Language, in its most essential form, is meant to simplify communication. It allows us to share thoughts, ideas, and emotions clearly. However, the recent rise of LGBTQ+ jargon — including terms like “demiboy,” “agender,” or “ze/zir” — often complicates rather than clarifies. This added layer of complexity isn’t necessarily born out of genuine linguistic need but often stems from political motivations or pressure from influential world players. In this expanded discussion, we’ll explore why this kind of jargon may not only be unnecessary and cumbersome but also why it does not always represent the best interests of the people it claims to protect.
We’ll also bring in more real-life examples, humorous personal anecdotes, and dive into how Hollywood films might suffer creatively if they adopted this jargon. By the end, we’ll have a clearer understanding of why adding such jargon to everyday language can create more confusion than inclusion.
Real-Life Confusion: Why LGBTQ+ Jargon Can Be More of a Headache
One of the most glaring issues with LGBTQ+ jargon is that it introduces confusion where there should be clarity. Take, for instance, my friend Sarah, who works in human resources. Not long ago, she was tasked with updating her company’s hiring materials to be more “inclusive.” This included adding a section for pronouns and gender identity. At first, it seemed simple enough, but she soon realized the complexity when terms like “demigender,” “two-spirit,” and “neutrois” appeared in her research.
Sarah wanted to be respectful but couldn’t help but feel that asking potential employees to navigate a long list of unfamiliar terms was more of a minefield than a welcome mat. Ultimately, many candidates simply checked “prefer not to say,” which defeated the entire purpose. If even HR professionals find this confusing, imagine how perplexing it must be for the average person filling out a job application. The reality is that most people have no idea what these terms mean, and expecting them to keep up with such an evolving lexicon is impractical.
Political Motivations: The Driving Force Behind Jargon
While it’s easy to assume that LGBTQ+ jargon is purely a social or cultural development, there’s a growing body of evidence suggesting that its rise is also politically motivated. Large organizations and influential political figures often push for the adoption of this jargon not necessarily to protect or empower marginalized communities but to create an image of progressiveness and political correctness. Big tech companies, government agencies, and global organizations such as the United Nations frequently update their language guidelines to include the latest terminology, even if these changes don’t reflect the actual views or needs of the communities involved.
This push for jargon is often part of a broader political strategy. Major corporations, especially in Western countries, want to be seen as inclusive and progressive. This is not just for the sake of the people they serve but also to maintain good standing in a global market that increasingly demands political correctness. By adopting LGBTQ+ jargon, these entities position themselves as forward-thinking, which can enhance their public image and attract certain demographics. However, the very people they claim to protect are sometimes skeptical of these efforts.
Many in the LGBTQ+ Community Don’t Agree
One might assume that all LGBTQ+ individuals welcome the introduction of this jargon, but that’s far from the truth. Many people within the LGBTQ+ community argue that this language doesn’t represent their identity or experience. For example, a large portion of gay and lesbian individuals feel that the proliferation of hyper-specific labels fragments the community rather than unites it. Some feel that the additional terms unnecessarily complicate conversations about sexual orientation and gender identity, which could otherwise be simple and inclusive without the need for such niche terminology.
Take, for instance, Andrew Sullivan, a gay writer and political commentator, who has criticized the ever-expanding LGBTQ+ lexicon. He believes it dilutes the focus on achieving equality by forcing people to wade through an ever-expanding dictionary of terms, many of which don’t resonate with the broader LGBTQ+ population. This sentiment is echoed by many others in the community, especially older generations, who fought for equality long before terms like “demiboy” or “graysexual” existed.
A survey conducted by YouGov in 2019 found that a significant number of LGBTQ+ individuals didn’t relate to or use many of the new terms. For some, it felt like an imposition — as if they had to embrace these new labels to remain a part of the community. This begs the question: if the language doesn’t reflect the actual experiences of many LGBTQ+ individuals, why is it being pushed so aggressively?
Hollywood and the Impracticality of Jargon in Film
Let’s imagine, for a moment, what Hollywood films would look like if they fully embraced LGBTQ+ jargon. Picture a movie like When Harry Met Sally, where the dialogue between two characters, Harry and Sally, is filled with LGBTQ+ jargon. Instead of straightforward banter, Harry spends ten minutes explaining his “demiromantic” tendencies while Sally goes on about her “genderqueer, asexual” identity. The magic of the movie would quickly dissolve as the audience struggles to keep up with all the new terminology.
