I started this before I learned of Facebook’s 50+ “gender” identities. But because our government will surely involve itself, what is below still has force.
What will be the next orientation letter? To guess, we need to know just what an orientation letter means and where we stand now.
We began, near about 1968, with a mere LG. The behaviors existed from time immemorial, of course, but nobody had thought to “celebrate” them officially until then, nobody sought to define themselves as a label. To LG a B rapidly accreted, making LGB, which, as far as acronyms go, stinks because it cannot be made into a euphonious word. LeGaB? LaGuB?
Of course, L is lesbian, G gay, and B bi-sexual, words which advertise with whom an individual most desires sexual intercourse. Wait—no, that’s not quite right. Sexual intercourse has a definite, scientific meaning, which is the biological process of making babies. In sexual intercourse procreation is sought; the pleasure which accompanies the act is a byproduct, and secondary to this goal.
Let’s think. Since the Ls, themselves female, beat their eyelashes at other females, it cannot be sexual intercourse which is on their minds. Likewise, a G cannot have sexual intercourse with another G. Bs are problematic. The letters must mean something other than sexual “orientation.” But what? Well, the sex of individuals with whom the label-bearers would seek their physical pleasure.
Next up was T, for “transgender”, which is a person who is biologically one sex but who wishes, and wishes to Government everybody else would also wish, to be the opposite. Yet a male who is a T usually desires his pleasure with another male, thus a T might be called a G in fancy dress. A male T sometimes desires pleasure with a female, which should technically render him without an orientation label since this coupling risks true sexual intercourse. In these cases, a T is merely a man who put on the wrong set of underwear. Female Ts are less frequent, but since they usually lust after other females, they might be better labeled Ls with unflattering haircuts.
Maybe it was because somebody realized that LGBT could be pronounced LuGBuT that another letter was hurriedly affixed. Just which followed is a matter of historical dispute. Some scholars say Q, others insist A. Q either means “queer”, and is thus redundant in the presence of L and G, or it means “questioning”. The person who questions is anxious to announce that they too want to announce their lusts, but they’re just not sure what those lusts are. This is seemingly contrary to orientation theory which insists a person’s lust is always and forever directed towards those of a fixed sex or sexes. But let it pass.
A is for “allies”, which literally means nothing. It is there for activists who must needs be part of a cause. But A brings us to LBGTQA, which is ever more unpronounceable.
Next came I for “intersex”, for the very rare folks who do not develop sexual organs in the usual way. The most frequent sufferers are females having larger than average clitorises, which, of course, in no way stops them being female.
So: LBGTQAI. Unfortunately a Q, A, or I does not tell us the sex with whom these persons would seek physical pleasure. And three might be typical heterosexuals interested only in sex as procreation.
Yet notice the absence of H for “heterosexual”. Isn’t that wonderfully curious?
What will be the next letter? Until recently, smart money was a second B for “bestiality.” Letters do not have to be unique; but if they did, then Z for “zoophile”, their preferred term. In Sweden and Germany, “Here, boy!” carries a different connotation than Stateside. But bestiality, while legal in those countries, is under fire from animal “rights” activists who are concerned about emotional scars on the Fluffies of the world.
S for “self”? Let’s don’t shake hands on it. Consider O for “object, inanimate.” Or K for “pedophiles” (K=kiddies), saving P for “polygamists”. N for “necrophiliacs”? Looking to Japan, R for “robot”?
Who will be the judge? Our beneficent government, of course. Congress is debating now, and will surely enact, ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban at the Federal level negative discrimination “based on sexual orientation or gender identity” (it would of course encourage positive discrimination). The government will thus be forced to define official orientation letters. They’ll start with the current list (LGBT probably) but, if history is any guide, they will quickly expand it, probably past LBGTQAI