Roger-Luc Chayer (Image: AI / Gay Globe)
We have been witnessing, quite powerless for the past six months, a sharp rise in conservative, anti-LGBTQ+ movements that oppose everything we stand for — including everything we still aspire to achieve.
It’s obvious that the actions of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, are far from insignificant. But the fact that this same backlash is surfacing almost simultaneously, and with such aggression, in different parts of the world should raise some questions within our own ranks.
Have some elements within LGBTQ+ communities perhaps gone too far?
I always remember this talk show that was supposed to discuss the place of men in certain media spaces. When the host introduced his four guests, one of them reacted aggressively, questioning why he had been presented as a man. He claimed he had no gender identity or gender expression — that he was non-binary and non-gendered. The same reaction came when the topic of his ethnic background came up. Embarrassed, the host asked how else he could have introduced him, since he was wearing a beard, a t-shirt and clearly had the physical features of a man. The guest answered, “Just because I have a beard and look like a man doesn’t automatically make me a man,” throwing the whole discussion into confusion.
This person, among others, is a perfect example of a philosophy that does not represent the gay and lesbian community as it once existed. By adding every possible letter of the alphabet — and even mathematical symbols — we’ve created widespread confusion among the general public, which no longer really knows what we stand for or even what these acronyms mean, or why they’ve been combined with what was originally just a question of sexual orientation. See the video excerpt from Arrêt sur Image below.
Who decides which letters get added to these acronyms?
No one really knows. You can ask community groups, activists, corporations that use them, politicians, or ordinary people on the street — no one can clearly say where acronyms like BTQ2AA+ come from. What we do see, however, is that they keep getting longer every year. It’s true that their meanings can be found, but in practice, very few people can actually explain the full list. Many mix up certain letters with the wrong words. In the end, one person’s definition is rarely the same as another’s.
In my view, these acronyms are not decided by any single person or authority, but shaped by a collective dynamic — often informal and sometimes chaotic. They are born in activist, academic or community circles that try to name new or long-invisible realities: gender identities, sexual orientations, diverse forms of expression. Each addition usually stems from a desire to include groups who feel overlooked or misrepresented.
But since there’s no central authority to decide what stays or goes, every current, every organization — and sometimes any individual — can add a variant. The result is an inflation of letters and symbols that reflect an extreme drive for inclusivity, but which ends up losing a large part of the public along the way.
At heart, these ever-growing acronyms express a tension: the wish to name everything so no one feels left out, but at the risk of becoming unreadable to the general public. This is a debate that runs through the community itself — and it’s unlikely to be resolved soon, because it touches on language, politics and identity all at once.
The simple chart below, showing the history of changes to the gay flag, is a powerful example of this trend.
History of the flags (Image: Britannica)
Aggressive pushback from authorities
And that’s when the Donald Trumps, the American Christian preachers, the right-wing and far-right heads of state, and everyday people who feel lost in this swirl, step in and say, “Enough is enough.” Faced with this disorganized jumble of gender expression — or non-expression — the idea of sexual orientation no longer seems to be the core reason these labels exist, and no one really knows what to call them anymore. And that’s exactly what happens when people continually blur the line between being trans and cross-dressing, two realities that have nothing to do with each other.
The difference mostly comes down to the nature of identity and a person’s personal journey. A trans person claims a gender different from the one assigned at birth — this identity is deep, intimate, and often permanent. Many undertake a social, medical or legal transition to live fully in the gender with which they identify.
Cross-dressing, by contrast, is more about expression, often occasional — dressing up and sometimes behaving as the opposite sex, without necessarily questioning one’s own gender identity. Some do it for the stage, to explore a role, for fun or for provocation, but they remain attached to their original gender in everyday life.
In other words, being trans is an identity; cross-dressing is a choice of appearance or performance, which doesn’t necessarily say anything about a person’s deeper identity.
Where does this leave gays and lesbians?
The question raised by this reflection is not about excluding anyone from what was once called the gay and lesbian community. Rather, it’s about helping the broader public better understand the movement we represent and the values we stand for.
For some, it’s no longer just about sexual orientation but about a set of social differences that unite, under one umbrella, groups that may seem far apart at first glance. Others argue it might be time to return to the roots — to place sexual orientation back at the heart of this shared identity and to allow other realities to organize around their own causes, without confusing them with those of homosexuals in the strict sense.
Who is right? Only the future — and perhaps our ability to debate calmly — will tell.
ADVERTISING
