A Canadian lawmaker recently used a term so lengthy and complex, it sparked disbelief and a touch of humor on American television. Leah Gazan, representing the New Democratic Party, employed the acronym MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+ during a discussion about budget allocations.
The sheer length of the term – Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, and Asexual people, with a “plus” for further identities – drew a comparison to the difficulty of remembering a complex WiFi password. The discussion unfolded on a national news program, highlighting the challenges of inclusive language.
The core of the debate centered on Gazan’s frustration over the lack of funding dedicated to addressing the issues faced by the communities represented within the acronym. She argued that the budget constituted a disregard for a potential genocide, a claim that ignited further conversation.
The program’s host questioned the necessity of such a sprawling identifier, suggesting the “plus” component already encompassed inclusivity. He then pivoted to a call for universal respect and faith, a sentiment that contrasted sharply with the complex terminology under discussion.
The conversation then shifted to filmmaker Michael Moore, whose recent pronouncements included labeling a former president a terrorist. Moore’s commentary, published online, praised Iran’s historical significance while simultaneously criticizing the United States.
Moore went further, characterizing America as the antagonist and even urging members of the U.S. military to question orders. These statements prompted a strong reaction, questioning the filmmaker’s patriotism and perspective.
A commentator sharply criticized Moore’s apparent admiration for the Iranian regime, suggesting a relocation might be in order. The remark underscored a broader concern about rhetoric that appears to prioritize criticism of one’s own nation over acknowledging its strengths.
The exchange highlighted a growing tension between the desire for inclusive language and the potential for such language to become unwieldy and divisive. It also showcased the increasingly polarized nature of public discourse, where strong opinions and provocative statements often dominate the conversation.
