I think that one of the issues with "freaks" (of which there are many, many kinds) is that as much as we proclaim to dislike labeling people, they do provide handy shortcuts for framing our interactions with them. Sure, we don't treat every LGBT person we know the same way, but we have a set of guidelines around which we can build our interactions. (e.g. "my friend Andrew is now Andrea, so please refer to her as 'her'").

We don't have those same guidelines with freaks -- mostly by choice -- so it's hard to know where to start. Your definition of "freak" probably differs greatly from mine, but the LGBT world has pretty clear definitions (outside of the word "queer").

I agree that all people deserve compassion and protection, but without these clearly defined guidelines for response, how do we know that a "harmlessly nuts" person really is harmless? I don't mean to sound like I'm clutching my pearls, but in a place like a major university (my employer), the line can be thin to nonexistent, and people's lives depend on it. Including those of the freaks themselves.

I think it would be hard to provide systematic protection to any vaguely-defined group. Who is a freak? How would they be identified?

As a practical suggestion, it certainly has problems but I like it as a poem.

does it make sense to you to change LGBT to LGBTF (adding freaks)?

No. LGBT folks have a thing in common which is why they are grouped together and even this is somewhat controversial. Adding "freaks" to this strongly implies that freaks belong in this category which is, to me, offensive. Not arguing that people's idiosyncracies might not be worth protecting in some way, but that this is absolutely the wrong way to go about starting to think about it.

Despite the similarity in reclaiming the word freak as people do with flung epithets, this is just... weird. In a bewilderingly off base type of way.

The fact you are calling other people freaks-- I don't even know where to begin with this.

Freaks was reclaimed in the 60s. Then it got unreclaimed.

I think everyone deserves to be respected and treated fairly and equally.

I also think LGBTQ folks are mistreated because of a particular kind of bias, and it doesn't make sense to add another unrelated group of oppressed folks to their cause.

I don't much like the term "freak" either. It carries a lot of negative baggage.

I think "freak" is a great word that ought to be proudly reclaimed. In fact, for me it has become a term of high praise.

Freaks was reclaimed in the 60s. Then it got unreclaimed.

That's really true - that's how we get people singing about letting your "freak flag fly." But it doesn't have much positive sense yet.

'Nonconformist' works fairly well. But instead of coming up with a label to try to create a protected class, I think we can handle general issues of acceptance by simply promoting equality and tolerance across the board. Since all the different idiosyncratic kinds of "freaks" are not united by any commonality, it would be unfair to lump them together and advocate for...something...for them. If you want to see everyone accepted and valued as an individual, then work toward that.

There's a difference in proudly identifying as queer and having someone threaten you with the word; it's pretty much the same for freak, and I'm having a hard time thinking this really needs to be explained, except maybe you don't realize this is pretty much what you hear initiating or during attack.
You are not saying you're a freak, you are calling other people freaks. I can call myself a freak but you don't get to use that word in reference to me without strict permission after a serious vetting process, and then, probably not casually in public at random. Generally, I don't use it anymore except when it is clear what I mean, because people with think it has some sexual connotation, which is a whole separate issue.

In the freak, geek, and weirdo breakdown, I've always thought the first embraced their variance from the norm, the next did not, and the latter were unaware of it.

You could say spic was high praise to you, but I don't see how you would expect anyone to know that, or care.

Nonconformist suggests people have made a choice in the matter.

There are lots of fairly mundane seeming queer folk out there, but full blown weirdos are still allowed to marry.

The problem with labels, esp. blanket ones, are that they facilitate stereotypes and pathologize human variance. People don't even want to bother knowing actual definitions and terminology, but trying to lump in two completely different spectra axes doesn't make even a little bit of sense, unless you are trying to talk about extending hate crimes criteria or discrimination laws in a half assed fashion.

LGBTQ exists because it was all except very recently diagnoses. You can diagnose anybody to a T, but even if it was all in terms of tendencies and pre-threshold conditions, most people don't want to be labeled unless there is some reason for it. Also, once you stick a label on something, some people seem to think they are branded for life with something intractable, or use it to subsume their growth/individuality.

I could go on a long ranty bit about a bunch of social psychology and people whose identities only exist in relation to other people, but I've got to slap that on an essay somewhere else.

I self identify as a freak. Super freak, super freaky...
LGBTF. Best new acronym in years.

Ethylene: You are not saying you're a freak, you are calling other people freaks. I can call myself a freak but you don't get to use that word in reference to me without strict permission after a serious vetting process, and then, probably not casually in public at random.

I think we are getting sidetracked here. Whether I self-identify as a freak is really irrelevant to what I'm saying. And of the term freak bothers you, we could call them something else instead. ("Freak" is catchier and more memorable, to me.)

Yes, I self-identify as a freak but you would never know it if you met me. My definition of "freak" would include a range of people; in fact, many people who are superficially conventional would have an element of freak to them.

My point is that there are a lot of people who are different, who view their difference as essential to their identity, just as LGBT people view their sexuality as essential to their identity. But freaks' difference may be difficult to sum up as one particular axis of human experience, like sexuality is. The fact that someone is a freak/iconoclast can be every bit as fundamental to their experience of the world, and to the way they are treated by others, as one's sexuality can be. And in some way, the "freaks" whose differences are sui generis may suffer more, because they do not have any community of people who share what makes each of them different. Even when homosexuality, or otherwise transgressive sexuality and gender identities were ostracized and outlawed, those people found each other and found some solace in belonging to that group.

