A new sexual alphabet

Do you get confused right after the first “T” in LGBTTQQIIAA? Me too. And do we even need all those letters? Must we place people in sexual categories? Of course we must. But I think we can do a better job with that than we are. For sexual descriptives, I would like to suggest that we should employ every letter of the alphabet to stand for:

Abstaining
Bonkers
Climaxy
Disillusioned
Egomaniacal
Feral
Gaseous
Histrionic
Intimidated
Jejune
Klutz
Leprechaun
Marine
None of your business
Onanist
Potty-trained
Querulous
Republican
Scottish
Teletubbie
Unconscious
Virgin
Witch
Xenophobic
Yeti
Zombie

(If you find this post offensive, see this comment of mine below. Thanks!)

Print Friendly

About John Shore

John Shore (who, fwiw, is straight) is the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question, and three other great books. He is founder of Unfundamentalist Christians (on Facebook here), and executive editor of the Unfundamentalist Christians group blog.  (In total John's two blogs receive some 250,000 views per month.) John is also co-founder of The NALT Christians Project, which was written about by TIME,  The Washington Post, and others. His website is JohnShore.com. John is a pastor ordained by The Progressive Christian Alliance. You're invited to like John's Facebook page. And don't forget to sign up for his mucho awesome monthly newsletter.

  • Jan S Yoder

    Okay, now your (sic) just showing off! I like Jejune and Onanist! Get me a cuppa JO anyday! (Yes, I know how to spell ‘you are’ as a contraction. Digs on those who don’t/dont care. (sic again))

  • JonsBlog

    These endless acronyms really have become laughably silly in recent years. I would humbly suggest ditching them with a very simple replacement: NH (meaning, of course, “Non Heterosexual”). Problem solved.

    • lrfcowper

      I guess some folks use GSM– Gender and Sexual Minority.

      • Andy

        I’ve heard GSD (D = diversity) more. (Which I like a little better, as some people think “minority” can be used pejoratively.)

        • anakinmcfly

          ‘Diversity’ includes those of the majority, though.

          • Dani Smith

            I like the Diversity because it includes Allies.
            And LGBT+ would be good, but only because I can stop at the T for me.

          • anakinmcfly

            Although ‘diversity’ would technically include *everybody*, be they ally or not. It feels like too wide a term to be of practical use, other than when speaking of, say, the gender and sexual diversity of humankind.

          • Andy

            You have a point there…and I didn’t neologize the term obviously, but I liked it so I mentioned it. But my opinion is hardly gospel, especially considering I am none of them (assuming you don’t count “Ally”).

    • anakinmcfly

      But some of those people might be heterosexual though – namely trans people and allies. But LGBT+ works fine for me.

      • Andy

        At least most people are familiar with “LGBT”. I fear that if I used the term “GSD” among a general audience I’d get a lot of confused looks.

        • http://youtube.com/user/BowmanFarm Brian Bowman

          Not another TLA!

          TLA is a Three Letter Acronym.
          ;)

  • http://youtube.com/user/BowmanFarm Brian Bowman

    I have always meant Republican Onanist Feral Leprechaun when I typed ROFL. I feel so naughty now that everybody knows.

  • Hth

    Heh. I am literally NSFW.

  • Adele Henderson

    May I ask what Jejune is?

  • Jeffrey Hoffman

    Because everyone of those letters stands for a precious child of God and because trans* people are not intersex are not gay; I’m sorry, I fail to see the point of this post, John. I’m disappointed that you would so insensitively trivialize what are important identifiers for some people within the LGBT+ community. You’ve been a strong ally for us for a long time, but this is not being an ally. This is mockery. Please reconsider, my friend.

    • Emily Riley

      well said Jeffrey!

    • anakinmcfly

      I don’t think John was mocking those identities, just the way that the acronym is getting ridiculously long, to the point that even those of us in the community can’t always remember all the letters, and that it would be much more practical to have some kind of umbrella term, or even a *few* umbrella terms.

