? There's no power in going after a nobody. And I use 'power' in a very human, twisted, self-serving, based-on-falsehood way.
If you think that I said that BEING a drag queen, or belonging to a queer community, was a 'fad', then I did not explicitly say that, and any implication is read into my statement by others.
It also helps that drag queens are very popular right now, and the media is all about chasing fads.
The popularity is the fad, not the existence. Something doesn't only exist because it's popular: the fact that I (temporarily) exist is proof of that.
When media moves on from drag queens to some other topic, drag queens will not exist.
Although media comparatively ignores drag kings, that does not mean they fail to exist.
Fads don't make something important. It just means that thing sells. The end of a fad doesn't make something unimportant. It just means the market for it has reduced. To me, there is no moral weight to something being a fad or not, because I don't really care about popularity.
If me saying that media chases things that makes them money is controversial, then I guess (human-created social) reality is controversial. Which it should be, because humans have created social systems that work to oppress as many people as possible, making the world worse.
I agree! As a lifelong member of the community, being de facto represented by drag queens has been a cringeworthy experience. They’re character actors who do not represent even close to a majority of the larger group. The loudest, most obnoxious members of any group should not be allowed to hog the spotlight. It ruins the ability of the larger group to form political alliances. Gangster rap doesn’t represent black people. Jihadists don’t represent Muslims. Karens don’t represent white women.
Years ago my Bible-thumpy step mother was showing decent progress on accepting us when she was invited to a birthday party at a drag club. She went, trying to be hip, and a drag queen on stage came down and literally grabbed her hair and humped her face for the lolz, causing her whole project of acceptance to come crashing down. I guess the queen was roasting her verbally, painful enough I’m sure - probably she was dressed like Nancy Reagan, which is going to stand out - but then the queen physically accosted and humiliated her. She stopped giving a shit about our tribe after that. Can you blame her? Centering obnoxious outliers as representatives is bad strategy.
Well, I’ll stand up for drag queens now and say that single one was a terrible person. That’s truly a shame.
I’ve rarely met a drag queen I didn’t like as a person. But there is definitely some sass to the job.
This take is so damn toxic man, drag queens have been fighting for rights for people like us for a long time - the reason they’re so visible is because they’re on the front lines of this regressive culture war.
Be more inclusive, not less. Excluding people in our community because you think using their voice is them being “obnoxious” only fuels division. It doesn’t even sound like you were there to confirm your step-mother’s version of the drag story.
You’re part of the problem too.
Also, as a gay man, I’d love to click on an article about LGBT issues and not see a drag queen.
"I'd really love to stop seeing reminders of the people in my community who have a much bigger target on their back than I do, it makes me uncomfortable" 🙄
I think they're complaining that none of the other groups in the queer umbrella get represented visually. Always representing one marginalised group is indeed bad if it's always taking a place that could be representing a lot of different groups.
Also big assumption that they aren't a bigger target than drag queens.
It’s kind of hard to support some people in the community when they compare the size of their gayness, and make the world — ironically — black and white.
🌈 It’s a rainbow in all shades, and even the drab colors need love.
I’d really like to see a mixture of various types in the community so I feel more welcome and people outside the community see that it is a diverse group of people.
::: spoiler The Advocate - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for The Advocate:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
:::
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.advocate.com/news/glaad-lgbtq-acceptance-decrease ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