"Freaks" may be different in ways that haven't been outlawed, but have been subjected to severe ostracism. But they may not have had a group of kindred spirits, nor a way of easily defining what makes them different. The identity of "freak" could be that umbrella concept.

In some way, this tendency for freaks to fall between the cracks parallels something else I have noticed. In U.S. society at least, there is a lot of awareness and a fair amount of resources devoted to treating and raising awareness about alcoholism and drug abuse. If you identify as an alcoholic or an addict, you can receive assistance and consideration from others for having those conditions. But what about people who just don't have their shit together? Who are habitually lazy and irresponsible? Aren't those conditions as excusable as alcoholism and drug abuse? But there aren't really the resources devoted to laziness and irresponsibility and not having your shit together that are devoted to alcoholism and drug abuse.

(Please note that I am not pathologizing homosexuality by drawing a parallel to alcoholism and drug abuse. I'm only pointing out a parallel between the way alcoholism and drug abuse as well-defined categories get recognition and resources, while more vague forms of pathology do not, AND the way LGBT lifestyles are well-defined categories as opposed to more multifarious forms of difference that I propose we call "freaks.")

There seems to be a tendency to recognize conditions that are well-defined, at the expense of conditions that are vaguer but no less real and no less important for the people who have that condition as part of their life experience. If you are a heterosexual who nonetheless has a core identity that is different from the mainstream as a "freak," shouldn't you be entitled to social protection just like someone with a minority sexual orientation?

It seems unjust to me that some people receive social protection because their form of difference is easy to describe and identify. People with more sui generis forms of difference are not beneficiaries of such protection, but they should be, in my view. Calling them "freaks," or some other acceptable word, is a way of helping to recognize this as a category worthy of respect and protection.

From what I'm reading here, "Freak" is not, in part, defined by a person's sexual orientation so I would be extremely reluctant to add the F to LGBTQ. Also, Apples and oranges.

What would be the diagnostic criteria for qualifying a person as a "freak" so that those special protections could be implimented? What is it that EVERYONE that self-defines as a Freak has in common? It's got to be more than "that person is different from the norm so s/he's a freak."

I've been called a freak both kindly and not so much, many times. But for me it has always carried a kind of air of unacceptability; that I am strange or odd in a bad way, like the way a place smells odd or isn't quite right somehow. I know this because of the looks I'm regularly given when that word is used AT me. Freak is more than just being out of the norm. Freak is a word used to denote strangely or inappropriately out of the norm.

Freak is the word people employ to say "you are not acceptable, you are less than me." And the people that use it are, IMO, threatened by what they don't understand. I think that's why it's used by young folk as it is. The word freak is a bullet used by people that have maturity issues to shoot down anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.

Thing is though, and I can't seem to get past this, but no one is a freak. Ever. Each of us is just what we are and we're NOT defined by other people's opinions of us. "Freak" is a subjective term, not a thing, unless I am still missing the objective criteria for proper identification. It's name calling. Nothing more.

You know, one of the nicest things anyone has ever called me is "eccentric [...] an absent-minded professor." It was my mom who said that to me after nearly 40 years of joining the rest of the family in trying to get me to really believe I was actually a crazy person.

But that afternoon Mom realized that a person can be different than her and NOT be wrong or bad or in some way defective. Her world grew immeasurably that afternoon and my world found me smiling inside about finally being seen, by others, for exactly what I was. I was no longer invisible and Mom, she saw the world materialize right before her eyes.

The people in the world that love me appreciate my eccentricity. The people in the world that I meet, in general, seem to understand that life is a wide spectrum of experiences and I'm just another one. I laugh at myself out loud and the people around me have learned to laugh, too. And the only problem I ever have with anyone is when THEY don't take me for who I am and that's ALL about them, not me.

Eccentric has never had, that I'm aware of, any real negative connotation. Eccentrics are different, not easily predictable, and perhaps out of the ordinary, behaviorally, but considered harmless, goofy, Artistic, bright, and not, as far as I know, seen as something to stay away from. That's my take anyway.

So, should eccentrics be blessed with some kind of systemic legal protection? Nah. Well, okay, maybe on Wednesdays. Wed Nes Day is kind-of the more triangular of the weekly days; sharp and blue like I just fell on my head blue. And, believe you me, those days are best spent over several cups of strong tea and a chocolate cookie. MetaChat helps, too. ;)

Friday? Friday is a good day; round with a flat bottom; orange. I like to go to work early on Fridays.

What where we talking about?

Yes, the term is a problem. Yes, the lack of definition is a problem. Why should there be protection for people who are merely lazy and irresponsible? If these are static conditions then they are symptoms of other problems.
If someone is lazy, irresponsible and won't get their shit together, they shouldn't be able to retain a job that needs them to be otherwise, etc.

If someone can't get their shit together, this is a problem that is dealt with through therapies. If someone won't, I think assistance would be enabling. It's like saying there should be special protection for people who choose to be assholes.

Besides paperwork reasons, labeling is mostly political. You don't seem to understand LGBTQ groups have a human/civil rights agenda because of why they are oppressed and persecuted, that's what makes a minority, the lack of power.

You just make me think of this white woman who was telling me about how she wasn't surrounded by white people for a minute, so she knew what it was like to be a minority. And that's the last thing I heard out of her mouth because I let her know her needy, boring, insistence on validation qualities really do not balance out her awkward and ignorant ones. Maybe she's one of your freaks. She's different, but most people would call it overcompensating for low self-esteem and a lack of social skills. She could work on these things but she'd have to acknowledge them. She refuses to believe autism isn't caused by immunizations, I believe because she thinks if it's otherwise it is somehow her fault, so good luck with that.