Not Again !

1678911

Comments

  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    Seconded!
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    Oh there are lots of people who don't want God's blessing, or even believe he exists. That doesn't mean that God is unwilling to bless them.
  • AchillesAchilles Shipmate Posts: 14
    Does anyone really want to know the views of your average pew-fodder CoE member ?
    We have managed for a long time .. à chacun son goût.
    However this turns out there will be some who will be unhappy.
    Has anyone actually read all the LLF bumf ? I am still recovering from wading through this stuff.
  • Yup. It left me feeling enraged and nauseous.
  • AchillesAchilles Shipmate Posts: 14
    And yet I can find nothing on here about the 'Living in Love and Faith' initiative.
  • Because we're all bored with yet another "kicking the can down the road" exercise?

    We're fed up with CofE bishops acting as bedroom gestapo?

    Because we can all see that every time the CofE pronounces on marriage, sexuality or relationships it alienates another section of the population?

    Take your pick!
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Achilles wrote: »
    à chacun son goût

    Your chicken has the gout? ¡Ojalá se mejore pronto!
  • Because we're all bored with yet another "kicking the can down the road" exercise?

    We're fed up with CofE bishops acting as bedroom gestapo?

    Because we can all see that every time the CofE pronounces on marriage, sexuality or relationships it alienates another section of the population?

    Take your pick!

    A few days ago, I checked back on the old Ship forum and looked at a thread from 2014 called What listening process?

    One thing comes very clear from even a casual glance through the thread; that many people (myself especially) were sick and tired of the C of E kicking the can down the road even then. And that was 7 years ago and there has been no discernible progress since then.

    LLF was always an elaborate and expensive exercise of delay and can-kicking. And so now we are in the situation where, well over a decade after it became obvious that the C of E's position on LGBTQ+ issues was completely untenable, nothing has changed and there is no prospect of anything changing this side of Armageddon.
  • AchillesAchilles Shipmate Posts: 14
    Q ? There is no mention of Q in LLF. Maybe a step too far.
  • [Tangent} I get really confused by the alphabet soup we are expected to trot out these days. And some people get really offended if you accidently miss out a letter. LGBTQIA2S+ is, I believe, the latest complete combination but as I haven't looked in the last 5 minutes, they may have added another letter or symbol. I know that in academic circles, they tend to use "queer" (as in Queer Theory). Surely there has to be a better/shorter way of talking about this than the tongue-twister that is LGBTQIA2S+! [/Tangent}
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Forthview wrote: »
    It is really ludicrous of Eutychus to say that the RC Church behaves like a parallel state waiting for things to get back to 'normal'. By this I take it that it means RC dominance over everyone and everything.
    I would imagine that every Christian group, not just RCs, would hope that one day, before the great day of judgement, all of humanity would come to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, that all of humanity would follow completely the laws of love and teaching of Jesus Christ ,and that all of humanity would live in peace and harmony with one another.
    That is our pious hope and that is indeed what the RC Church would consider as 'normal'.

    Most of us realise that we haven't done too well in the last two thousand years in achieving that objective, but we do, I hope, in our own ways, continue to try.

    Pious is the word. But I note your subsequent understatement.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    I'm not sure where this thread necromancy came from, but my take is this:

    Institutions in general are not in vogue right now, and the Church is no exception. I think the Church in institutional form has a better chance of survival than some might think, but it fails to reform at its peril, which is twofold.

    On the one hand, failing to engage with social norms as they are now makes churches ever more marginal and irrelevant. At our recent local pastors' fraternal, some are still claiming that restoration of peace and harmony to a marriage is virtually guaranteed if only the wives would submit to their husbands. SSM isn't even going to be an issue in such churches because no gay people are going to come anywhere near them in the first place.

