This account in D.C.'s City Paper is about a burning issue facing our community: making sure that we all use LGBT (or LGBTQ, or LGBTQIT, or...) and not the no longer correct GLBT. For those not consumed with politically correction nomenclature, the only truly progressive stance is to put lesbians before gays, bisexuals and the transgendered in the ubiquitous if ungainly (and mystifying to the uninitiated) acronym. But see, we're striking a blow against male privilege, and after all, isn't that what matters?
And if you ever wondered why after two years of Democratic majorities we will not be seeing an end to "don't ask, don't tell" or movement on the anti-discrimination law that activists say is their top priority, this sort of nonsense may give you a clue.
30 Comments for “What’s in an Acronym?”
posted by Michael M. on
Dude, chill. The article made it pretty clear this isn’t a burning issue.
posted by William on
I’m with Michael. LGBT has been more prominent for years, someone decided to write copy on a trivial change in style in one organization. Stop looking for things to be outraged about.
posted by Jorge on
The article understates the case.
I remember learning in my college psychology class that using the male pronoun in gender-neutral contacts (“his” for any particular person) is not acceptable in academia. When years later, the current edition of the Elements of Style clearly stated it was proper English.
Blah, blah, blah, it diminishes women and blah blah blah. Fine.
Today women still earn less than men, experience an epidemic of domestic violence, are sexually objectified in the media, and even educated women are socially unequal to men in the division of labor in the home, and it’s all ho-hum to America. It’s the same sad situation as usual. We tell ourselves we treat everyone equally, so it must be so.
posted by Bobby on
Good points, Jorge. However, if I own a company and one of my female employees gets pregnant, am I not supposed to pay her a salary for what? 3 months? 6 months? And here’s the kicker, she doesn’t even get to work during part of her pregnancy, so because a woman has the ability to conceive then suddenly I’m supposed to pay her for a baby I didn’t even create. Isn’t this part of the reason of why women get paid less than men?
posted by Jorge on
I think it’s more because they put their careers on hold to raise their children. Pregnancy isn’t as disabling as raising children is.
posted by ludovico on
Remember, it’s not an acronym unless it’s pronounceable! (Like SAAB, e.g.) Therefore the only way that the letters G,L,B,T could be arranged to form an understandable word would be as GBLT; pronounced as “giblet.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
I favor “GBLT” because it can be expanded to “Gorgonzola, Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato” — which sounds absolutely mouthwatering. (Not a fan of mold-ripened cheeses? Just substitute Gouda or Gruyere!)
If you want to throw in a “Q” for those who are queer, questioning, quixotic, you can layer the above ingredients with flour tortillas instead of sliced bread, bake until the cheese melts, and you’ve got a “GBLT Quesadilla”…
posted by Throbert McGee on
On the other hand, self-styled “queer activists” who specialize in vandalism, malicious email floods, and other forms of symbolic and incredibly annoying minor violence, can be said to be engaging in LBTGihad — ululululululululu!
How to tell the LBTG-hideen from regular Islamist mujahideen:
If it tends to blow shit up and is peculiarly obsessed with “Zionists” — that’s a garden-variety Muslim jihadi you’ve got there!
But if it tends to single out upper-middle-class white suburbanites for harassment because dark-skinned people have been unjustly oppressed just like Queerfolk, and also because dark-skinned people are slightly terrifying, chances are you’re dealing an LBTG-hadi!
posted by avee on
someone decided to write copy on a trivial change in style in one organization
The article starts with one organization and then makes clear that the shift from leading with “G” to “L” has taken place throughout the “LGBT” community, with the last stragglers now coming to heel. I think that’s worth discussing.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Another possibility occurs to me: since Bisexual and Transgendered are both “unisex” terms, for consistency’s sake we could merge Gay and Lesbian into “Homosexual.” The abbreviation HBT could then be expanded with lower-case letters, a la CHiPs, into the pronounceable acronym “HoBbiT”!
posted by Jimmy on
For the mothers, the sisters, the daughters, the grandmothers, the lovers, by all means, ladies first.
It used to be considered gentlemanly to espouse such a concept.
posted by Jorge on
And then the gentleladies sued them dirty old gentlemen for sexual harassment.
posted by Jimmy on
“And then the gentleladies sued them dirty old gentlemen for sexual harassment.”
