The U. of Michigan's Daily reports that the school's Office of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Affairs plans to pick a new name in an effort to be more inclusive:
"Part of it is that the letters are more exclusive than inclusive," [Gabe Javier, an LGBT affairs assistant] said. "There are lots of people who are part of the LGBT community that may not identify as a lesbian, bisexual or gay person."
How does one begin to communicate the irrelevance of "LGBT" (often followed by an even more unmanageable string of consonants). Suffice to say that outside of the activist/academic milieu, no one has a clue what it means. Alas, it's likely that the Michigan group may end up turning to an even worse moniker, the offensive and ugly "queer." But here's a novel suggestion; unless a case can be made for a better alternative that's easily understood, not demeaning and has historic resonance, how about "gay"?
In brief: Gay bars are closing across the country, perhaps because "as gays gained greater acceptance in society, older gays became more monogamous, and younger gays gravitated toward nightclubs that cater to a mixed crowd," per the Orlando Sentinel. (Andrew Sullivan takes note with a posting he calls "End of Gay Culture Watch.")
24 Comments for “Nomenclature Watch”
posted by Brian Miller on
Well, so you don’t like LGBT, because it “means nothing.”
And you don’t like “queer” because you don’t like how it sounds.
So just what ARE we supposed to call ourselves?
Ah yes, “gay.” Well that’s great for, well, gay men. But what about lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people who don’t consider themselves to be “gay” (a term that historically has only had relevance for homosexual men)?
Or are they just supposed to get on the bandwagon?
posted by Brian Miller on
PS — it’s not the end of gay culture, it’s the evolution of gay culture. Gay culture is no more dead by the death of the bar scene than heterosexual culture is after the death of disco clubs in the 1970s.
posted by Andrew on
Homosexual women often call themselves gay (ever heard of Ellen?), so that’s not a big issue. How about the gay & bisexual center?
There’s really no reason that transgender people should be grouped along with that. It’s not that I have anything against them or think they don’t deserve attention to issues that affect them. It’s just that gay people and transgender people have nothing to do with one another. The grouping mkaes no sense. It’s like having a “Native American & Jewish Center” or something.
posted by Marc on
As a person who works in a gay bar, I can tell you for a fact that the number of people who go to bars is dropping. As the article points out, the reasons are many: the Internet, DUI laws, other choices (social groups. etc.). But I also think this isn’t exclusive to gay establishments. Bars, in general, are feeling the pinch of less clientelle. I also wonder, especially in the case of gays, if it is also partially based on the fact that there are fewer younger people. Couples don’t nearly have as many children anymore as our parents (my mother had six), and the percentage chance of one being gay diminishes greatly. I’m not saying that gays will cease to exist in 50 years, but I think the number of them will decrease.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Marc: “I’m not saying that gays will cease to exist in 50 years, but I think the number of them will decrease.”
That is a very interesting point. I wonder if the increased number of gays who are out and proud will make up for the (hypothetical) decrease due to the birth rate.
posted by Rhywun on
Re: LGBT
I won’t mourn the loss of that gibberish. I predict these groups will splinter into separate gay male, gay female, bisexual, etc. groups while at the same time becoming less and less relevant as each group becomes more “accepted”.
Re: reasons bars are closing
Don’t forget smoking bans and drug war hysteria.
posted by ETJB on
Well, ‘gay’ can possible include gay men and women. However, it does not include bisexuals and does not deal with the issue of gender identity.
Most people may use, ‘gay’ as the shorthand but a center that provides student services probably should be clear of what services it offers.
posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) on
I just use the initials G/L, and if you’re bi and acting on that your then gay or lesbian at that moment. Yeesh.
And I fail to see a cogent reason to include the transgendered, transexual, tranvestite, intersexual or whatever!-sexual the PC-Left feels like adding this week. It’s “Gay” or “Gay and Lesbian”, so grow -up and deal with it.
posted by Fitz on
What about the addition of “Q” as in GLBTQ to the list. It meant “Questioning”.
Hows that going?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
With a nod to Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, “Gay” has just as inclusive a meaning as we give it. Words are not handed down to us by God or the French Academy.
The notion that “LGBT” is insufficiently inclusive is evidence that for the people holding that notion, inclusiveness has become a pathology instead of a virtue. Once the linguistic balkanization sets in, there is no end to it. It is not even clear why it should be seen as politically correct to fetishize our differences in the first place. Such endless renaming exercises are the pastime of people with no serious work to do.
The only reason I occasionally use “LGBT” or “GLBT” as an activist is to avoid having every discussion get sidetracked by a dispute over nomenclature. I only have so much energy to fight, and I do have serious activist work to do. But I am not happy about it. The only reason I use “LGBT” as a columnist is because it is part of the stylebook at Bay Windows. I am not happy about that, either, but as I get older I try to pick my fights. These alphabet-soup fights are just exhausting. My friend Craig mocks the whole business by routinely saying “Gay BLT” as if he is talking about a sandwich.
posted by Brian Miller on
Homosexual women often call themselves gay (ever heard of Ellen?), so that’s not a big issue.
And homosexual men often call themselves queer, so that’s not a big issue either.
Or we could, of course, accept the fact that different people apply different monikers to themselves, differently.
What about the addition of “Q” as in GLBTQ to the list. It meant “Questioning”.
I don’t know what’s funnier — the fact that Fitz is “explaining” gay stuff to us, or the fact that he’s incorrect. “Q” meant (and means) “queer.”
posted by Andrew on
So since you think we need to have an organization for every possible word people might use to mean homosexual, Brian, all the people who like to call themselves queer can go to the Office of Queer Affairs, and I’ll go to the Office of Gay Affairs. I wonder which one will get more traffic.
Also, the Q often does mean “questioning,” not “queer.” Don’t be so bigoted! Are you trying to exclude people who are questioning their sexuality?! For shame!
posted by ETJB on
Yes, being GLB is not the same thing as being transgender, but the issues are politically-culturally connected. Also as a pratical matter, office space is an issue at many Universites.
Recently our women’s and anti-racism centers were moved into one (smaller) office space.
Is race and same thing as gender? No, but as a pratical matter an office dealing with women’s issues and people of color is going to get dumped into one office.
Is being gay the same thing as being transgender? No, but they will probably get put in the same office because of University office space/budget issues and because people who work in/use both spaces will probably work together.
This reminds me of the complaints about using the term mankind or men to mean both men and women.
My solution; rotate which pronoun I use to talk about men and women. Hence sometimes I say, “men” to mean both sexes, other times I say, “women.”
If I had a dime for every man who insited that “men” stands for men and women, who then gets offended when I refer to them as a ‘woman’, I been rich.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Brian, I have seen two Qs in such lists, for both “queer” and “questioning.” And A for allies, I for intersex, mustard yellow for–oh, wait, that’s a different code book.
So on the one hand, there is an urge on some people’s part to insist that we all herd together uncritically in the linguistic direction of the moment. On the other hand, there are different people proposing different things, so those inclined to follow the mob don’t even know which way to stampede.
posted by Brian Miller on
since you think we need to have an organization for every possible word people might use to mean homosexual
An absurd red herring, of course. I happen to think that “we” should simply recognize that efforts to homogenize a group of people into a single category based on your limited priorities is foolish.
It’s the equivalent of saying that we’re ALL political, so let’s just call everyone who is political a “liberal,” since libertarian, conservative, moderate, socialist, green, etc. are too confusing and sound ugly. Pretty dumb idea, huh?
Your proposal isn’t that different.
Office of Queer Affairs, and I’ll go to the Office of Gay Affairs
Jeez. Sounds like you want a lot of bureaucracy. I just want groups formed by voluntary association — which don’t dictate my moniker to me as determined by central committee diktat.
Are you trying to exclude people who are questioning their sexuality
*insert eyeroll here*
I have seen two Qs in such lists, for both “queer” and “questioning.”
As have I, but only in the “2 Q” sense.
there is an urge on some people’s part to insist that we all herd together uncritically in the linguistic direction of the moment
As set by those with a political axe to grind, of course.
The reality is that the PC of the left AND the right are to blame. Whenever some idiot tells me he finds my calling myself “queer” to be “offensive” (for whatever contrived political reason), I have to chuckle.
On one hand, righties and lefties alike in the LGBTQQIinsertotherletterhere community seem to unanimously agree on the “need” to have bureaucracies, formal conventions for naming, and even a gestapo (GLAAD) that takes on Jerry Lewis for the unforgivable sin of almost saying “fag” and then apologizing profusely afterwards.
But on the other hand, the queer folk who supposedly “need” all these services are being told that we will be addressed using terminology thought up by the would-be central planners — which means that the offices themselves likely don’t have anything that the free market of ideas would support.
Gay, queer, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, genderqueer, intersex, emo, and every other permutation of sexual orientation and cultural product thereof will continue to exist — and fragment further as the closet becomes a thing of the past.
Conservatives complaining about “cultural confusion” and liberals complaining about “inadequate naming” are mistaken if they think a “herd instinct” is going to prevail. Quite the contrary — the queer community will continue to atomize just like society at large has, and the priorities of the average LGBTQ person will continue to diversify away from the centrally-planned “agenda” of the moment.
You’d have thought that the “leadership” within the “movement” would have figured this out after the grass roots made marriage equality the top issue through their own actions, but alas, the old “gay community as a solid and homogenous bloc” mythos lives on — to the eternal detriment of the person who believes in such a paradigm.
posted by Craig2 on
LGBT was originally devised to avoid offending the sensibilities of older gay gentlemen who didn’t like the Q word, and it does provide a good description of particular strategic situations.
Case in point. In the United States, lesbians, gay men and transpeople all face discrimination on the basis of goods, services, accomodation and employment, except at the level of some state governments.
Lesbians and gays face spousal rights discrimination, although
if their jurisdiction views post-
op transfolk as their reassigned
sex, the latter can get civilly married in their new sex. However, pre-op transfolk also face spousal rights discrimination.
Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transfolk all face discrimination in the context of same-sex parenting, in areas like
fostering, reproductive technology access, guardianship and adoption laws. Therefore, it makes some sense to combine forces on a common front when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity both.
We aren’t all ‘gay.’
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Carl on
If gay bars are closing, I put that more on more and more gays using the Internet to meet up, more than I put it on gays being accepted by straight bars.
Here’s an example of what happens to gays in straight bars:
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=22948
posted by Bobby on
Give me a break, if you’re not gay, you’re not part of the gay community. You might be a “friend” of the gay community, you might be a “supporter” of the gay community, but we don’t have to start calling ourselves LGBTQS, the Q for Questioning, the S for straight.
posted by kittynboi on
A lot of younger people in general don’t go to bars like those in their 30s and up do. I’m 26, and the majority of people I know, gay AND straight, don’t go to bars. Some go to dance clubs, like goth clubs and stuff, that have bars IN them, and places where bands play that also have bars, but I don’t know of anyone who goes to a regular no frills bar, gay or otherwise.
Hell, Bennigans and TGIFridays have bars in them. You can get alcoholic drinks at most real restauraunts, ABC liquor and others are, everywhere, you can hook up on the internet, people have parties for gaming and watching shows like Lost and 24, and places like cafes and coffeeshops are popular amongst younger urbanites in general.
Bars overall don’t have the social significance to many younger, urban people that they have to older generations, for a vast variety of reasons. I myself have never been in an ordinary bar. The closest thing I’ve been in are music venues that have bars in them.
posted by Lori Heine on
Even before I got involved with A.A. and stopped drinking, I didn’t spend much time in bars. The women who hang out in them tend to be very conformist and of below-average intelligence. Every time someone asks me whether I consider myself “butch” or “femme,” I automatically deduct fifty points from my estimation of her I.Q. That’s likely, however, to be the first or second question you get asked in a bar — unless you’re obviously trying to be “butch” or “femme,” which seems about as silly to me as wearing a Halloween costume all year round.
As for the alphabet soup, let’s dump it. I have no problem with being called “gay.” It’s a pleasant word, very gender-neutral, and there’s no reason everybody in the “community” shouldn’t feel cozily embraced by that nice little, three-letter word.
posted by Dale on
Craig2 wrote: “LGBT was originally devised to avoid offending the sensibilities of older gay gentlemen who didn’t like the Q word”
What blatantly false BS, and what a pretentious and offensive example of ageism. I am one of those “older gentlemen,” and I am one of the huge body of gay men and lesbians who were there on the front lines fighting the good fight through the 1970s and 80s to secure the vastly better social environments in which most of us live today. We are the ones who knew by experience just how horrendously injurious and destructive the word “queer” could be. We are the ones who brought about the more tolerant and accepting melieu of so much of the country and world today, so that pretentious and offensive younger gay men and lesbian no longer have to live secret lives, or seek out each other in seedy back alley bars or other furtive places. We are the ones who created inclusive phrases like LGBT. We did it to respect our community’s distinctions as well as its commonalities. I personally regreted that phrase then and regret it today. It came into being through the political clout of gay women…who felt overshadowed by the vastly larger numbers of gay men, and who wanted to be aligned with the concurrent women’s liberation movement…it was they who insisted that they be recognized separately as lesbians rather than gay…at least in the major cities. But in the smaller communities of America today, women and men seem to feel much greater gay familial bonds with each other, and most seem to prefer the simple and generic term gay for all whose affectional orientations don’t fit the normative standard for straight society.
I may not carry picket signs or lobby politicians any more, but I’m still active in supporting the work of those who picked up the banner after my generation. And, hey, maybe the younger generation of gay men and women should feel a little gratitude for the work my generation did, instead of thinking they must tolerantly indulge us to protect out “sensitivities.”
posted by Craig2 on
Oh dear. No offence intended, Dale. I venerate the work of many older gay men on our behalf, and feel rather protective toward them, which is why I feel compelled to substitute LGBT instead of the Q word in their vicinity whenever I’m around them.
As for the gay pub issue, might it not be the case that as social inclusion and our self-esteem increase, we feel less compelled to drink excessively and frequent pubs/bars? Should we therefore be opening gay cafes instead…?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Lori Heine on
Craig2, I think the gay cafe idea is a good one. I’m very partial to coffee houses — not only because I love coffee, but also because they are a great place to socialize and are more laid-back than most bars.
Several behaviors seem to cluster around drinking alcohol, none of them positive. I know a lot of gay and lesbian folks who would appreciate having a hangout somewhere other than a bar.
Poetry readings, book clubs, concerts and the like — sponsored by such cafes — would also attract people with IQ’s greater than their shoe sizes. Something else bars can’t do.
posted by Craig2 on
Added to which, there’s no problem with lesbian and gay adolescents finding their way to cafe venues, let it be added.
Incidentally, am I the only lesbian or gay teetotaller on this board…???