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore
  • Richard W. Fitch

    Can I suggest another one – “H.U.M.A.N.”?

  • HeathAdam Ackley

    The ignorance and laissez-faire lack of compassion in this post and comment thread are truly disheartening on the blog of one who seeks to be an ally to LGBTQ Christians. Of course people privileged by conforming to the majority (as so many commenters point out below) don’t care or find important the voices or identities of those unable to conform or be included in that majority. So we are offered an identity defined by what we are NOT (“non-heterosexual” or “gender non-conforming” or “gender minority”). Yet to define men as “non-women” or whites as “non-blacks” is clearly ridiculous, no? Or we are mocked for patiently trying to clarify in language internal to our community who we are in our own terms. Gender identity language differs from sexual orientation / identity language because they are entirely different categories and not usually overlapping. I happen to be gay and trans*, but most trans* folk are not gay and most gay and lesbian and bi folk are not trans*

    • anakinmcfly

      I’m also gay and trans and possibly one of the commenters you’re referring to. I don’t like the terms GSM and so on because of the reasons you list, but neither do I like how people just keep adding letters to that thing, especially for identities that already fit in fine under the current letters (e.g. questioning), or for communities (e.g. intersex and asexual people) who have different needs and concerns, or for people who by society’s accounts are considered straight and cis and need to effing stop appropriating our identities (e.g. “straight queers”, or even just allies).

      People do sometimes define whites as ‘non-POC’; likewise, a whole range of races are covered under the term ‘people of colour’. So I read this post as basically asking why we can’t have a similar catch-all term for those of minority gender and sexual identities, instead of trying to list every possible version every single time.

      • Jeffrey Hoffman

        Because we can’t and we shouldn’t. It is really that simple. The unwieldy acronym is beside the point. Do you remember how hard the trans* community had to fight to be included in the acronym? Some of us define the term and then use LGBT+ to deal
        with the grammatical awkwardness. Even that probably feels like erasure to asexual or intersex or queer folks, but it is meant to acknowledge their existence within our diverse community. Is it ever right not to include someone because we don’t understand their personal definition for their identity… or because it makes our friggin’ acronym too long?!

      • HeathAdam Ackley

        Hi, sorry that my wording may have been clumsy above and possibly gave offense to you. Your reply helped me realize that my deeper reason for feeling disheartened by the conversation here as a whole (not any one particular post as I try to explain above to John in apology) is that I find these frequent attacks on our clumsy attempts to describe community (internal conversation I maintain, not for outsiders to pick apart) to be divisive rather than building the unity they ostensibly seek. It is hard to ignore that those most critical tend to be those most privileged in social location. I forgot that most people here don’t know me so probably don’t realize that the bulk of people in my LGBTQ world are young adults, college students, really struggling with identity, and specifically bullied and feeling unsafe in Christian communities. They are the ones who like to add the letters to the acronym, and my tender heart toward them leans toward affirming their struggle, listening patiently while they sort it out. I don’t understand the attacks on them and their struggle to find a voice. It makes me sad when older adults go on the offensive and make political what I witness as a deeply emotional, personal, and reasonable struggle among the young and marginalized.

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      Adam: I don’t seek to be an ally of LGBTQ people, Christian or otherwise. I am a long-time, fully proven ally. See this, this, this, this … . And, relative to this particular post, this, please. Thanks.

