Betting Begins On Next Official “Orientation” Letter

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

Your guess?


  1. An Engineer

    I give up. As an average white man, I find I am under-represented all of a sudden!

  2. MattS

    P=pansexual (desires sexy with anything/everything)

  3. Ken

    By various surveys roughly 5% of the population is “gay” (including lesbian/bisexual/etc.) or has had such an experience (subtracting aberrant experiences for those who’s sole experience is from prison and not reflective of their true orientation, the actual population proportion actually living such a lifestyle of the population is undoubtedly somewhat smaller than 5%). Only a very small minority report “other.” So, as for ‘the next letter’ of aberrance whatever it is it really doesn’t matter as it will reflect only a tiny subset of the overall population.

    CONTRAST: By some measures/estimates & trend extrapolation, about 6.5% of the U.S. population will have a criminal record before too long. A bit over 2.5% definitely has a criminal record now. That’s about the same as males reporting they are “gay.”

    Seems to me that “gays” (all genders & varieties–lesbians, etc…) aren’t much of a social issue, if any issue at all. Numerous demographic surveys show this population subset to be more entrepreneurial and more economically/socially successful than the overall population. Put another way, as members of free society they contribute disproportionately more than the average citizen. If they want to “sin” in private…well…it’s [still] a free country, let’m.

    History shows there have always been “gays” as a tiny subset of the population and that is never going to change. The practical approach is to accept what cannot be changed and deal with it constructively. One adverse approach is to try & impose unenforceable laws–that only helps undermine all law (as history has shown time & again in numerous areas). Structuring society so they can contribute to the fullest is in everybody’s best interest–especially given their above-average contribution as it is.

    Criminal behavior, an a behavioral trait with proportionately as much of the population that is “gay”–and worsening trends there–IS an area that can be constructively addressed by laws & policies & programs. But which? And from who? Seems to me that’s a better (greater chance of positive success) area to devote one’s metal energies to remedy — there’s a real potential for measurable positive change there….

  4. M E Wood

    When ‘they’ want to know which ‘letter’ describes you tell them MYOB

  5. Doug M

    Growing up in San Francisco in the 70’s. Gay was a “neuter” term. That is a female homosexual was (and is) a lesbian, but a male homosexual was a fag. Fag seemed to be the preferred term, but it has fallen out of favor. Now gay seems to be reserved for the male gender.
    So my nominee would be for a male specific letter.

    Trans — This one has a lot of flavors that can be differentiated. Transvestite vs transexual. Pre-op / post-op?

    Queer is so generic, it would seem that anything can get under that umbrella, but it doesn’t seem to cover.

    Poly — I am hearing more stories on this one… although they are saying “polyamory” and not “polygamy.” They can get behind having a multitude of simultaneus long-term sexual partners, but a lukewarm about marrying them. I imagine the anti-marriage crowd is more accepting as gay marriage becomes more common.

    I don’t think the LGBTQAlliance want pedophiles.

  6. Sammyj

    Rather than attempting to remember the letters LGBT (in the right order), I, too (independently, I might add), arrived at the term “LUGBUT” as a mnemonic. However, that sounded sexist to me (I don’t know why, but it did). So, I created new lyrics to the old song by Howard Johnson, “M-O-T-H-E-R, A Word That Means The World To Me”. Please do not judge me for choosing a song about my mother to remember LGBT; that would be psychological-ist of you.

    Anyways, the lyrics go “L is for the ladies who love each other, G is for the guys who…” Well, you get the drift. So, if more letters are added, I’ll simply add new lyrics. No problem.

  7. I wish that you had a comment delete function as I inadvertently posted this on the next post in line.

    “…LG a B rapidly accreted, making LGB, which, as far as acronyms go, stinks because it cannot be made into a euphonious word…”

    If it cannot be pronounced it is not an acronym, rather just initials. USMC is an example of initials that stands for something but like LBG it is not an acronym.

    I know I am rather pedant at times:

    ac·ro·nym [ak-ruh-nim] Show IPA
    a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words and pronounced as a separate word, as Wac from Women’s Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.

  8. Roadki11

    E (or EE) for Everyone Else.

  9. Mike Ozanne

    Doctor Briggs, admit it, you are testing a new keyboard layout….

  10. andyd

    So Briggs you’d have to agree then that clothing is for protection from the elements, anything else is secondary to this goal? So we can expect no more posts on pocket-squares, waistcoats, hats, shoes etc?

  11. Jim S

    Your arguments are too well reasoned for this blog.

  12. max

    C for celibate will be next, they’re pushing hard for official recognition and have little opposition. Not that most Cs are truly celibate, Cs just have a lower sexual desire than Cs believe other people have and tend to partner only with themselves, but they very much don’t want to be lumped in with Ss.

  13. Rich

    The list doesn’t include male or female. Nor can I find such a drop-down list on Facebook. So is this a hoax?

  14. Female Ts are less frequent, but since they usually lust after other females, they might be better labeled Ls with unflattering haircuts.

    …with more unflattering haircuts THAN USUAL, ya mean.

  15. John Moore

    O for onanists, R for “with Robots” – a variant of O.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *