GULGBT Name Change Consultation Summary of Results The consultation was a huge success with 126 participants in total.

. Any question with less than 126 responses is due to the option to skip the question. The results are highlighted below, with a selection of additional comments chosen to reflect the general themes which were highlighted by the responses. Thank you again to everyone who participated.

Year of Study 2012-2013

New student entering 1st year of undergraduate course 2nd year undergraduate 3rd year undergraduate 4th year undergraduate 5th year undergraduate Postgraduate Graduate 20 (15.9%) 33 (26.2%) 23 (18.2%) 17 (13.5%) 2 (1.6%) 20 (15.9%) 11 (8.7%)

Age Category
17-20 21-24 25-30 30+ 57 (45.2%) 48 (38.1%) 15 (11.9%) 6 (4.8%)

Were you a member of GULGBT prior to September 2012?

Yes No 76 (60.8%) 49 (39.2%)

Please rank these name suggestions in your order of preference.

Name LGBTQ LGBT* LGBT+ GSM 1st Choice 42 (33.8%) 30 (24.2%) 28 (22.6%) 24 (19.4%) 2nd Choice 27 (21.8%) 48 (38.7%) 35 (28.2%) 14 (11.3%) 3rd Choice 40 (32.3%) 31 (25%) 46 (37.1%) 7 (5.6%) 4th Choice 15 (12.1%) 15 (12.1%) 15 (12.1%) 79 (63.7%)

Do you support the decision to change the association's name from GULGBT?
Yes No 92 (75.4%) 30 (24.6)

The proposed name change is likely to take effect from the 2013 annual general meeting in March. Do you have any objections to this?
No Yes 108 (85.7%) 18 (14.3%)

Additional Comments "Adding the Q maybe helps people who aren't as yet confident to be any of the other letters." "'LGBT' is a widely recognisable term and should remain part of the name." "Minority is a negative word. LGBT is easily recognised." "Not comfortable with word "queer" and concerned about ever increasingly long acronym." "I don't want to wait till 2013 to be recognised as an integral part of the group!" "I think the LGBT bit should be retained because it's identifiable: everyone knows what it means, which is comforting for new members. However, I think it is essential to add something that recognises the wide variety of members. The * or Q works because both of those are also understandable and identifiable."

"I think LGBTQ+ would be more inclusive" "Asexuality should not be overlooked" "The change in name is a good idea as before I was slightly hesitant to join as whilst I belong to a sexual minority, I am neither L, G, B or T." "Would have preferred 'lgbtq* students' association' as more inclusive/representative title, but very supportive of the general shift. personally identify as queer but feel the star is a more important addition. was aware of the society during undergrad but always felt slightly put off by seeming limited scope of representation." "Personally I hate LGBT* and LGBT+ simply because of the 'positive' connotations and because T* could be seen as simply translating to Trans*. LGBTQ and GSM are both valuable suggestions. The main problem with GSM is that it is not widely recognised (e.g. type it in to google). We should not be ashamed of using the word Queer. By having this shame and even this discussion about whether LGBTQ should be used is offending many of our existing members. Queer should be embraced." "I think the Q for Queer is offensive and unclear and potentially confusing to people not familiar with LGBT society as a whole - be this heterosexual or people still unsure of their identity. I will feel very uncomfortable coming to LGBT if 'queer' is in the name." "GSM would not be recognised by the majority of LGBTQ identifying students." "At present the society is in such a strong position as it can boast truthfully that it doesn't exclude anyone no matter how they identify. An additional letter only makes more people more aware of this." "I do not like the LGBT* acronym very much, because I feel that it suggests that anything that comes after the T* falls under the trans* umbrella."