    On the other hand, loudly championing socially conservative views lays church congregations wide open to being hijacked by authoritarian politicians playing the politics of emotion.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I think both of those are pretty much the same hand.
  • [Tangent} I get really confused by the alphabet soup we are expected to trot out these days. And some people get really offended if you accidently miss out a letter. LGBTQIA2S+ is, I believe, the latest complete combination but as I haven't looked in the last 5 minutes, they may have added another letter or symbol. I know that in academic circles, they tend to use "queer" (as in Queer Theory). Surely there has to be a better/shorter way of talking about this than the tongue-twister that is LGBTQIA2S+! [/Tangent}
    The "alphabet soup" (as you crudely put it) is a recognition that while there are lots of different people they experience similar discrimination, de-humanisation and even hatred from some sectors of society. Different people, united in their experience. If everyone treated everyone else as fully-human deserving respect and all the rights that being human involved then there would be no need for a "tongue-twister", as it is having an ever expanding "alphabet soup" reminds us that we need to get our shit together so that we all treat all others as we would expect them to treat us, and there's no minority group so small that they aren't included in that. If we need another letter to be inclusive, then a bit of finger strain typing an extra letter is a very small price.




  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    No, it reminds us that if we want other people to understand what we are saying, we must use expressions they are likely to be familiar with, or whose meaning becomes clear when expressed.
  • [Tangent} I get really confused by the alphabet soup we are expected to trot out these days. And some people get really offended if you accidently miss out a letter. LGBTQIA2S+ is, I believe, the latest complete combination but as I haven't looked in the last 5 minutes, they may have added another letter or symbol. I know that in academic circles, they tend to use "queer" (as in Queer Theory). Surely there has to be a better/shorter way of talking about this than the tongue-twister that is LGBTQIA2S+! [/Tangent}

    I use LGBT+.
  • I have absolutely no problems with the intentions behind all this. I long for the time when any such expressions are redundant because society has reached the point where any divisions or prejudices are long gone and no-one feels the need to label themselves. That any label (BAME, LGBTQIA2S+ or other) is regarded as necessary is a sign that society as a whole is failing.

    My problems at the moment are, firstly, that the current "acceptable" expression is hard to remember (and especially to say) and so therefore people are unlikely to freely adopt and use it.

    Secondly, that it is, by its very nature, exclusive rather than inclusive, so that someone could easily say "I don't see myself in any of these labels, so let's add a new component." Which is exactly why we have moved from Gay/Lesbian to LGBT to LGBTQ and so on.

    Thirdly, I have been in a large meeting where someone (who I knew to be deeply supportive of all this) used the expression LGBT+ (as per @quetzalcoatl) and was publicly scolded by another person for not using the right expression. If such people are going to act like nitpicking shits, then they will quickly lose sympathy for their cause. I sometimes think that some people actually want to be "martyrs for the cause" instead of generating ever increasing widespread support.
  • My problems at the moment are, firstly, that the current "acceptable" expression is hard to remember (and especially to say) and so therefore people are unlikely to freely adopt and use it.
    A lot of worthwhile things aren't easy, just because doing something is hard shouldn't be a reason to not do it. Remembering a few extra letters is a lot easier than being one of the people those letters represent who find themselves apparently forgotten when those letters are omitted.
    Secondly, that it is, by its very nature, exclusive rather than inclusive, so that someone could easily say "I don't see myself in any of these labels, so let's add a new component." Which is exactly why we have moved from Gay/Lesbian to LGBT to LGBTQ and so on.
    The growing acronym is an umbrella for a variety of different but related and sometimes overlapping groups of people, who all face discrimination because of who they are. Many of those groups only really have a chance to have their voices heard by joining with others who have louder voices, who welcome those smaller voices into the movement. The growing acronym is because the movement is constantly trying to be inclusive of smaller groups.
    Thirdly, I have been in a large meeting where someone (who I knew to be deeply supportive of all this) used the expression LGBT+ (as per @quetzalcoatl) and was publicly scolded by another person for not using the right expression. If such people are going to act like nitpicking shits, then they will quickly lose sympathy for their cause. I sometimes think that some people actually want to be "martyrs for the cause" instead of generating ever increasing widespread support.
    Yes, there are some individuals who don't do those they're supporting any favours with their zeal.