Hollywood, at its best, relies on universal themes — love, friendship, struggle, triumph — that resonate with a broad audience. Overloading movies with jargon that most people don’t understand doesn’t enhance the storytelling. Instead, it alienates viewers who may already feel disconnected from the complexities of modern gender and sexual identity labels. Simplicity in language allows for the expression of universal truths, while jargon often narrows the appeal of a film, making it inaccessible to many.
Funny Anecdotes: The Pointlessness of Jargon
A funny story that comes to mind involves a recent Zoom meeting I attended for a non-profit organization. Before the meeting started, everyone was encouraged to share their pronouns, and naturally, a few people included some of the more uncommon options like “ze/zir” and “xe/xem.” Now, I’m all for respect and inclusivity, but things took a turn for the ridiculous when the meeting facilitator accidentally mixed up one of the pronouns. What followed was a 10-minute explanation of each participant’s specific pronouns and gender identity.
By the end of it, no one could remember what the meeting was actually about, and we had lost valuable time. We could have just stuck to simple “he,” “she,” or “they” and moved on, but the overemphasis on specialized language turned what should have been a productive discussion into a linguistic quagmire.
This is just one example of how well-intentioned jargon can derail even the most straightforward interactions. In trying to be overly inclusive, we can sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture — clear and effective communication.
Real-Life Example: Navigating Everyday Situations
Imagine going to a coffee shop and ordering your drink, only to be asked, “Would you like to know the pronouns of your barista?” It’s an absurd scenario, but it’s not too far off from what some spaces are starting to do. A friend recently told me about an experience at a progressive bookstore where staff members introduced themselves with their names and pronouns. While this is entirely within their right, my friend — a straight, cisgender woman — found herself feeling awkward. She wasn’t sure if she was supposed to follow suit and share her own pronouns, despite feeling that “she/her” was obvious based on her appearance.
This kind of overemphasis on jargon in everyday life can create unnecessary tension, as people who aren’t familiar with the terms may feel alienated or unsure of how to engage. Instead of fostering inclusivity, it often leads to more confusion and, in some cases, social awkwardness.
Jargon is Cumbersome in Everyday Conversations
The rise of LGBTQ+ jargon can make what used to be simple conversations unnecessarily difficult. Imagine introducing a new colleague in the workplace and saying, “This is Alex. They’re a genderfluid demiboy who uses xe/xem pronouns.” Not only are you forced to remember a host of new terms, but you’re also creating the potential for misunderstandings down the line. People who aren’t familiar with such terms may feel lost or even afraid to interact with Alex for fear of using the wrong language.
Even in the LGBTQ+ community, some find these terms cumbersome. Many gay and lesbian individuals don’t see the need to define their identities in such hyper-specific terms. For them, the labels “gay” or “lesbian” are enough to convey who they are, without the need for a detailed linguistic breakdown.
Simplicity Works: The Natural Evolution of Language
The beauty of language is that it evolves naturally over time. As society changes, so does our vocabulary. However, this process is usually organic. Consider how terms like “firefighter” replaced “fireman” or how “flight attendant” took over from “stewardess.” These changes happened gradually, and the new terms are easy to understand because they serve a clear purpose. They make language more inclusive without overcomplicating it.
In contrast, LGBTQ+ jargon feels forced. It’s an attempt to impose complexity on a language that already has built-in mechanisms for inclusivity. For example, the singular “they” has been used for centuries as a gender-neutral pronoun, and it works perfectly in most situations. There’s no need to create entirely new pronouns like “ze” or “xe” when the tools we need already exist in the language.
Conclusion: Language Should Bring Us Together, Not Divide Us
At the end of the day, language is meant to foster connection and understanding. LGBTQ+ jargon, while well-intentioned, often does the opposite. It creates unnecessary barriers, introduces confusion, and in many cases, is driven more by political agendas than by a genuine need for new terms. Many LGBTQ+ individuals themselves don’t see the need for this complex lexicon and feel that it doesn’t represent theirWhy LGBTQ+ Jargon is Unnecessary: A Deeper Dive
Language is one of the most powerful tools we have. It allows us to communicate, express emotions, share ideas, and build connections. However, when language becomes overly complicated or jargon-heavy, it can alienate and confuse rather than bring us together. This is especially true when it comes to LGBTQ+ jargon. What started as an effort to make language more inclusive has, in many ways, become cumbersome and unnecessary.
