LGBTQ+ Tribalism: A Symptom of Relativism

One of the most recent lines of initialism I have seen for the growing LGBTQ+ movement is LGBTQQIP2SAA, which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pan-sexual, two-spirit (2S), androgynous, and asexual. It's quite a mouthful and always seems to be changing. LGBTQ+ is a normative shorthand and even then it is long. When I was in high school it was simply LGB.

Add to all this a plethora of categories and subcategories within the broad movement, the potential initialism could become quite lengthy. Look at the image below that shows variants of the original LGB flag (a rainbow flag). The number of subsets are dizzying and some are only divided by nuance. And each emerging adaptation or subcategory seemingly adopts its own emblem and identity. The flags have become contemporary "culture-war" banners or battle flags; tartans of a new clan system in the highlands of an alternative movement of identity. 

But is it necessary?

In my personal opinion, the original rainbow flag should have sufficed for all categories, as exemplified by various colors. The new flags seem like overkill to me. I sense something else afoot as well...
 

It seems like every new category just complicates the landscape of the movement, adding emblem and letters to the subculture. What I sense is a grand overarching inventiveness, which is dependent completely on the imagination of the movement's adherents. Each category or subcategory is reliant on personal feelings and introspection, which is then translated outward as identity and then given a logo in the broader movement, like a unit patch in the military. It shows that we all want to belong to something bigger than ourselves, while simultaneously demonstrating our uniqueness -- if not as individuals, then as cliques.  

I see this a an outflow of 1960s deconstructionism or postmodernism. What matters is linguistic expression more than something ontological or an externally objective reality. This screams Jacques Derrida, who was the father of deconstructionism, which is a school of postmodern thought. Fluidity is the key to interpreting truth and truth is structured around the application of language and meaning  according to its user/believer. In essence, one's perceived truth and their feelings, as expressed in language (symbols like flags and initials are part of that), matters more than some scientifically verifiable fact or philosophically logical construct. One simply cannot argue against such relativism or subjectivity... Counter arguments are tuned out because outsiders have not experienced or classified the internal truths of sexual deconstruction, which is what the movement truly is.

This is an epistemological issue. Epistemology is basically the study of or theoretical construct of how we know things. There are different schools in the field of epistemology, with some relying on experience and others on extraneous factors, with others somewhere in between or at the margins. This is not a philosophy lesson, but basically it comes down to worldviews or interpretive lenses. 

The incongruity of the LGBTQ+ movement is that its relativism presupposes a wide array of truths by the fact that experiences vary. Yet, when a worldview that holds to something outside of experience alone is argued, that worldview is dismissed as a co-equal lens of truth. Even relativists have contradictory foundational standards. 

I personally think the LGBTQ+ movement would do better to simplify, because it would allow for better concrete argumentation of their claims. While retaining experiential fluidity, a simplified core argument would be based on foundational types, which would likely be homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and transgenderism primarily. Anything more would be recognized as gradients, but not necessarily requiring so many deconstructed identities showcasing their specific ideologies. This would allow for better communication with other worldviews as we all strive to understand one another and live peaceably together, if we can eventually come to the place to agree to disagree. I suspect that the more variations or ingredients that are added to the alt-stew, the flavors will become over-spiced and lose cohesion. The movement is bound to implode on itself because it is simply hard to keep up in a complex world where shorthand is necessary for communication and progress. The same logic above would also apply to the current trend of gender fluidity and use of pronouns. Rather than inventing new pronouns, a simplification of he/she/them might be in order.

In the end, this is a critique of the LGBTQ+ movement, but not because it is a competing worldview to mine, but because I see in its wide-array of expressions a potential for self-destruction. I find the LGBTQ+ landscape confusing and absurd. Frankly, with every iteration and new component, I find the movement's credibility fading, being replaced with the ideological equivalent of cos-play. It's becoming more of a game than a sincere worldview.