    But, not using the appropriate inclusive version of the acronym, and especially complaining about the complexity of it, can also provide the bigots an opportunity to deny human dignity to smaller groups of people.
  • On LLF: I was one of two people tasked with ploughing through the stuff to decide whether it was something the parish should attempt to tackle. The other person gave up on the preview material after Session 3, I forced myself to go to the end 😨

    We both said that in a parish where we're lucky to get 10% of the electoral roll to stay on for the APM it was going to be a non-starter. In addition, we felt that there was a lack of balance likely to provoke disquiet in many and ire in some. In a rural, small 'c' conservative/MOR parish we can probably count on the fingers of one hand those who'd object to the blessing of SS unions, two hands who'd have reservations about SSM.

    In our deanery all of the ConEvo parishes say say there can be no good disagreement: they will not marry divorcees, nor bless civil marriages, and are hostile to people they refer to as Same-sex Attracted.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited March 2021
    Rufus T Firefly

    I have read enough of your posts over the years to be sure that your heart is very much in favour of justice for oppressed and insulted minorities in all categories.

    A brief reflection re the scolding and the scolder. I think this kind of statement might have been constructive.

    "It's probably worth making you aware that the acronym has moved on. More letters have been added! That is pretty confusing to any of us who may be having any difficulty remembering it and its meaning. The intention is good of course. The desire is to ensure that no gender or sexual minority is left out when we consider how we need to reform in the interests of justice as I'm sure you agree. Perhaps the acronym is not the best way to express that but it has emerged from the minority communities out of a desire for inclusivity. That's also worth remembering".

    I am 100% certain that the scolder said nothing like that! Like you I get pretty cheesed off with dismissive self righteousness. I don't think the evolving acronym is a brilliant means of communicating but I do want to respect the freedom of the minority communities both to use it and make it more inclusive. After all it is they who suffer the oppression from majorities and it's important that we hear and make efforts to understand where they are coming from.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I am 100% certain that the scolder said nothing like that! Like you I get pretty cheesed off with dismissive self righteousness. I don't think the evolving acronym is a brilliant means of communicating but I do want to respect the freedom of the minority communities both to use it and make it more inclusive. After all it is they who suffer the oppression from majorities and it's important that we hear and make efforts to understand where they are coming from.

    Is there some simple way to ensure that no-one is offended? Some one or two words to cover the field? We've been talking today about this, and wondering what's wrong with a phrase like "all those discriminated against for whatever reason"?

    By the way, what does LGBTQIA2S+ mean? We can get as far as I.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I am 100% certain that the scolder said nothing like that! Like you I get pretty cheesed off with dismissive self righteousness. I don't think the evolving acronym is a brilliant means of communicating but I do want to respect the freedom of the minority communities both to use it and make it more inclusive. After all it is they who suffer the oppression from majorities and it's important that we hear and make efforts to understand where they are coming from.

    Is there some simple way to ensure that no-one is offended? Some one or two words to cover the field? We've been talking today about this, and wondering what's wrong with a phrase like "all those discriminated against for whatever reason"?

    By the way, what does LGBTQIA2S+ mean? We can get as far as I.

    I presume A = asexual and/or aromantic; 2S = two-spirit, a first nations term for people who might be trans or non-binary in wider culture.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    As I understand it A is for Asexual and 2S is for 2 Spirits which I believe is a US Native American or Canadian First Nations term.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited March 2021
    Gee D wrote: »
    Is there some simple way to ensure that no-one is offended? Some one or two words to cover the field? We've been talking today about this, and wondering what's wrong with a phrase like "all those discriminated against for whatever reason"?
    As it stands, the evolving acronym does have the advantage of indicating that there are various gender and sexual minorities, all of which suffer from varying degrees of social and cultural discrimination. I understand the desire to be inclusive and it does point to the problems created by the assumption of binary norms. Human sexuality and gender are a lot more complex than was originally believed.