I’ve never been served legal papers for opening a door for a woman; on the contrary, only ever most graciously thanks.
Women generally like me, though. I’ve never tried to exploit one.
posted by Jimmy on
thanks = thanked
posted by Lymis on
Oh please.
Surely it makes sense to have a single agreed on term throughout the media, especially when it is an acronym. Attempts to come up with an inclusive general word have pretty much failed, with “queer” coming the closest, but having such negative associations for so many people it was never embraced. So the acronym seems to have settled in as the term of choice, at least in a media sense.
So, if you are trying to choose between GLBT and LGBT, what do you base it on? Is there any reason NOT to put the L first besides knee-jerk misogyny or knee-jerk anti-PC feelings? Personally, I don’t care either way, but I can’t think of a single reason that doesn’t boil down to “men are more important” to put the G first. Even “some people consider gay to include both genders” fails as a reason to put it first, if the L is going to be there anyway.
So, if there aren’t any good reasons to put the G first, then even if the reasons to out the L first seem trivial, at least they are reasons. I’ve never met a gay man who expressed a vehement insistence on having the G first – if any opinion is expressed, I’ve only ever heard variations on “who cares?” But I have heard women who DO feel strongly. Since a choice needs to be made anyway, why not take that into account?
Personally, I wish that there was a widely accepted male parallel to lesbian, so that gay could be the inclusive word that includes both lesbians and [unknown word that didn’t happen.] But that boat sailed.
posted by Jorge on
Is there any reason NOT to put the L first besides knee-jerk misogyny or knee-jerk anti-PC feelings?
Sure: consistency. For years GLBT has been the closest thing to a standardized term for what in some quarters is called the queer community. Changing around the English language at whim based on the political dictates of minorities creates confusion in the meaning of the language and confusion in how to use English politely, especially in intergenerational communication.
posted by Debrah on
“Surely it makes sense to have a single agreed on term throughout the media, especially when it is an acronym.”
********************************************
It more than makes sense; however, given the loopy dynamics that exist, then change, then exist, then change again amid the culture wars, it’s a challenge to satisfy each and every emotional tantrum that surfaces.
What’s “appropriate” becomes a moving target…….descending into meaninglessness.
I started to comment on this aspect of the issue earlier, so, consequently, am glad that someone brought it up.
From an observer’s side of the prism, there is most definitely a brand of misogyny inside the gay world……..unmatched.
(No Jimmy, you and a few others don’t need to gratuitously step in to give a nod to all lesbians and say how great they are and that you like women, in general. It’s clear that many of you at IGF have respect for women—gay or straight.)
That does not, however, mitigate the reality that gay male misogyny is in a stinging class all by itself.
Straight men always need women on a certain level.
Even those who are misogynistic and abusive of women, need them—for sex, companionship, to produce their children, etc…….
Gay men don’t need women for anything, really. So it appears that they essentially ignore them.
Observing this rather bizarre (for a hetero female, at least) cult behavior—which is in a class all by itself—would seem to also explain why many gay men exude a kind of lifetime adolescence.
Unlike misogynistic hetero males, who are often abusive and disrespectful of women, gay males don’t seem to even acknowledge the existence of women unless they absolutely have to.
To the extent that gay male culture is so male-centric (and most often not in any truly masculine way), women are given the most disrespectful treatment of all:
Total and complete disregard.
posted by Jimmy on
“To the extent that gay male culture is so male-centric (and most often not in any truly masculine way),…”
We’re all entitled to our own definitions of what is and is not masculine.
All of the rest of it is just your ongoing grudge popping up again. Try smudging your house with good sage!
Mark 4:39
And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
posted by Debrah on
“We’re all entitled to our own definitions of what is and is not masculine.”
*************************************************
We’re all entitled to our opinions and our own definitions but not our own facts.
And Jimmy, you’ll have to find another way to debate this one.
I was candid enough in the past to relay one instance in which I became disappointed in the way a situation was handled.
That in no way can be used (the grudge meme) to gloss over every issue that arises.
And try the Bible verses on someone else. I’m immune to that BS.
posted by Jimmy on
“That in no way can be used (the grudge meme) to gloss over every issue that arises.”