      • HeathAdam Ackley

        I am sorry my choice of words gives offense. SInce I have had it pointed out to me that editing a post is perceived as dishonesty, I won’t do that but will seek clarification through added explanation. For me, speaking for myself only, to be an ally or advocate is something I never believe to be “proved” once and for all (like being a disciple of Christ) but something I must take up anew every day in every moment. I forget that others don’t see their discipleship that way, so I apologize for applying that to you. I seek to be an ally, advocate, parent, teacher, disciple anew in humility every day because I fail every day. I get up and try again. My wording here was that I am disheartened not by any one individual self-expression but by the whole tenor of the conversation. I wish we were all seeking unity with one another, and I know that is part of your intent here, but the overall comment thread strikes me as derisive and divisive rather than unifying and uplifting. Again, I recognize that isn’t necessarily anyone’s intent as an individual, but I still pray that somehow we can seek to hear one another, respect dissenting voices, listen to marginalized voices, allow people in liminal communities to speak to one another without talkiing over them — anything that would actually affirm and build true Christian unity with unconditional love and grace. Again I apologize for my clumsy wording and recognize that this is a continued pattern in my communications with you which I regret. I truly seek unity but I struggle to find ways to express that.

        • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

          Adam: Well, if you’re endeavoring to avoid offending me (which I appreciate!), you might want to not start off your comments to or about me by declaring that something I’ve written is “ignorant” and displays a lack of compassion.

          :-)

          No worries, seriously. I appreciate your gracious response and thoughts.

          • HeathAdam Ackley

            John, you are right — and while I am practicing the humility and honesty of not editing, I do regret that I wasn’t clear enough to others that my comment was about the tenor of the entire conversation. My comments were not about only one post and certainly not meant as ad hominem. I take responsibility for poorly chosen words and syntax. Thank you for understanding and giving me a chance to explain.

      • http://chancemcmahon.wordpress.com/ Chance McMahon

        There are two things I find weird about this comment: 1) internalized homophobia (or transphobia, biphobia, etc.) exists within the queer community and as such, it is hard for me to expect that an ally would ever be an ally 100% of the time. I do not think that straight people can be allies 100% of the time and I say this as someone whose parents love and accept me and whom I love deeply in return. I expect allies to fail, which is not to say “omigod no allies ever.” But I do expect that when they fail to act as allies, they apologize, which leads me to my second point; 2) if someone from the queer community interprets a behavior that an ally has performed as being insensitive to persons within that community, I would hope that as an ally they would apologize or seek to understand why their comment or action came off as making fun of persons within the community they purportedly stand as an ally with.

        Defending what one has said as a joke or that said queer person is “overreacting” are methods of denying the experiences of said person within the queer community. Yes, I think it is fair to say that not all queer people will take offense to the joke. Some might even support the person who made the statement. But not all of us are the same and I would hope that as someone who is an ally, that they would seek to understand why they hurt someone rather than just dismissing them.

        Now I study the Hebrew Bible for a living and it always impresses me that people fail to mis-analyze the Hebrew word שָׁלֹם, often translated as peace as if it means something to the extent of not causing trouble. Rather, it means the peace achieved through just relations, since it often a term used in the context of recompense or making right relations that have been torn asunder. So this person is asking for shalom and by dismissing their concerns, you are preventing real peace from being achieved.

        Obviously, if you feel that it’s okay to dismiss a few people, then fine. But if your group really wants to promote social justice and you represent that group, you might want to reconsider the dismissal.

  • Alan Hooker

    Since you’ve blocked me on Twitter for disagreeing with you before (clearly you really care about queer voices /sarcasm), I’m going to comment here.

    This post is absolutely ridiculous and frankly offensive. You are a straight cis man talking about the identities of marginalized queer people, as if you have any investment whatsoever in the acronym we use of our community (hint: you don’t).

    This post is not funny or humorous. It comes across as belittling the ways in which our community speaks of ourselves. You should be ashamed.

    • Matt

      Alan, it may be best for you to speak for yourself, not the community at large. I found the post a little “out there,” but I also find the lengthy acronym “out there.” It can be nice to just take a little break and laugh at ourselves for a minute, and it can also be a way to open up dialogue about why we must exhaustively describe ourselves–the reasons are numerous, including marginalization, as you said.

      John loves humor, but he would never be intentionally cruel. He makes mistakes like all people do, but I have never seen him not be upfront about it and apologize. Your passion is great. But maybe save it for the people who actually mean us harm. They are legion, as I’m sure you know.

