ABCXYZ

Over many years I have had the opportunity to know people in the homosexual community. Four of my coworkers are lesbian. I have been hit on by several gay men, and have discovered that instead of beating them up all I have to say is, "No, thank you." It seems to me that their sexual orientation isn't explained by one simple theory (that it's a choice, that it's an inborn condition, that it's a reaction to horrible experiences with the opposite sex, and so on); there seem to be multiple reasons, and none of them owe me an explanation any more than I owe them an explanation of my heterosexuality. Sexual orientation is only one aspect of a person, and if I'm not going to be sexual with them I am free to enjoy their friendship just as I do with anybody else. If there is a divine judgment on homosexuality then the Divine will judge, not me.

That said, there is an observation that I've been paying attention to lately, and was emphasized last week by the gal at the next desk at work. One of the lesbians. When I was young, people of anything but a hetero orientation were referred to as gays and lesbians (the epithets need not be listed here). Then we started making distinctions between the types; for many years we've used the acronym LGBT to add the bisexual and transsexual crowds. Now it's apparently becoming normal to add another distinction so that it's LGBTQ (queer). As my coworker and I laughed, it's nearly LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ.

Not that we were being insensitive. There is a concern beneath our laughter, though. I understand the reasons why people seek distinction for their 'type': to protect themselves from hatred and discrimination by earning an accepted designation as a type and gain legal protection; to establish a legitimate image in an image-driven culture; to decrease feelings and suspicions of badness or wrongness; to be able to identify and congregate with those like oneself; and more. My concern is not that these things are happening -- they do indeed need protection, they do have the need, as we all do, to feel legitimate and accepted -- but that by subdividing they may be weakening the overall designation.

It's similar to when I joined the Peace Division of the American Psychological Association many years back. Once I started receiving their quarterly magazine I discovered the quixotic infighting for legitimacy between subgroups in the name of peace. There were gender studies (as if there were different brands of peace for men and women), race and ethnic studies, American and Israeli and South African and all kinds of international studies...while all 'different' groups may have had different experiences with peace or the lack of it, I sensed that underneath it was still the attitude of 'we want our group to be legitimized in this field' as opposed to the commonalities all groups shared. It was the capitalistic competitive model rather than the peaceful cooperative model. I didn't renew my membership after the first year.

It's similar to looking up 'feminism' on Wikipedia. There are, what, fourteen different types of feminism listed there? The complexity makes it hard to think that there's a unified group out there looking for a unified good.

Maybe it's a necessary step to elucidate all the differences. Kind of like going through a whole lot of education and actual work experience before discovering that most of what was learned in school doesn't actually get used, but was necessary to arriving at the simple understanding of one's job. Or studying and struggling with the Bible for years before understanding that the tenets of religion are really quite simple.

I only hope that the subtyping doesn't make things too divisive so that it brings weakness to the whole. Like blue and red states.