Many experts, linguists, and even members of the LGBTQ+ community believe that language already possesses the necessary tools to express diverse identities without the need for an ever-expanding lexicon. Moreover, there are real-life examples that demonstrate how confusing and impractical this jargon can be in everyday conversations and media, further proving that the motivations behind this shift may be more political than genuinely protective of marginalized communities.
The Problem with Overcomplicated Language
One key issue with LGBTQ+ jargon is that it introduces unnecessary complexity into everyday conversations. Terms like “genderfluid demiboy” or “ze/zir” pronouns may be familiar to a select group, but for the average person, they create confusion rather than clarity. In linguistics, one of the main goals of language is to facilitate understanding. Yet, when we introduce terms that aren’t widely understood, we risk alienating others and making communication more difficult.
A friend of mine, Kate, who works as a high school teacher, found herself in an uncomfortable situation during a staff meeting when she was asked to introduce herself and share her pronouns. While Kate identifies as a cisgender woman and uses “she/her,” some of her colleagues introduced themselves with terms she had never heard before, like “xe/xem” and “they/them.” Rather than fostering inclusivity, the situation left Kate — and many others in the room — feeling unsure of how to proceed in future interactions.
These scenarios highlight a key issue: while well-meaning, the insistence on using niche pronouns and terms often makes people feel out of the loop, which is the exact opposite of what inclusive language is supposed to achieve.
Real-Life Example: Confusion in Everyday Situations
Imagine trying to navigate everyday situations with LGBTQ+ jargon front and center. A friend of mine, Joe, recounted a humorous yet frustrating experience at a local coffee shop. He ordered his usual cappuccino, but when it was time to pick up his drink, the barista announced, “Drink for Joe, using he/him pronouns!” Everyone in line exchanged confused glances. Joe chuckled, realizing that while the intention was good, it felt absurd in such a mundane setting.
This kind of overreach in ordinary social interactions can make people feel more uncomfortable than included. Most of us aren’t accustomed to inserting our gender identities into every interaction, especially in casual settings like a coffee shop or grocery store. While respecting people’s identities is crucial, there’s a difference between fostering inclusivity and forcing unnecessary jargon into every conversation.
More Funny Anecdotes: The Pointlessness of Jargon
A few months ago, I attended a Zoom meeting for a community organization I’m a part of. As is often the case in today’s virtual world, we were asked to share our names and pronouns before starting the discussion. I introduced myself as “Mark, he/him” and listened as others did the same. But things quickly took a turn when one participant introduced themselves with a lengthy explanation of their pronouns, which included “ze/zir” and how they alternated between identities depending on the day.
What followed was a 15-minute discussion on the history of gender-neutral pronouns, how they evolved, and why it was important for everyone to be aware of them. By the time the meeting actually started, we had already lost half the group’s attention.
This experience highlighted the potential pitfalls of overly focusing on jargon. Instead of getting to the point and fostering meaningful discussions, we spent the majority of the meeting navigating a maze of linguistic terms that didn’t really serve the group’s purpose. It was clear to everyone that the conversation had veered into territory that felt more performative than productive.
Let Language Evolve Naturally
In conclusion, LGBTQ+ jargon, while well-intentioned, often creates more confusion than clarity. It introduces unnecessary complexity into everyday conversations, alienates those who aren’t familiar with the terms, and is sometimes more about political correctness than genuine inclusivity. Moreover, many within the LGBTQ+ community don’t agree with the need for this jargon and feel that it doesn’t represent their experiences.
Rather than forcing people to adopt niche terms, we should allow language to evolve naturally. Simplicity and clarity should be the guiding principles in communication. After all, language is meant to bring us together, not divide us into smaller and smaller categories. By focusing on the universal aspects of our shared human experience, we can build a world where everyone feels included — without the need for unnecessary jargon.
Leave a Reply