      • Alan Hooker

        Hey Matt,

        While I think that queer people are obviously allowed to like this post, there is still the point to consider that a cishet man is speaking on behalf on the LGBTQ+ community and he is explicitly commenting on the ways in which we talk about ourselves.

        I have no problem with queer people critiquing the LGBTQIA (etc!) acronym, since it’s our call, and it’s our decision about how we speak for ourselves. I think it’s great we can laugh about it too, *but* it’s not John Shore’s place to talk about this, because from the mouth of a cishet person posts like this can (and often do) come across as belittling and mocking.

        • Matt

          If we’re going to talk of “places,” then I believe that John has earned one. He is nothing if not extremely well-informed on the subject. He has dedicated his life to helping reconcile the Christian church and LGBTQ people. He has helped and comforted many of us. I know when I’m being dismissed. John has never done that.

          Telling him he can’t do something simply because of his demographics (cis and straight) sounds just like what some do to us, doesn’t it? He was not commenting seriously. If he were, we might have something to discuss. But he wasn’t, and if an average person can’t understand that this is humor, then that speaks of their entrenched, already-existing beliefs. In which case they are free to peruse his other work where he does speak seriously and with utmost care.

          • Alan Hooker

            Hi Matt,

            Different queer people have different opinions. In your opinion, John may not being dismissive, but that doesn’t mean his words don’t come across like that to other queer people — and the fact that there are those of us who take issue with this post is reason for John to seriously consider how he’s writing.

            There is a massive, massive difference in power between cisheterosexual people and queer people, and the comparison you make fails to account for that. Cishet people have been and still do dictate conversations around queer people, and queer people are marginalized in cisheteronormative society.

            I don’t think that I’m saying anything wrong or controversial by suggesting that John really thinks about how he says things, considering his privileged position here. He has to understand that his humor might not work because he is a cishet person making jokes or poking fun at issues within LGBTQ cirlces (and you must see how that could go wrong); he is not a member of the LGBTQ community and he needs to bear that in mind when speaking.

            I have read some of John’s other work, and I have issue with some of it, and like other parts of it. But it’s important if you’re heterosexual to listen to the people you’re writing about. (Although if we’re going to be totally honest, I have a problem with heterosexual people writing -about- queer people & our lives anyway).

          • Matt

            Clearly we disagree. I only ask you to consider that you also have an opinion that is no less, and no more valid than anyone else’s. I love my community very much, but the pain and struggle we go through can blind us to the good being done among us and on our behalf.

            There is also something else to keep in mind here: this is John’s space. We are guests here. He does not have the same obligations as he would if, say, this piece appeared in a public newspaper.

            Peace to you.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Alan,

            Here’s the thing about humor. Not everyone is going to get it. Not everyone is going to find it funny. Someone may take offense to it, even its a grade school joke about chickens crossing roads.John is master of humor and satire. Good satire sometimes has a bit of a sting to it, because it is intended to take pre-conceived notions and show how silly it can all be.

            I don’t understand your dislike about having strong allies from the straight world, John is certainly one, and has opened to door for people from the spectrum of orientation to have a place to share their voices, and often take center stage.

          • Alan Hooker

            Allegro,

            Good humor doesn’t “sting” queer people. If that’s what you think is funny, I really think you should question that. John has a very privileged position as a straight cisgender man. He should think very, very carefully about how he speaks about queer people.

            And also, one’s ally status is not dependent on whether one considers oneself an ally. Being an ally is about listening to and seriously engaging with the people you want to support.

            As a gender nonconforming and queer individual, I do not find that this post or John’s attitude about my problems with it to be “opening” doors for me, and clearly I don’t think it allows me to share my voice, if he’s not going to engage with why this post and the way straight people use humor when talking about queer people can be a problem.

