RVN: The stretching of concepts – the letters of LGBTI
Yesterday the mechanism: words acquire moral charge, are stretched and lose their sharpness.
Today one concrete case: the letters.
It began as LGB.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual. Three words about sexual orientation. Relatively sharp, testable, and mainly about adults.
Then came the T.
Then Q, I, A and the plus sign.
Each addition did not only add a group. It added other debates: identity, medical transition, language rules, sports categories, schools.
That is the tipping point.
What happens in practice
LGB was about who you are attracted to.
T and what followed is, to a large extent, about how you define yourself, which medical steps follow, and which rules apply in changing rooms, competitions and classrooms.
Those things do not automatically overlap.
Yet they are placed in one block.
The result: anyone who asks questions about puberty blockers or surgery for minors is quickly labelled “anti-LGBTI”.
Anyone who asks whether biological men belong in women’s sports, likewise.
Anyone who doubts social transition in schools, the same.
The moral charge of the entire umbrella is used to shut down discussion of a single part.
Who gets pushed aside
Something else happens as well.
The umbrella does not only grow. The original meaning also becomes thinner.
Lesbian, gay and bi were about attraction to the same sex.
If “man” and “woman” become mainly identity or presentation, that attraction changes in content. Lesbian is then no longer: attracted to women. It becomes: attracted to whoever calls themselves a woman.
That is not a small shift.
It is the same mechanism as with the word “woman” itself: the biological category becomes a mask or a feeling. Anyone who holds to sex gets the label. Anyone who holds to homosexual orientation as attraction to the same sex, likewise.
Some gay men, lesbians and bisexuals therefore say they have not been expanded, but pushed aside. Their letters remain. Their meaning does not.
That also explains a distinction that is often smothered in practice.
Many people, including on the right, have no problem with adult gay men, lesbians or bisexuals. The conflict is rarely about orientation. It sits in the later added layer: the cockatoo of identity, language politics and medical protocols.
With minors that becomes sharper still.
Some of the boys and girls now treated as trans would, in an earlier time, likely simply have become gay or lesbian. Gender distress and later homosexual orientation overlapped strongly in the historical record. If you lock that distress early, socially or medically, as “trans”, you may erase precisely that outcome.
Then it is not an expansion of LGB.
It is an attack on the meaning of gay, lesbian, bi and woman.
Why the letters matter
An acronym is not neutral administration.
The more it has to cover, the less you can still distinguish:
orientation versus identity
adults versus minors
social recognition versus medical intervention
sports rules versus language rules
Without that distinction only the label remains.
And a label is easier to wield than an argument.
OIM way out
Do not take over the identity war.
Pull the terms apart.
Ask exactly what it is about.
Minors? Sports? Schools? Medical policy? Orientation?
Then say that. Not “the letters”.
Precise words make control possible.
Vague umbrellas make black boxes.
Tomorrow we look at other words that undergo the same fate, and at what we can do about it.
Question for you
Do you still see the difference between LGB and the later added layer clearly?
Or has that distinction already disappeared in practice?
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
### RVN: The stretching of concepts – the letters of LGBTI
Yesterday the mechanism: words acquire moral charge, are stretched and lose their sharpness.
Today one concrete case: the letters.
It began as LGB.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual. Three words about sexual orientation. Relatively sharp, testable, and mainly about adults.
Then came the T.
Then Q, I, A and the plus sign.
Each addition did not only add a group. It added other debates: identity, medical transition, language rules, sports categories, schools.
That is the tipping point.
### What happens in practice
LGB was about who you are attracted to.
T and what followed is, to a large extent, about how you define yourself, which medical steps follow, and which rules apply in changing rooms, competitions and classrooms.
Those things do not automatically overlap.
Yet they are placed in one block.
The result: anyone who asks questions about puberty blockers or surgery for minors is quickly labelled “anti-LGBTI”.
Anyone who asks whether biological men belong in women’s sports, likewise.
Anyone who doubts social transition in schools, the same.
The moral charge of the entire umbrella is used to shut down discussion of a single part.
### Who gets pushed aside
Something else happens as well.
The umbrella does not only grow. The original meaning also becomes thinner.
Lesbian, gay and bi were about attraction to the same sex.
If “man” and “woman” become mainly identity or presentation, that attraction changes in content. Lesbian is then no longer: attracted to women. It becomes: attracted to whoever calls themselves a woman.
That is not a small shift.
It is the same mechanism as with the word “woman” itself: the biological category becomes a mask or a feeling. Anyone who holds to sex gets the label. Anyone who holds to homosexual orientation as attraction to the same sex, likewise.
Some gay men, lesbians and bisexuals therefore say they have not been expanded, but pushed aside. Their letters remain. Their meaning does not.
That also explains a distinction that is often smothered in practice.
Many people, including on the right, have no problem with adult gay men, lesbians or bisexuals. The conflict is rarely about orientation. It sits in the later added layer: the cockatoo of identity, language politics and medical protocols.
With minors that becomes sharper still.
Some of the boys and girls now treated as trans would, in an earlier time, likely simply have become gay or lesbian. Gender distress and later homosexual orientation overlapped strongly in the historical record. If you lock that distress early, socially or medically, as “trans”, you may erase precisely that outcome.
Then it is not an expansion of LGB.
It is an attack on the meaning of gay, lesbian, bi and woman.
### Why the letters matter
An acronym is not neutral administration.
The more it has to cover, the less you can still distinguish:
- orientation versus identity
- adults versus minors
- social recognition versus medical intervention
- sports rules versus language rules
Without that distinction only the label remains.
And a label is easier to wield than an argument.
### OIM way out
Do not take over the identity war.
Pull the terms apart.
Ask exactly what it is about.
Minors? Sports? Schools? Medical policy? Orientation?
Then say that. Not “the letters”.
Precise words make control possible.
Vague umbrellas make black boxes.
Tomorrow we look at other words that undergo the same fate, and at what we can do about it.
**Question for you**
Do you still see the difference between LGB and the later added layer clearly?
Or has that distinction already disappeared in practice?
#LGBTI #Language #Definitions #RealityVsNarrative #RVN #OpenInternetManifest
https://openinternetmanifest.org
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
Deel dit bericht
Korte versie: Teaser voor X Raw Markdown: Exacte originele tekst (voor verifier) Unicode: Mooie opmaak voor Facebook / andere platforms
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.
💸 Support the Open Internet Manifest ❤️
This manifest only exists thanks to your donations.
Every satoshi or monero helps enormously (servers, domains, development).
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.