system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The Term ‘LGBTQIA+’ is Actively Harmful Towards the Cause it Tries to Support Because it Drives Away Potential Supporters for Being... Too Much.

Let me explain what I mean by this. I recently came across an ad for the Democratic Party in which people in regular clothes held up cardboard placards with the group or cause they were advocating for written on them. *Women’s Rights*, *Racial Equality*, etc. What I found particularly eyecatching was a young man who said, “I support the LGBTQA+ Community”, or the like.

I had some issues with that statement. Before I say anything else, I want to mention that I am by no means homophobic (~~I have friends who are gay, how could I *possibly* be homophobic?~~). I support equality for all, and find it ridiculous that in 2018 we still come to an agreement as a nation what consists a marriage, and what is equality. That said, I believe there is absolutely no need to add the two/three new categories to the already wordy phrase, as if trying to say that people who fall under those categories were not already represented with LGBT, and especially Q: Intersex, Asexual, and Allies (who are heterosexual). 

I have voiced my concerns in the past about how the term ‘Feminist’ may possibly have an adverse effect because those who are already colored to believe that presently the two sexes are equal enough already are going to reject the term, believing the term to mean what it does not: advocacy for the supremacy of the female gender, above the male. I have since recinded that argument, partly because I believe now that to force society to change certain aspects of revolutionary concepts need to be superlatively termed to give them the attention they need, and partly because I am a man and it’s really *really* difficult to say the above to a well-concerning woman.

In the case of LGBTQIA+, I ask again what is gained by the addition of three extra categories? Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender are self-explanatory. Bisexual I had trouble in the past because as a heterosexual man I could not comprehend why those who are both homo and heterosexual would want a whole different category to describe them in advocacy, but I’ve come around to accept the notion that they are different from LGT. I did not exactly know what Queer meant until a few years ago (when that term was added into the already existing LGBT), and the way it was explained to me was they represent *all* of those sexual minorities who are neither heterosexual or transgender, a sort of umbrella term to make sure that nobody is left unrepresented. 

What would the addition of those who are asexual or intersexed, and hetero-but-supporting address exactly? Is it because the term ‘Queer’ is not enough, and those who fall under these categories demand their own letters?

Let me say, in my opinion, what the addition *does*. It creates further confusion for those who are on the fence about the issues of gender and sex. It makes the group less appealing to stand for if you were already against the movement—“*Wait, you’re telling me they added* ***another*** *category of people?”* It makes the term seem even more foreign to those who are enclosed in their own conservative bubbles, and could possibly be perceived as being ‘too much’. For all of the positives the addition of IA+ brings, which I personally cannot see any of, there are too many negatives. 

Edit: An important point that I didn’t put into words because I didn’t think of it in any other way is that I **absolutely** am not advocating for the future removal of the said categories from the acronym. I don’t think there’s a way that I can claim to not be homophobic and want the community to change the acronym now. That would be being foolish. This is a reactionary post, saying that I believe the past action of adding those letters into the acronym was not a good decision to make. 

This is not a “You guys did something I don’t approve of and therefore should change it” type of post. This was a “I can’t understand why you guys decided to do what you did” kind of post. What’s done is done and no one should force the community to make changes. But a guy can lament.
gpt
If you are forming a political party, it makes sense to make sure that your name is as catchy and universal as possible. Because all you really want, is for people to nominally support you with their vote, and once you have it, it's yours to spend on your full real agenda.

But social movements are not like that. There is no end goal that you win by tricking people into "supporting" a sufficiently non-threatening label. 

This applies to feminism too. If you take a person who feels cagey even about calling themselves a feminist, because they don't even see why sexist against women is a particularly big deal, then signing them up to call themselves "egalitarians" won't actually change the world the least bit, not in the ways that actual feminists expect it to. They already were an "egalitarian" anyways, and they weren't even remotely ready to be an ally for the kinds of causes that actual feminists tend to talk about.

Similarly, it might be the case that some people are open to supporting "gay rights" but not the more agressive letter soups that openly flaunt their advocacy for all sorts of weird obscure forms of identity. But if they do, then signing them up for some sort of list for "supporting gay rights" wouldn't actually achieve anything. That kind of person was already supporting gay rights anyways, to some milquetoast degree, but at the same time they are clearly not ready to jump on the openly countercultural bandwagon flaunting heteronormativity and binary thinking, that the LGBTQQIAA+ community would expect it's members to jump on.