Will We Still Say “LGBT+” in 50 Years?

https://medium.com/@heatherpaterson/will-we-still-say-lgbt-in-50-years-29aa11f54476

I was having an interesting conversation with a colleague recently about the language we use in the LGBT+ sector. I have recently found myself wondering whether, at some point in the future, we might actually stop using the term LGBT+, or any of its variations like LGBTQ+ or LGBTQIA+.

Let me explain.

Over time the language we use to describe our communities has gradually expanded. In the 1970s and 80s many organisations referred simply to “LG” groups, meaning Lesbian and Gay. As our understanding of sexuality grew, it became clear that not everyone is monosexual and bisexual people were increasingly recognised within our communities. By the 1990s the acronym became LGB.

In subsequent years the “T” was added to recognise trans people. This was not about inviting a new group in. Trans people had always been part of our communities and our movements. They fought alongside lesbian, gay and bi people and in many cases led the struggle for equality.

Many trans people are LGB themselves. But even those who are not can still be exposed to homophobia because of how others perceive them. Using a very simplified binary example, a trans woman may be either gay or straight. A gay trans woman is clearly part of the community as she is gay. A straight trans woman may still be perceived by others as a gay man if they refuse to recognise her gender identity, which means she may still face homophobia. For these reasons the acronym evolved to LGBT.

As awareness continued to grow, we recognised that sexuality and gender are far more diverse than four categories. The acronym expanded again to LGBT+, and longer forms like LGBTQIA+. These additional letters recognise identities such as queer, intersex, asexual and others.

But there is an obvious challenge with this approach.

Even the longest acronym will never include everyone. Every time the acronym grows there is another conversation about who is included and who ends up hidden inside the “plus”.

We do not approach other communities in this way. When we talk about disability we do not list every possible disability. When we talk about religion we do not list every faith.

Imagine if we did.

We might start by referring to the “CM community” for Christians and Muslims. Then someone points out that Hindus should be included, so it becomes CMH. Then Buddhists are added and we get CMHB. Then Jews and Sikhs are included, and someone asks about humanists and atheists.Soon we would end up with something like CMHBJS+ with the plus covering everyone else. When you look at it that way, it sounds slightly absurd.

Instead, we simply talk about people of all faiths and none. We refer to the protected characteristic of religion or belief rather than listing every group within it.

For that reason I suspect that over time we may eventually move away from trying to list identities and instead talk about the broader categories that affect our communities. If that happens, terms like LGBT+ may eventually become obsolete.

So what might replace it?

At the moment there appear to be a few possibilities.

Queer

One option is the word queer. This term is already widely used as an umbrella for the whole LGBT+ community. It has a long history in academia, particularly in the United States through the development of queer studies. Dictionaries like Cambridge and Merriam-Webster now recognise “queer” as an inclusive umbrella for the LGBTQ+ community.

However, I do not think this will ultimately become the universal term.For some people queer is a powerful reclaimed word. It can feel radical, inclusive and empowering. For others it remains deeply uncomfortable because of its history (and in some cases current usage) as a slur. That history is still within living memory for many people. It is also widely used as an individual identity label. Many people, myself included, use queer as a personal descriptor rather than simply an umbrella term.

In practice, “queer” is unlikely to fully replace LGBT+. It will continue as a useful umbrella for many, but not for everyone. Ultimately, “queer” will remain a valuable option, an identity in its own right for some, but probably not the sole term for the entire community.

GSRM

Another option is the term GSRM, which stands for Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities.

This term has appeared increasingly in some UK discussions. It attempts to broaden the conversation beyond sexuality and gender identity by also recognising romantic orientation. However, I suspect this term is also unlikely to become dominant.

Firstly, it does not seem to have been widely adopted or gained much traction internationally. Secondly, it focuses specifically on minorities. In other areas of equality language we tend to refer to characteristics rather than just minorities. For example we talk about sex rather than only misogyny, and about religion or belief rather than only religious minorities.

So while GSRM is an interesting concept, it may not be the term that sticks.

SOGIESC

The final option, and the one I think is most likely to grow, is SOGIESC.This stands for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics.

You may not have come across this term yet, or you may only have seen it occasionally. However it is already used quite widely in international contexts, particularly by European and global human rights organisations. For example, the Council of Europe established a SOGIESC Unit in 2014. The term also appears in UN and EU policies and training materials.

What makes SOGIESC different is that it describes categories that apply to everyone rather than trying to list minority identities. Everyone has a sexual orientation. Everyone has a gender identity and expression. Everyone has sex characteristics.

Instead of naming groups, it focuses on the aspects of human diversity that shape people’s experiences. This shift is analogous to how human rights law treats religion: it doesn’t list Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc., but rather protects everyone’s right to hold any belief.

We are already starting to see this language used in policy and human rights work. Health bodies, international organisations and equality frameworks increasingly talk about sexual and gender minorities or people with diverse SOGIESC rather than spelling out long lists of identities. It reflects a broader shift toward category based language.

In short, the trend seems to be moving toward broader descriptors rather than longer and longer acronyms.

Language Keeps Changing

Of course language is always evolving.The words we use today are not the same as the ones we used fifty years ago, and they will not be the same ones we use fifty years from now. That is true not just in discussions about sexuality and gender but across society more broadly.

Personally I find it fascinating to watch that evolution unfold. It reflects how our understanding of identity grows, how our communities change, and how we try to find language that captures the complexity and diversity of people’s lives.

Will we eventually stop saying LGBT+ altogether? Possibly. Perhaps one day terms like SOGIESC communities or simply gender and sexuality diverse people will become more common.

For now, however, LGBT+ and its variations remain widely recognised and continue to serve as an important banner for our communities. They will likely coexist with newer language for some time as we keep refining how we talk about identity and inclusion.

Whatever words we end up using in the future, the goal will remain the same. To recognise the richness of human identity and ensure that everyone has the space and dignity to live as themselves.