To better represent LGBT spectrum, acronym must be expanded

Over thirty years ago the rainbow flag was adopted as a symbol for both LGBT movements and community pride. The demarcation of the colors on this and nearly every other representation of the natural phenomenon that we call "rainbow" is perhaps the ultimate paradigm of the ubiquity of human categorical thinking.

Our perception of the continuous electromagnetic spectrum is indeed limited, but only in that we cannot distinguish between sufficiently small ranges of wavelengths. Our computer monitors alone can display over 16 million distinct colors, by some accounts 6 million more than we can differentiate, yet in our daily lives we often split that number into as few as six: after all, is indigo really a color?

Back in 1948, sexologist Alfred Kinsey, in introducing his famous scale, wrote that there are not "two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. . . The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

The Kinsey scale identifies one's orientation on a scale of 0-6, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. Grades of 1-5 indicate varying levels of bisexuality.

Using such a scale is an integral step forward toward the truth. Kinsey realized that one's orientation is something that can fluctuate over time. He found in a study that as many as 37% of American males had had some homosexual contact in the course of their lifetimes.

However, while extraordinarily revolutionary for its time, Kinsey's scale is too limiting. Its five shades of bisexuality may not be enough to honestly analyze an individual's sexual orientation. Further, it also neglects other aspects of one's overall sexual identity: gender identity and biological sex.

The very acronym LGBT similarly limits the spectrum of sexual identity. Some have even argued against the inclusion of "T" at the end simply because it is an outlier from the other three. These four categories, while sometimes convenient to use, are in their narrowness not reflective of reality, and in their non-inclusivity alienating minorities from broader social and political movements.

Some have attempted to adapt the acronym with an appended letter "Q," denoting "queer," which serves as an umbrella term for all those who do not fall under the first four categories. In addition to still carrying offensive connotations, the word still masks the identities and concerns of a great many individuals.

A more inclusive acronym might be LGBAPTTIIADU. It includes people attracted to the opposite sex (Lesbian and Gay), both sexes (Bisexual), neither sex (Asexual), or either sex independently of physical appearance (Pansexual). It includes people who identify with the gender opposite their sex (Transgender) or who have gone through sexual reassignment to match their gender identity (Transsexual). It includes people who label themselves somewhere outside of the gender binary (Intergender), such as Two-Spirit and agender peoples. It includes those who were by birth sexually intermediary (Intersex). It includes people who support the cause and the rights of all of the above but do not identify as one of them (Allies), as well as those who practice otherwise marginalized sexual lifestyles, such as BDSM or polyamory (Deviant). And finally, it includes anyone who really doesn't know where the heck they fit in (Unsure).

Insofar as acronyms are concerned, however, it may be best to do away one completely. Not only is my suggestion a mouthful, but it too limits our understanding of the continuum of sexual identity.

For instance, while I regard myself as fitting primarily into what some might call the "heteronorm" (biologically one sex, sexually attracted to the other, and fitting the prescribed gender role for one's sex), I believe strongly in polyamory. Often, I bend toward the asexual side of the spectrum, and at times I exhibit a slight pansexuality. I would say that I also can be fluid when it comes to gender, often preferring the company and friendship of women to men.

Where do I fit? I do not know. I certainly do not feel that I belong in any one category. We may create categories to bring order to an otherwise chaotic existence, but I feel we also do ourselves harm by it. We simultaneously ensure prejudices, marginalize minorities, and devalue individuality.

When it comes to the greater LGBT, or the LGBAPTTIIADU, or whatever-you-would-like-to-call-it community, ultimately everyone is fighting for the same thing, a voice in a heteronormative society, then tolerance and finally acceptance.