🐱 Google erases part of LGBTQ+ community in new online glossary project - Guess bi is a little too straight for them

Google erases part of LGBTQ+ community in new online glossary project

The tool, a glossary of 100 words that used the company's Google Trends to track the popularity of LGBTQ+ terminology and definitions

www.losangelesblade.com

A new online tool designed to help mainstream, freelance and even LGBTQ+ journalists navigate definitions of what can be a complex world of LGBTQ+ vernacular, left out definitions of bisexuality and pansexuality in a new Google “LGBTQ+ language initiative.

The Google News Initiative announced the project in partnership with VideoOut, titled the “LGBTQ+ language and media literacy program, last week in a press statement. According to the company, they partnered with Men’s Health magazine to “help contextualize the research and data in the program.”


The tool, a glossary of 100 words that used the company’s Google Trends to track the popularity of LGBTQ+ terminology and definitions, was created with the assistance of several queer PhD linguists.

However, in a review of the glossary today, Friday, Nov. 26 the terms and definitions for bisexuality and pansexuality were missing.

According to the Google release: “It’s a way to understand the LGBTQ+ community, and hopefully, it will transform the way journalists – and all of us – write and talk about LGBTQ+ people.”

Jordan Reeves, the Executive Director of VideoOut, an LGBTQ+ nonprofit and the founder of VOE, a production company centering LGBTQ+ narratives in television and film, answered the self-asked question of; “WHY WOULD VideoOut, an LGBTQ+ nonprofit, partner with Men’s Health magazine?”

“So many people assume that Men’s Health is only for cisgender, heterosexual, masculine presenting men. I’m here to tell you, as a queer trans nonbinary human, that’s false.”

According to a recent Gallup poll, “One in six [U.S.] adults in Generation Z identifies as LGBT.” At the same time, a GLAAD report found 45% of non-LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. say they’re confused by the different number of terms to describe individuals who comprise the LGBTQ+ community.

In a response to late Friday evening, Jordan Reeves, the Executive Director of VideoOut in a direct message on Twitter told the Blade:

“Recently we launched The LGBTQ+ Language and Media Literacy Program, a living and breathing resource that we will continue to add to over time. We left out some terms and phrases at launch — bisexual, for example — that should have been included from the very beginning!

We are keenly aware of bi-erasure and the persistent confusion around bisexual identity. We are sorry we didn’t include it at luanch, but we are adding it (along with pansexual) very soon. We started with 100 entries (definitely not a comprehensive list…yet), and we are really excited to add entries as the community gives us feedback and suggestions.

We are really proud of the depth and breadth of terms that exist in the resource and hope it continues to be more and more useful as we add to it.

We’ll also be adding features so that this resource is the most useful for anyone using language about the LGBTQ+ community. If there are other words you can think of that we’ve left out, or ways to make the tool more dynamic, let us know and we’ll queue them up to be added!”

 

[Getting tard comed]

nah gay men will be turned against first because of muh toxic masculinity

That's what you'd think at first, but then you gotta think is toxic masculinity more important than trans guys smashing lesbians.

I'm gonna bet trannys getting pussy is more important than gay guys being men.

 

[melcarba99]

Can their team of super awesome lgbt+ linguists define "nonbinary trans queer human being" in a way that makes sense?

 

[remiem]

The obvious answer is there was a debate because bisexuality implies that there are only two sexes, there are, so it's mere existence as a concept is transphobic. While Pansexual implies that there are more than two genders, which is not the case.

The two terms are directly contradictory. Like so many other aspects of the Rainbow fueled nonsense.

 

[Law]

You're either attracted to the same sex, the opposite sex, both sexes, or no one at all. Humanity has two sexes, so you have four options. It's not complicated. If someone tries to make it complicated, they're trying to con you (or trying to con themselves).

 

[Tleilaxian]

Can their team of super awesome lgbt+ linguists define "nonbinary trans queer human being" in a way that makes sense?

Useless faggot.

 

[Niggernerd]

With bis being erased the question is who's next. I'll bet on lezzies next on the chopping block.

I miss the tomboys

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

Imagine being such a weirdo you think who you fuck has to be political, too.

Been that way since the 60's, especially with political lesbians.

 

[melcarba99]

Here is the deal: trans implies that you feel that you are part of the binary, just not in the right side. Nonbinary implies that you dont feel you belong in the dichatomy male/female. So, there you have it, two terms that are exclusory of each other, doesnt mean you can believe that both exist, just that it makes absolute zero sense to be both. Queer seems just to be an umbrella term that includes everything in the lgbt spectrum, so saying you are queer makes gives no info whatsoever. Are you gay, trans or nonbinary? Queer could refer to any of those things. So this trans non binary queer person just need to say Im trans or nonbinary, but you cant be both because it makes no sense, but then they can argue that somedays they feel one way or the other, and if you ask them what it feel to feel trans or nonbinary, it will be either nonsense, because nobody "feels" like a man or a woman, its just the conditions that society and biology has given us, like asking what does it feel to be a human being opposed to a dog or a cat, or "sometimes i like to wear a dress/pants or feel emotional" stuff that might happen to any human being.