    And I think the key issue is discrimination against these minorities on the basis of previous social norms. But the acronym serves as a reminder of variety, rather than a reminder of discrimination.
    By the way, what does LGBTQIA2S+ mean? We can get as far as I.

    Google is my friend!
    What does LGBTQIA2S+ mean?

    It is an acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Two-Spirit, and the countless affirmative ways in which people choose to self-identify.

    It hardly trips off the tongue. The phrase ‘countless affirmative ways’ is helpful however. How people self identify is up to them.

    Nobody is really in charge of this growing acronym. I guess those who wish to emphasise both affirmation and inclusivity think it only right to ensure that no group is left out or identified purely by a + sign.

    Like any piece of new language its survival will depend on its usefulness. For my money it has now evolved into a form of somewhat unhelpful obscurity and it does seem pretty ridiculous to use ignorance of its extended form as a test of whether a person is in favour of affirmation and inclusivity.

    But that’s just me. If some folks want to use it in gender or sexuality discussions, that’s up to them. If others want to question its meaning or usefulness that’s up to them too. These are ways in which language in common use evolves.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 2021
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I don't think the evolving acronym is a brilliant means of communicating but I do want to respect the freedom of the minority communities both to use it and make it more inclusive. After all it is they who suffer the oppression from majorities and it's important that we hear and make efforts to understand where they are coming from.

    I was once told off on this forum for referring to "the gay community" as though it was a uniform whole that could be treated as such, rather than a set of individuals.

    I am not convinced that the "communities" in question made any "community" decision on this acronym, nor on its extension.

    I wonder what proportion of those who identify with the reality behind any of the letters/numbers readily identify with the acronym as a whole, and to what extent it really serves inclusiveness.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Eutychus

    I’m sure there is no equivalent to the Academie Francaise at work!

    I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing that an academic in the USA decided to try out the extension to the acronym and it caught on in a limited academic circle first. Then it may have been picked up by a pressure group.

    Was there any consultation with representatives of various minority groups as to the value and usefulness? I doubt that.

    Some people are always on the look out to be one step ahead of the herd. Others have a perfectly proper concern that minorities don’t get left out.

    It’s just a bit of language evolution in play. You can see the inclusivity reasons for it and they are not unreasonable. The big deal is making the assumption that everyone ought to know it if they claim to be concerned about gender and sexual politics. For my money any descent into intellectual snobbery or superiority is something this serious issue can well do without.
  • Regardless of the origin of the acronym, or the variations thereon, this is something that many of those people who identify with one or more of those letters has found useful. It isn't really our place, as people in the majority who don't experience the sort of prejudice that others experience, to decide for them what label or acronym is best.
  • The phrases I'm seeing and hearing are LGBT+ and non-binary.

    Having talked to someone who is part of that community, their comments are that the QUILTBAG acronym is ambiguous, as for example A can mean either Asexual, Aromantic and/or Allies. In their experience, a group that is aiming to achieve recognition for all the micro-identities can just get caught up in discussions of how to identify the group by the name and inclusion, rather than providing for the LGBT+ community. That a group identifying as supporting all the initials would tend to be avoided.

    Groups that accept that people can exhibit several aspects of the acronym, but also provide separate environments to work with LGBA+ and another for trans, intersex and non-binary issues tend to be better liked as there tends to be actual provision, not an ongoing discussion.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    What @Alan Cresswell says. The number of times I've had cis hetero people tell me that "there are now just too many sexualities and genders and obscure acronyms" gets a little tiresome. As is the temptation to straightsplain away complexity and evolving social identities, or to decide how best certain groups should present or defend their 'cause'. There's a fine line between being a supportive ally and speaking for or over people dealing with the daily lived reality of homophobia.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Is there some simple way to ensure that no-one is offended? Some one or two words to cover the field? We've been talking today about this, and wondering what's wrong with a phrase like "all those discriminated against for whatever reason"?
    As it stands, the evolving acronym does have the advantage of indicating that there are various gender and sexual minorities, all of which suffer from varying degrees of social and cultural discrimination. I understand the desire to be inclusive and it does point to the problems created by the assumption of binary norms. Human sexuality and gender are a lot more complex than was originally believed.

