Yep. And there are a lot of non-straight QUILTBAG folk, particularly those who are not 'Merican or who are of a generation in living memory where queer was always unilaterally not well meant. I remember people stuttering trying to say "Queer Studies" in grad school in the '80s.
'The A stands for Ally'
- Thread starter Albedo
- Start date
- Status
Yep. And there are a lot of non-straight QUILTBAG folk, particularly those who are not 'Merican or who are of a generation in living memory where queer was always unilaterally not well meant. I remember people stuttering trying to say "Queer Studies" in grad school in the '80s.
Yes, this is what I was going to say. I feel like a lot of people in this thread are acting like the idea that the "A" stands for "ally" is purely a misinterpretation of the LGBTQIA acronym and that the "A" has always stood for "asexual," but I came across references referring to the "A" as "ally" long before there was an increase in awareness about asexual/aromantic people. I'm thinking early 2000's, personally.
I don't have strong feelings either way about allies being included, and I'm supportive of asexual/aromantic people. Terminology changes, often for the better. But there is a precedent for using the "A" to mean "ally," and while the company should have done a little more research to make sure that they had up-to-date info, they didn't come up with the idea on their own.
I think this is where I'm at. The 'A for ally' has had historical importance for representing closeted people, and no doubt still has that importance in places today, so should be kept at least for that reason.
I've recently heard 'GSM', standing for gender and sexual minorities, as an alternative catch-all, which seems pretty ecumenical (although it reminds me of the mobile phone technology).
Looking back at emails and newsletters etc. from my past, I can say for a fact that A for Ally goes back at least 1985, in fact there's a long email thread from 1989 about the potential problem of having LGBTA as an acronym because some self-described wit took the TA to mean Tits and Ass.
Last edited:
my personal perspective, which I know isn't law in any way:
I'm cis and queer. I try to support my trans friends and spouse whenever I can. yet I hesitate to call myself a trans ally as I feel like it isn't a term to you give yourself. if I call myself an ally and then say something transphobic, am I still an ally? do I lose my title? is ally a promise to improve and try harder to help or has it become a political alignment? allyship isn't without critical self-analysis. it feels like something I would want a friend to call me rather than something I called myself. something I earned, not something I declared.
so to add it as a section of the acronym feels strange. it's like if we included "smart" or "kind" in with "gay" or "aromantic"
I'm cis and queer. I try to support my trans friends and spouse whenever I can. yet I hesitate to call myself a trans ally as I feel like it isn't a term to you give yourself. if I call myself an ally and then say something transphobic, am I still an ally? do I lose my title? is ally a promise to improve and try harder to help or has it become a political alignment? allyship isn't without critical self-analysis. it feels like something I would want a friend to call me rather than something I called myself. something I earned, not something I declared.
so to add it as a section of the acronym feels strange. it's like if we included "smart" or "kind" in with "gay" or "aromantic"
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Messages
- 23,129
- Reaction score
- 12,525
- Location
- Where the Moon can see me.
- Website
- www.etsy.com
It's certainly fine to let actions speak most clearly. There always needs to be an honorable How-May-I-Help<-->Here's-What-We-Need conversation.
Thing is, when allies were first being openly included in the community, there was a distinct social price/personal risk. Gay-friendly was not a virtue. So there was interest in acknowledging people who were (in a not-grandiose way) taking those risks. To acknowledge that a wider pro-social layer adds value personally and politically.
Realistically, in many places and in this time, there still is risk. If anyone adds threat or rejection from inside non-normative spaces, I'm not sure where we all go.
Balance is a key element of any relationship.
Thing is, when allies were first being openly included in the community, there was a distinct social price/personal risk. Gay-friendly was not a virtue. So there was interest in acknowledging people who were (in a not-grandiose way) taking those risks. To acknowledge that a wider pro-social layer adds value personally and politically.
Realistically, in many places and in this time, there still is risk. If anyone adds threat or rejection from inside non-normative spaces, I'm not sure where we all go.
Balance is a key element of any relationship.
These are all good questions, and it's always good to keep being aware and thinking critically about them. For my part, I made the decision a while ago to visibly and publicly ID as an ally, mostly because my daughter wouldn't have it any other way
but also because I thought it might do at least a little to shift perceptions among the people I know who aren't necessarily LGBTQ+ friendly.
I've learned a lot from this thread since I last posted. While I can understand and deeply appreciate the historical significance of the community itself designating 'A' for both closeted people and allies—which I didn't know—I haven't changed my mind. I still feel the 'A' should be reserved for those within the community for whom the 'A' would apply. It's not a status I would want to claim as an ally. It still feels encroaching to want that designation; it's a craving for insider status in my mind . . . and, is therefore a form of appropriation. These are simply my feelings and have absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's choices. Yanno, just to be clear.
- Status