 

[slimes]

It's easier for a woman to eat minge than it is for a man to come back from playing ticklebooty.

There's commitment in the latter, but not the former.

Well, it's not like the concept of sexual orientation as we know it is much older than the 1600s, anyhow. I repeat the (likely) words of the priests who listened to the confessions of intractable homosexuals prior to that time: "Stop inhaling dicks and procreate with your wife like God intended".

...and for the lesbians it's more like "...what are you... how are you having sex, exactly? Fine, whatever, stop doing that and... procreate, or something. I'm completely befuddled right now. 'Tribadism'...? What?"

Zero my dude. My guy. You can suck dick without commitment. I promise. Women and men have been doing so for thousands of years.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Zero my dude. My guy. You can suck dick without commitment.

That's not the kind of "commitment" I'm talking about.

My point was that everyone is going to think of that man a certain way because they submitted to some sort of penetration by another man, in a way not equivalent to how they would view a woman that ate another woman's muff cabbage.

That "way" can be summed up as "dat nigga gay". Men won't readily bother with "oh, he's bisexual" like people in general might do with women-- no, it's straight to "dat nigga gay". A woman can eat minge and still insist on being straight with close to no pushback. Much less, if any, are inclined to allow a man to make that insistence after they regale them with the story of how their booty got a visit from Mr. Plow.

That's what I meant.

Spoiler: In the days before the 1600s-- shoot, it was the 1860s, I screwed that up

Even when sexual orientation as we know it wasn't a thing, various cultures still had a sense of "top" and "bottom" in homosexual relationships, and their understanding of the sexes was generally defined as "one who penetrates" and "one who gets penetrated" (they also understood sex as penetration, which is reflected in/is a reflection of how religions that condemned homosexuality recognized lesbian "sex" as a "lesser" sin in word or in practice, and (part of) why some jurisdictions didn't or still don't consider female-on-male rape to be equivalent to male-on-female rape-- penetration isn't being forced onto another in the former case).

At minimum, they would have disdain for the "bottom" even more than they had for the "top" because they saw him as a "sex traitor" on account of being penetrated despite being of the "penetrating" sex. This is related to why in certain places (e.g. Iran and/or Iraq, Nigeria) it's seen as more acceptable to outright undergo SRS than it is to be a homosexual-- even if they have no love for either case, at least the """guy""" is no longer an "effeminate eyesore".

 

[slimes]

That's not the kind of "commitment" I'm talking about.

My point was that everyone is going to think of that man a certain way because they submitted to some sort of penetration by another man, in a way not equivalent to how they would view a woman that ate another woman's muff cabbage.

That "way" can be summed up as "dat nigga gay". Men won't readily bother with "oh, he's bisexual" like people in general might do with women-- no, it's straight to "dat nigga gay". A woman can eat minge and still insist on being straight with close to no pushback. Much less, if any, are inclined to allow a man to make that insistence after they regale them with the story of how their booty got a visit from Mr. Plow.

That's what I meant.

Spoiler: In the days before the 1600s-- shoot, it was the 1860s, I screwed that up

Even when sexual orientation as we know it wasn't a thing, various cultures still had a sense of "top" and "bottom" in homosexual relationships, and their understanding of the sexes was generally defined as "one who penetrates" and "one who gets penetrated" (they also understood sex as penetration, which is reflected in/is a reflection of how religions that condemned homosexuality recognized lesbian "sex" as a "lesser" sin in word or in practice, and (part of) why some jurisdictions didn't or still don't consider female-on-male rape to be equivalent to male-on-female rape-- penetration isn't being forced onto another in the former case).

At minimum, they would have disdain for the "bottom" even more than they had for the "top" because they saw him as a "sex traitor" on account of being penetrated despite being of the "penetrating" sex. This is related to why in certain places (e.g. Iran and/or Iraq, Nigeria) it's seen as more acceptable to outright undergo SRS than it is to be a homosexual-- even if they have no love for either case, at least the """guy""" is no longer an "effeminate eyesore".

You’re not wrong, and it’s a problem I wish that bisexual men and even gay men who bottom didn’t have to deal with, but I was definitely just shitposting at you.

Also you can say ‘vagina’ ‘pussy’ and ‘anal’ here. You won’t get your hand smacked.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Also you can say ‘vagina’ ‘pussy’ and ‘anal’ here. You won’t get your hand smacked.

Just for you, I'm going to make sure to use as many unique euphemisms and dysphemisms for those three words as I can muster from here on out.

 

[slimes]

Just for you, I'm going to make sure to use as many unique euphemisms and dysphemisms for those three words as I can muster from here on out.

I’m unironically excited to see what you come up with now.