    And I think the key issue is discrimination against these minorities on the basis of previous social norms. But the acronym serves as a reminder of variety, rather than a reminder of discrimination.

    A problem we see in that acronym is that it does not include those people discriminated against on some quite different basis - racial background, country of birth, physical differences, mental and other illnesses. These bases are just as common and just as hurting as the ones included in the acronym; hence the more general phrase we came up with.

    And thanks to all for explanations of the acronym.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    How about OSM - oppressed sexual minority?
  • A blanket label for all who are discriminated against doesn't seem all that useful either. As @Curiosity killed said, often supporting those who face discrimination needs to narrow the focus to be effective. But, that needs to be balanced against many people who face discrimination don't identify with a large enough group of others for their voice to be heard and so some umbrella grouping can help there. At what point does an umbrella become too large?

    Though, it's a mark of (in my case) white, straight, male middle class privilege that we can sit around and ask questions about the size of umbrellas when we don't need the shelter of an umbrella at all.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    The number of times I've had cis hetero people tell me that "there are now just too many sexualities and genders and obscure acronyms" gets a little tiresome.
    From your link:
    This is not to say that no straight person can comment on a gay person or people.
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    the temptation to straightsplain away complexity and evolving social identities, or to decide how best certain groups should present or defend their 'cause'.
    From where I'm sitting, reducing the evident complexity and evolving social identities to a constantly-changing list of letters and numbers is not going to help.
    Though, it's a mark of (in my case) white, straight, male middle class privilege that we can sit around and ask questions about the size of umbrellas when we don't need the shelter of an umbrella at all.
    Does happening to occupy a position of privilege over which one has no control disqualify that person from making any comment at all?
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited March 2021
    Alan29 wrote: »
    How about OSM - oppressed sexual minority?

    You do know that that is a preferred acronym of paedophiles trying to identify themselves as an oppressed sexual minority?

    That's one reason that means it really isn't an option. Another is that LGBT+ includes not just sexualities but also gender identities and that acronym ignores anyone who identifies as non-binary.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    How about OSM - oppressed sexual minority?

    You do know that that is a preferred acronym of paedophiles trying to identify themselves as an oppressed sexual minority?

    That's one reason that means it really isn't an option. Another is that LGBT+ includes not just sexualities but also gender identities and that acronym ignores anyone who identifies as non-binary.

    Gosh I had no idea about OSM. I obviously withdraw it.
    BAME seems to work for ethnic minorities. Everybody knows what it intends and people of specific identities can identify when there are concerns that involve them more directly.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    BAME seems to work for ethnic minorities.
    I have been called out for using it here.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Though, it's a mark of (in my case) white, straight, male middle class privilege that we can sit around and ask questions about the size of umbrellas when we don't need the shelter of an umbrella at all.
    Does happening to occupy a position of privilege over which one has no control disqualify that person from making any comment at all?
    No, it doesn't disqualify us from making any comment (otherwise I wouldn't be commenting, would I?). But, it does mean we should be careful in our comments, let others who don't share our privileges have their say etc.

    And, in this instance in means that when less privileged people find terms that they find useful to describe themselves and their situations we shouldn't be sitting here whining about how it's a term that we find difficult to remember or understand. Do we really want to sit in our comfortable privileged situations and demand that others make things easier for us?
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited March 2021
    @Eutychus - was that by someone who preferred PoC (People of Colour)? Because if I remember correctly, I challenged that one on the basis that PoC ignores the Roma and Traveller communities that are among the most discriminated against minority groups.

