For a non-LGBT example, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) uses the term 'disorder'. This term means 'contrary to the order of things'. From a purely denotational perspective, not only is this accurate, but it is probably also an accurate description of the entire LGBTQ+ spectrum. It is fairly easy to argue from a purely statistical perspective that being a lesbian is a 'disorder' and 'abnormal'.
I disagree with your version of the meaning of "disorder". What you're saying there is more like a derivation than a denotation--where it comes from, not what it means. Mind you, "disorder" has several meanings; if you haven't tidied your bedroom in a few weeks, it could be in "disorder". But when you're talking about autism spectrum or deafness or something, it means an ailment. The OED says "A disturbance of the bodily (or mental) functions; an ailment, disease."
And that does NOT apply to being LGBTQ+. But frankly, it DOES apply to anything very far along the autism spectrum; stuff isn't working the way a person would prefer to have it work, and that causes them problems; there's things they can't do well that other people not on the autism spectrum can easily do. There's a failure of function happening. So it's a disorder.
So there's a distinction between calling something (say being asexual) "weird" and calling it a "disorder". Being called "weird" can be hurtful because our society is too damn conformist, but is not inherently bad. As a person who is generally at the top of our society's dysfunctional little inherent status ladder (white, male, straight, not poor, moderately educated) I have leeway to actually take pride in being weird.
If what you are is called a "disorder" though, that's specifically saying that being what you are is functionally bad, an illness--that's going to be inherently hurtful, to the point where even people who actually do have a disorder for real, like deaf people, often would really prefer it not be looked at that way.
last edited at Jun 21, 2022 1:33PM