Roger-Luc Chayer (Image : AI / Gay Globe)
In the vast stellar system of LGBTQ-related acronyms — our colleague Carle Jasmin recently spoke about this here — a new player appears that further complicates the meaning of what the gay and lesbian community is supposed to be: “agender” people.
I know that this proliferation of letters grouping together all possible minorities and sub-minorities, from sexual orientation to gender identity, is becoming difficult to understand — for me first. It is still necessary to explain what agenrism is, since yesterday, May 19, was Agender Pride Day.
According to online dictionaries, since I had never heard of this term, the word “agender” generally refers to a person who does not identify with any gender, or who considers that they do not have a gender identity. This reality is usually included in the broader categories of trans and non-binary identities, often grouped under the LGBTQ+ acronym.
That said, the question of belonging to the LGBT community is not only theoretical or administrative. Some agender people feel fully concerned by LGBT issues — discrimination, legal recognition, identity, representation — while others do not necessarily wish to be associated with a particular activist or identity-based community.
According to several sociologists who have expertise on the issue of sexual orientation, historically, LGBT movements were mainly focused on sexual orientation (gay, lesbian, bisexual). Over time, issues related to gender identity have been more broadly integrated, particularly with trans and non-binary people. The inclusion of agender people therefore stems from this contemporary evolution of the concept of gender diversity.
The historical evolution of LGBTQ+ and debates on representation
This is where I often return in my editorial commentary on the issue of acronyms: everything is done and decided without ever asking the opinion of gays and lesbians. I have been a specialized journalist and publisher since 1993, and I have still never once been asked for my opinion on the structure and identity of the community to which I identify and which I address.
In 1993, I was addressing gays and lesbians. Today, in 2026, victims of violence from First Nations are also included. Although this reality does exist and past acts must be denounced, I do not see how this is related to my life, my orientation, and even less to my readers.
According to my research, the LGBTQ+ acronym was built in a historical and social way, not an institutional one. Originally, it evolved from struggles for the rights of homosexual people, then gradually expanded over time to include other realities of gender identity and sexual orientation. Each new letter or addition (trans, bisexual, queer, intersex, non-binary, etc.) generally comes from activist movements, local organizations, academics, or specific community claims rather than a single representative body deciding the overall structure.
This is where tension arises: there is no “LGBT parliament” or single spokesperson capable of validating or rejecting these developments. LGBTQ+ organizations themselves are very diverse, sometimes disagreeing on how to name or group identities. Some prioritize shorter acronyms (LGBT, LGB), others more inclusive forms (LGBTQIA2S+, etc.), and others completely reject the idea of a fixed acronym.
In this context, gay and lesbian people are not “excluded from consultation” in a formal sense: they are part of the activist, community, and political networks where these debates take place. But there is no single mechanism where one category of the community has veto power over the evolution of language. It is rather a diffuse, conflictual, and evolving process, where different sensitivities seek recognition within the same symbolic space.
This also explains why the result can feel imposed or inconsistent: it does not come from a global decision, but from a gradual accumulation of identity-based and political claims, without a central arbitrator.
We still all have the choice to use the acronym that best represents us, and in my case, the one that best represents the readers of Gay Globe and my life in general. It is difficult to find a middle ground without excluding certain minorities, and exclusion is not the right solution in my view. Where to begin? That is the question…
You can comment below this text if you wish to bring further insight into my reflection.
ADVERTISING
READ ALSO