    The difficulty with having that discussion on an international board is that the minorities discriminated against vary in different places. So here, in the UK, one of the groups that gets missed if PoC is used are the Roma/Traveller communities, but that doesn't seem to be such an issue in the USA. I've also had this argument on Instagram with a group discussing Everyday Racism (and follow a lot of traveller groups on Twitter).

    And because the traveller communities are so small, not including them in the umbrellas renders them invisible.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    We don’t own language. Neither majority nor minority groups have the right to control language in common use. We sort out, by talking and listening, what works and what doesn’t. With respect to both listeners and speakers.

    Provided people work with normal linguistics disciplines re meaning and coherence I cannot for the life of me see why those kinds of critical observation are disrespectful. Curiosity Killed’s posts are excellent examples of the value of applying linguistics considerations to these kinds of discussion.
  • edited March 2021
    True, we don't own language. But those people the language describes have a much greater say over how that language evolves and is used than those who it doesn't affect (indeed, I would say to the point where I don't have any say in that at all).
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 2021
    @Curiosity killed
    because the traveller communities are so small, not including them in the umbrellas renders them invisible.
    As someone who is not infrequently mistaken for a Traveller by Travellers, I think I'm qualified to comment on this relevant example.

    I agree with you entirely that there is discrimination against Travellers, and nowhere do I see this writ larger than in the criminal justice system here. I also agree that representative bodies for Travellers have an important role to play in combating this and in engaging in advocacy for Travellers.

    All that said, the Traveller label is not necessarily helpful. For one thing, it fails to take into account ethnic subgroups within that community. Where I live there are at least two of these. For another, it sometimes serves a "no true Scotsman" purpose (as in, roughly translated: "he's not a Traveller, he's a carny"). And for another, most importantly, it is sometimes used by people, Travellers or otherwise, to reinforce their "special" status, in other words, dealing or being dealt with outside normal social conventions.

    There is an underlying reality there that needs to be acknowledged, but not every way of addressing it, either within or outside the community, nurtures true inclusiveness amid diversity: often, the approach in fact invites further exclusion.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    True, we don't own language. But those people the language describes have a much greater say over how that language evolves and is used than those who it doesn't affect (indeed, I would say to the point where I don't have any say in that at all).

    I don't think there's any consensus about the list of letters covering sexual orientation among those these letters seek to encompass, and I'm prepared to bet that significant numbers of people theoretically covered by that list squirm at being enlisted to be part of it and/or to being part of it alongside some of the other letters.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    True, we don't own language. But those people the language describes have a much greater say over how that language evolves and is used than those who it doesn't affect (indeed, I would say to the point where I don't have any say in that at all).

    I don't think there's any consensus about the list of letters covering sexual orientation among those these letters seek to encompass, and I'm prepared to bet that significant numbers of people theoretically covered by that list squirm at being enlisted to be part of it and/or to being part of it alongside some of the other letters.
    Yes, and those people concerned will undoubtedly keep on talking about that. Which will continue to produce other variants on the list.

    That doesn't give me any right to express an opinion on the subject, because I'm not included in any of the letters nor have any need to be.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Alan

    It’s not as simple as that. The acronym as it stands could not be used in any law reform to prevent discrimination. It is simply not clear enough or coherent enough to work as a definition to be used in such discrimination.

    To put it clearly, I am favour of legislation to prevent discrimination against gender and sexual minorities but such legislation would need coherent and unambiguous language to describe who should be included. Similar arguments apply to policy statements by the C of E. Otherwise what do those laws and policies actually mean?

    If you want to argue that anyone should be free to use the acronym colloquially, either within a group or across groups, you won’t find any disagreement with me. But it’s perfectly proper to point to its linguistic limitations and scope for confusion.

    I use ITTWACWS here because it’s generally understood in this community. But I wouldn’t expect folks outside Ship of Fools to know what I meant if I used it in face to face discussions. It would be rude of me to think they should know what I meant.