            And to be honest, if John wanted to put queer people’s opinions and voices centre stage, he wouldn’t be so quick to brush them aside, as I’ve seen him do on many occasions when queer people disagree with him.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Do you hate straight people that much?

            I just wonder if John had been queer and had written the piece, you would have thought it funny, but because he’s straight, you take offense,

          • Alan Hooker

            What an engaging response to my critique. With that comment you realize you are centering straight people in this discussion. This is not about straight people. This is about queer people. That’s what an ally would realize.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            No, its about people, About how labels are, how they are used to divide us, cause discord, and pain. We have sexuality. We are NOT defined solely by our sexuality, and in all honesty, if shouldn’t be a definition to begin with.

            THAT was the point of John’s piece.

          • Alan Hooker

            Labels used and interpreted by cisheterosexual people can certainly be used to divide queer people; however, labels can also be used as a way to affirm one’s identity and to celebrate it.

            This is why cishet people (like John) should be careful when they talk about labels because they could be effectively belittling and erasing people’s identities.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I don’t even know what cisheterosexual means, But isn’t it odd how many times you have used that label when talking about John. My irony meter is pinging.

          • anakinmcfly

            Hi! No comment on the rest of the discussion, but cisheterosexual (or cishet) is basically the short form of ‘cisgender and heterosexual’. So it’s not really a label (no more than ‘straight’ or ‘gay’ or ’50 years old’), just a descriptive abbreviation.

          • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

            Hi Alan –

            I don’t really agree with you on this one. If John were to use the word “faggot”, I would take offense in a way that I wouldn’t if I was conversing with another queer person. But the alphabet soup has never been derogatory so I don’t think there is a need to claim or reclaim it as our own.

            And, not for nothing, John has been a fierce advocate who I am deeply grateful for.

            That said, I was recently lambasted on another thread because I objected to the author’s characterization of my life as “the issue of homosexuality”. I refuse to let my life be reduced to an “issue”, and I was accused of being irrational and over-sensitive. So I can empathize with you in this discussion.

            My best to you.
            David

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore
    • lymis

      Alan,

      I could see your point if anything in John’s post came across as a serious suggestion of how to actually label specific groups of people – if he were proposing this as a replacement for the “LGBTTQQIIAA” collective ID.

      I didn’t.

      Let’s be honest and acknowledge that, as real as the issues of discrimination and marginalization of sexual and gender minorities are, we are still in both societal and linguistic transition – the LGBTTQQIIAA label is FAR too unwieldy to stand, even if it’s heart is in the right place. Being playful about that reality isn’t out of line.

      I’ve seen people, generally people within the community, arguing seriously that the T should get pitched because trans people don’t count the same way L,G, or (usually grudgingly) B people do and so they should get thrown out in to the cold to fend for themselves. Or that asexuals aren’t real. Or that “queer” should be good enough for everyone, and so on. That’s what pisses me off when I see it, not things like this from someone who has a clear record of being an unquestioned ally. So what if as a straight cisgendered man he comes at the issue from a straight cisgendered perspective? That’s part of the point of diversity. And before you make the usually valid comment that straight cisgendered male opinion is generally the most often heard on any subject, I’ll point out that straight, cisgendered male pro-gay sentiments are pretty thin on the ground, even now.

      I’m not going to claim this is the best and funniest thing I’ve seen John write, but I don’t find it offensive.

      I do wonder a bit about seeing “Republican” in a list of diverse sexual identities, (seems to me “Repressed” would have covered it), and while I find Marines in general to be hot, I’ve never thought of them as their own orientation, but hey.

      LGBTTQQIIAA is a reflection of very real marginalization. It reflects the very diversity within that marginalization. But we owe it to ourselves to always remember that honoring the reality of that marginalization is always a necessary evil, not a goal in and of itself. Those identities are simple realities about us, not moral superiorities. We’re right to insist that the things that make us unique be honored as normal human variations, not perversions or defects. But we can’t succumb to the temptation of turning around and using them to claim that people who aren’t are inherently less than, either.

