“I absolutely refuse to use the acronym without using all the letters and number, for example just saying LGBT or LGB or even LGBTQ. It is just not my preference and I like that you mention how every person will feel differently, and navigate the issue differently.”

I take your point here about being inclusive, but what are all the letters that should be included? — there is no consensus on this, and there are different variations of the expanded initialism. Also, you’ll find — as I have — that if you do any sort of public speaking, the initialism becomes a mouthful and is not efficient or aesthetically pleasing to the ear. Even LGBTQ can sound cumbersome.

The question of inclusivity also hinges on how we define the meaning of “queer.” Do we see it as a specific identity, or as an umbrella term that encompasses everyone that exists outside of gender and sexuality norms? If it’s the latter, then the “Q” is a shorthand way of including all minority gender and sexual identities. And as I have argued elsewhere, LGBTQ is not just a random collection of letters; rather, the letters tell a story — the history of our movement and our understanding of the ways sexuality and gender have changed over time.

In regard to older generations being offended by “queer,” while I don’t think we should intentionally offend our elders, might “queer” also function as a confrontational and provocative label that is intended to offend, challenge notions of respectability, and shake things up? Part of the usefulness — and the frustration — of “queer” is its refusal to be limited to a singular meaning. In addition to the umbrella I outline above, it can also name a progressive political stance that calls into question mainstream gay and lesbian politics and the norms and limits imposed by these identity categories.

“Queer” suggests there are multiple ways to “do” gender and sexuality, to inhabit the world, and that these ways are not static, but ever-changing.