It doesn’t. As a boy, I spent plenty of time in the country, so I always recognize the occasional smell of a dead polecat, or the pig farm to the northwest of my grandpa’s farm, and I will usually remark as to its smell when it interrupts the otherwise verdant aroma of rural Indiana.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
I’m afraid I’ll have to yield to your vast knowledge of pigs and various animals of the wild.
Except to say that you’re certainly entitled to belabor your overused debating tool to your heart’s content.
Funny, though. You never get around to responding in any substantive way.
posted by Jimmy on
“Funny, though. You never get around to responding in any substantive way.”
That’s because when I hear it in your words, it is as white-noise, which by definition, is not substantive, so there is very little substantive to say about it of greater significance than noting a whiff of less than fresh air.
posted by Jimmy on
“And try the Bible verses on someone else. I’m immune to that BS.”
It always seems like having one’s cake and eating it too when one can be, at once, so dismissive of a theological sentiment, and yet be such an avowed pro-Zionist.
posted by Jorge on
Pro-Zionist?
Hmm. While I’m sure they exist in this country, I don’t think most Americans are pro-Zionist so much as anti-Mujahideen.
posted by Jimmy on
“Hmm. While I’m sure they exist in this country, I don’t think most Americans are pro-Zionist so much as anti-Mujahideen.”
What does that have to do with anything?
posted by Throbert McGee on
I would call myself “pro-Zionist,” although I strongly doubt that the God of Moses actually exists, and I definitely don’t think that the Judeo-Christian “Scriptures” are the product of anything other than human intellect. So my support for Zionism has nothing to do with a belief that God gave that little section of land to the Jewish people.
Also, I am solidly from the goyim on both the maternal and paternal sides, going back for at least three generations. So my Zionism has nothing to do with “tribal loyalty.”
I am pro-Zionist because: I believe that Jews, overall, have earned the moral right to stake out a Jewish-majority homeland that respects the rights of non-Jews; and for ample historical reasons, the logical location for that Jewish-majority homeland is more or less approximately where Israel now sits.
(And just to clarify, the Jews did not “earn” their right to Israel by being victims of German Holocausts, Russian pogroms, Spanish expulsions, etc.; they earned it, in my view, by their long history of goodwill towards non-Jews. In modern times, for example, Jewish-majority Israel has provided safe haven for Druze, Bahai, Zoroastrians, and Christians who sought to escape persecution by Muslims.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thou art perfectly entitled to define “masculinity” in thine own idiosyncratic way, Jimmy, but thou hast no entitlement to be called “masculine” by a majority of other men.
And although some gay men are easily duped by black leather jackets and big muscles and camouflage Army pants and see-gars and ‘staches and spittin’ on the ground, the majority of straight men will only praise thee for thy masculinity when thou hast earned and proven it in their eyes.
posted by Jimmy on
“the majority of straight men will only praise thee for thy masculinity when thou hast earned and proven it in their eyes.”
I don’t exert much energy concerning myself with, or seeing myself through, the eyes of straight men. That would be irrational. No entitlement issues here where that is concerned.
I have endured such things that would bring most mortal men to their knees, crying out for the relief that the grave would bring. I know who I am and of what stuff I am made. That all would obtain this knowledge of themselves is my fervent wish.
To identify as “Jew” is still a theological sentiment, rather than a Hebrew, or Arab, or a Semite, which is a geographical sentiment. The religious underpinnings supporting the founding of the State of Israel, where it currently resides, cannot be put aside. Otherwise, what sense does it make to drive Europeans (Ashkenazi) to the middle east?
Plus, there is nothing from either Judaism or Christianity that suggests the Jewish diaspora should be anything but. That particular fact could have something to do with the ripples of strife that so many fall within due to this flying in the face of the will of God, that is, if one were to entertain these notions of God, which so many involved do.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Really? There’s nothing from either Judaism or Christianity suggesting that Jews should be drawn to Jerusalem?
Jimmy, if you were any more dense, you’d collapse into singularity.
posted by Jimmy on
“There’s nothing from either Judaism or Christianity suggesting that Jews should be drawn to Jerusalem?”
I didn’t say that. I said that there is nothing that suggests God wanted the Jews back in the region, rather than dispersed in the way that He dispersed them.
For the parties involved should be more concerned with the will of their god, given all the blood spilled in his name.