Post by @SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone

@SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone

2026-11-03 11:34 UTC

I edited this comment like 7x See that, now my comment no longer makes sense. In general, though, I think labels like “queer” or “gender and sexual minorities” are better than trying to list a bunch of identities because you both make the acronym way too long to be useful and also you’re bound to leave someone out no matter how long the list is.

Replies (1)

@alapakala@quokk.au 2026-11-03 11:51

it depends the scenario, zeitgeist, & language. Macchi & I are enbies. We are also polyglots. English itself borrowed a lot of lavender words from European languages, so we can include ourselves when speaking in queer spaces. Macchi, my wife, and I (3 different people) have experienced enby rejection & exclusion from queer spaces, physical & online. Now when talking to receptive cisfolk, and a generalization is required, I can see the utility of saying “genderless.” But when we want to be included, say during socialization, just add us in to solidarity with us. We are supposed to be inclusionary, not separatists. Statists usually use “sexual minorities” derogatorily, not inclusive at all. So I’d be careful when and how I am excluded when referred as a minority.

Open ##5502776