    There is a general problem with acronyms and abbreviations. They are OK if you know them, confusing if you don’t. IANAL and YMMV but IMNO (IYSWIM).
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Gee D wrote: »
    A problem we see in that acronym is that it does not include those people discriminated against.

    How's about POWSA -- People Of Whatever Sexual Persuasion? It can be pronounced also.
  • @Eutychus and I so very carefully said traveller communities throughout that post and even Roma/Traveller at one point.

    But labelling minorities in the UK and Europe as PoC does continue to allow the traveller communities to be ignored. I remember when this came up on here before, last year, not being able to find statistics relating to people from the traveller communities in prison populations, killed in police custody, or disproportionately targeted by the police, as those statistics are not collected in England and Wales. From the listed names killed in police custody, I identified two or three from traveller communities, which is an even more disproportionate percentage than the black communities, and I suspect I didn't identify everyone on that list.

    Does anyone know how badly the traveller communities have been affected by Covid19? I've just had a quick look and all I found were articles from early last year highlighting the issues and that the information was not being collected - this was one of the later articles. That article also points out the diversity of the different traveller communities and that there is not a uniformity to their situations.

    So do we continue to ignore and marginalise the traveller communities, or do we, however crudely, try to include them in BAME statistics as ethnic minority?
  • Gee D wrote: »
    A problem we see in that acronym is that it does not include those people discriminated against.

    How's about POWSA -- People Of Whatever Sexual Persuasion? It can be pronounced also.

    How does that not include paedophiles? And how does it include different gender identities?

    QUILTBAG is the pronounceable version of LGBTQAI+ if you have to pronounce it.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Does anyone know how badly the traveller communities have been affected by Covid19?
    Here, very.

    Reasons:
    a) poor health generally compared to the general population, due to living conditions, income, and intermarriage.
    b) unavoidably living in very close quarters, despite a general obsession with health and hygiene (the nearest semi-permanent site to me has had a huge cluster)
    c) instinctive mistrust of non-Traveller instititutions and broad-spectrum public health provision (a Traveller colleague I spoke to this weekend told me of people refusing non-Covid hospital treatment because they are afraid of catching Covid and dying in hospital, not unreasonably so, because apparently it is now the top nosocomial disease in hospitals. Normally, when the Travellers I know seek hospital care, they go straight to Paris and find the top specialists).
  • The phrases I'm seeing and hearing are LGBT+ and non-binary.
    I mostly hear LGBTQ or LGBTQ+.

    QUILTBAG is the pronounceable version of LGBTQAI+ if you have to pronounce it.
    While a pronounceable version is a great idea, I can’t see QUILTBAG catching on here. I think it would be heard as derogatory— “bag” has slang connotations, and QUILTBAG is probably too close too close to “douche bag.” (And yes, “douche bag” as a derogatory term is a problem of its own.)

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Does anyone know how badly the traveller communities have been affected by Covid19?
    Here, very.

    Reasons:
    a) poor health generally compared to the general population, due to living conditions, income, and intermarriage.
    b) unavoidably living in very close quarters, despite a general obsession with health and hygiene (the nearest semi-permanent site to me has had a huge cluster)
    c) instinctive mistrust of non-Traveller instititutions and broad-spectrum public health provision (a Traveller colleague I spoke to this weekend told me of people refusing non-Covid hospital treatment because they are afraid of catching Covid and dying in hospital, not unreasonably so, because apparently it is now the top nosocomial disease in hospitals. Normally, when the Travellers I know seek hospital care, they go straight to Paris and find the top specialists).
    All of that but the last point is true here and recognised when I look for it, but my point was that the records are not being kept to quantify that information. In the future, there will be no way of looking back and quantifying the impact so it will be impossible to state that the traveller communities were disproportionately hit by Covid19 with academic credibility.
    As there's also no way of pointing out, for example, disproportionate deaths in police custody. Because if it wasn't recorded it didn't happen.

Sign In or Register to comment.