Which of these queer community acronyms do you prefer?

[VBM]

?

[Transgender for Everybody]

I vary between Options 2 and 4. Covers all four main bases, and what it doesn't cover, that's what the + (or Q) is for. Failing that, QUILTBAG, just because it sounds like a slur and I think that's funny. Voted option 3 because that's the median.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

LGBT. Four letters/characters is the maximum before it becomes tedious or awkward to say. If you want to be extra inclusive, "queer" is broad enough to cover it.

[Del Tachi]

NOTA.  "Queer" is my preferred term.  "LGBT" and all of its derived acronyms are too politicized for them to resound with my lived-experience as a queer man.

[Proud Family Values]

Honestly, none of them.  I use them sometimes, but I really don't like the use of letters to describe human beings.

I think the "LGBTQ+" acronym made things worse for all of us, not better.

These labels aren't going to be around forever.  Eventually, as acceptance of these groups grows, the old classifications are going to become obsolete.

To me, being gay is honestly about love.  If you're a man who loves another man, you're just in love.  And that you want to marry each other, would be very natural to me.  Same for a woman.

Bisexual to me is just that you're open-minded in love, it doesn't have to just be a man or a woman.  I guess "pansexual" would fall under this.

As for "T", it's about the person's inner self.  It's part of what makes them who they are, but it doesn't necessarily need to have a label... the label is for other people.
 
So I think what happens is that our society becomes much more casual, much more relaxed, much less rigid.

The emphasis on so many pronouns, on all sorts of new sexuality classifications, on making sure every letter is on the acronym - that's a lot of work for people, and people like things simple.  It's just not practical.  It's technical, and that's not really fitting into the kind of world we're becoming.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

WI: Queer

[bagelman]

Bring back GLBTQ+

[Mexican Wolf]

I usually go with either LGBT or LGBTQ+.

[Senator Sirius]

I do think we'd be better off just going with "queer" since it doesn't omit anything. Well someone on the internet will probably claim it does and start a dumb drama over it but they would be dumb and everyone would move on eventually.

[MarkD]

#3, LGBT+.
I know many in our community think it's cool to call ourselves "queer," appropriating one of the most destructive labels used against us by enemies,  but from my perspective, it still is a pejorative.

[Samof94]

option 1 is used only by TERFS

[I'm a prince to the grifters, I turn apostles to pimps]

LGBT or LGBTQ are fine.

[VBM]

option 1 is used only by TERFS

You can make an argument that it doesn’t make sense to include the T since LGB refers to sexual orientation while T refers to gender identity

[Meclazine for Israel]

There is a new one that doesn't start with L.

I think it starts with a number.

The only time I'd see the acronym is on this forum.

[Proud Family Values]

These words change over time.

19th century: "Urning", "invert"
Pre-Stonewall: "homophile", "homosexual"
1970s: widespread use of "gay" and "lesbian", "transvestite", "transsexual"
1990s: taking back the word "queer", "transgender"
2000s: "GLBT" or "LGBT".
mid to late 2010s: "LGBTQ"
extra inclusive versions add the "+" and the "A" and all the rest.

My guess is around 2030 or 2040, we'll see the younger generation break away from the heavy classification of the 2010s and 2020s, and the words will be more simple.

I also think "LGBT+" really took off more in the Internet Age because its typable, rather than speakable.  It's awful to say in person, then again a lot of people type and text now so it might be easier to just do the letters than actually write out "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender".

So the LGBT to me is more of an Internet/smartphone thing.

Who knows by 2050, there might be a complete revolution in the way language is recorded and spoken... maybe coinciding with a new technology?

[Del Tachi]

I do think we'd be better off just going with "queer" since it doesn't omit anything. Well someone on the internet will probably claim it does and start a dumb drama over it but they would be dumb and everyone would move on eventually.

I think it's more common in the activist space to claim that Queer is sometimes *too* inclusive, since the term is increasingly appropriated by cisgendered hets who exist outside the conventional masculine/feminine hegemony. 

And...I kind like the idea of "queer heterosexuality."  If our goal is destabilizing the gender binary, then straight folks will ultimately have a place in Queerdom too.