      It feels like your knee-jerk is to dismiss John’s right to even have a view simply because he is a straight cisgendered male, and therefore has no right to an opinion. That’s what the people who are wrong do to us. He, and other straight allies, have as much right to their opinions and their perspectives and their place at the table as we do.

      The very existence of the LGBTTQQIIAA alphabet soup is a clear and conscious recognition that “not straight”, not cis” isn’t anything like enough to allow for the variations of our experiences and our right to claim our identity as individuals and not to simply buy into someone else’s arbitrary groupings based on what they see as true about us. But lumping all straight and cis people into one grouping and refusing to allow their individual right to identify themselves is doing to them exactly what we refuse to be allowed to be done to us.

      This isn’t “King of the Hill” where the goal is to yank someone else off the top of the heap and throw them to the bottom so we can claim the top spot and all the elitist privileges involved. So as we climb up and seek our equal place, when someone offers a hand to help lift us up, it’s not only counterproductive, but morally wrong, to use it as the basis of trying to pull them down. If you don’t want someone’s help, don’t take it, but don’t trash someone for doing it.

      I certainly won’t argue anyone’s right to find this or any other particular piece of writing offensive or distasteful, or simply off the mark or unfunny. But the impulse behind it – that sometimes, lightening up and pointing out the inherent absurdity even in the most important things – even in sacred things, and most especially, in the wide range of human experience is the best way to reinforce our common humanity, is a valid, important, honorable, and I’d say, sacred one as well.

      LGBTTQQIIAA is both important AND absurd. We lose something important if we lose sight of either of those facts.

      • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

        Thanks, Lymis. Miss you around here! (Man. I just got off the phone with an imprisoned Christian pre-op transwoman who called me for some guidance/input. I’m going to work with her around the idea of her using my blog to share at least some of her deeply harrowing story. I spend so much of my time engaged in this way. So it’s so … weird, to … well, you know. Anyway, I’m afraid I’ve had to block Mr. Hooker [whoops: I guess Alan prefers "Mx." to "Mr.", which you'll see I'm being chastised below for not knowing ahead of time]: he can’t seem to stop disparaging me personally [though I'm going to continue leaving the rest of what I've read of his comments here]. And onward we go.)

        • sarahoverthemoon

          Alan prefers the title “Mx.” not “Mr.” If you are going to condescend to him and erase his valid criticism at least do so properly.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            You do realize that we have no way of knowing which honorific someone prefers.

          • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

            I see (and this is days later) that Alan has changed his Disqus profile photo from the previous one–where he was looking typically masculine and was named Alan Hooker–to the current one, where is looking decidedly feminine and has added the prefix “Mx” to his name.

        • http://danileekelley.wordpress.com/ Dani Kelley

          Alan is not a Mr., but a Mx. Identity is important, and self-identifying is super important.

  • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

    It’s just humor, people. I’ve spent the last seven years of my life working full-time, at deep personal and professional cost, fighting as hard as anyone I know of for the full rights of LGBT people. This is just my fun little way of pointing toward a time when there’s no reason at all to be concerned with identifying people according to their sexuality or gender identity. I’m sure that’s the time to which we are all looking very forward.

    • Alan Hooker

      John, “it’s just humor” doesn’t fly. You’re telling people to brush off something that they find offensive and hurtful, because “it’s just a joke”. I really am talking about this because I do want you and others to help the LGBTQ+ community, and one way you can do that is to think about the position you hold in relation to marginalized queer people.

      While your intentions may have been good, I think the execution failed. You, as a straight cisgender man, are able to have fun with this, and to make statements about looking forward to a time when sexual and gender IDs aren’t used to categorize people, but that is part of the privilege you have. You do not live the experiences queer people live. You don’t live against a heteronormative culture which penalizes you. You don’t have to think about the ways in which sexual & gender identities are vitally important to marginalized people at an experiential level.

      Lastly, the fact that I am spending my time explaining to you why I think these words from a cisgender heterosexual man are a problem is because I want you to be a friend to queer people. Critique isn’t dismissal. Please remember that.

      • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

        Actually, before this latest comment of yours appeared, Alan, I was editing out my “It’s just humor.” So. There we have it!

        • Jeffrey Hoffman

          John, we all know your heart is in the right place. Speaking for myself and as a friend who loves you, I appreciate so very much all that you have done to support the LGBTQIA community. Alan explained the issues very well above, so I will just add a plea to please be more careful that you’re not having fun at other people’s expense. We all long for a day when the only label that matters is “human.” Heck, Jesus calls us to make that day happen, but sadly this is not that day. Not yet. Maranatha!

          • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

            Jeffrey: When seven years ago I began vigorously and unequivocally advocating for the Christian full acceptance of LGBT people, it also wasn’t yet “that day”: as far as I know/knew, I was literally the only Christian blogger (and for sure the only straight one with any readership at all) championing that cause. Then, I was alone.

            But I’m hardly that anymore, am I?

            I’m looking ahead to the next stage of LGBTQ acceptance–the one you agree with me must come, the one you note Jesus calling us to make happen.

            This post was just my little way of introducing that next phase. And when you’re moving toward something that new, challenging, and important, you’re a fool not to use humor (and subtly at that) if you can.

            Believe it or not, I actually know what I’m doing here. Love to you, brother.

          • Jeffrey Hoffman

            “I know what I am doing here.”

            Oh, yes, you do. And so do I. You are being controversial to get more blog hits.

            And since I don’t get paid for my commentary, you’re welcome.

          • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

            Jeff: Really? You’re rejecting my explanation for why I wrote this post (which is of course to essentially call me a liar), and accusing me of instead having no motivation beyond desiring to get more blog hits?

            Holy cow, dude. That didn’t take long. (And fwiw, consider that if I wanted more blog hits, I’d have titled this blog with something a little more attention-grabbing than “A new sexual alphabet,” which doesn’t exactly scream “Read this!”)

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Being controversial to get more blog hits..John..He’s got an idea there, Maybe you should change your motivational approach.

            Now pardon me, my eyes won’t stop rolling.

          • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

            Yeah, that was … decidedly snarky. Oh well. Stuff happens. (And the car I’ve been waiting to have serviced is now ready! So I’m outta the lovely Starbucks I’m in! Thanks for your kind defenses on my account, Allegro. Obviously, feel free to–as, I’m certainly now off to: yay!–leave behind you this snarl of cyber-unpleasantness.)

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        Alan, Thanks for your personal opinion on John’s piece. Please note that it is merely your take on the matter that is not necessarily shared by many of the people you find kinship with. Peace to you.,

        • Alan Hooker

          Yes, it is my personal opinion on John’s piece. That doesn’t mean it’s not a valid criticism.

  • James Walker

    I don’t see how it’s possible that anyone (whether inside or outside the “alphabet soup” community) can NOT see how it is both necessary to have some kind of inclusive community label and ridiculous to have this ever-growing “thing” as we attempt to be ever-more-inclusive while still maintaining a separate identity as a community from the “gender identity normative, gender expression normative, sexual identity normative and sexual expression normative” majority. see, I can’t even conveniently label those people who AREN’T part of our community. it’s become THAT ridiculous.

    as a long-time reader of John’s work, I don’t even consider his gender or sexual identity when I look at the articles he posts. I know firmly and deeply that he’s one of the Christian writers who “gets it” and who stands by us and with us at every opportunity. for all intents and purposes he’s one of us. if he wants to craft something that displays clearly for all to see one of the crazy little things we ought to be capable of laughing at about ourselves, then let’s read it, enjoy it and yes, see ourselves in the mirror he holds up and laugh at ourselves along with him.

    taking ourselves too seriously is dangerous and causes divisions we can’t afford.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X