The LGBTQ Construct Is Just That

Yes, I’m blogging far less these days. But this article struck me as well-reasoned. Eventually, the limits and cultural contradictions of “LBGTQ” will put asunder this construct.

5 Comments for “The LGBTQ Construct Is Just That”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    I have always considered both “Q”s to be am important way to allow young people to save face as they come to terms with their sexuality.

    What has made things more difficult is the ease with which people gravitate toward the blahcronym. “Q” does not fit easily into the acronym because you never know which term it stands for unless you spell it out, and one of those terms is something a straight person (and I insist on using the term archaically) should not be saying.

    So you have young people calling themselves trans or pansexual when they’re probably something else.

    I think having a traditional answer to the problem of young people not wanting to identify as something they don’t accept yet is important. We’re starting to lose that. If we ever had it in the first place.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Those outside their movement should certainly not feel compelled or shamed into acting as if this alphabet soup of disagreed-upon letters is an objective class of people who must be addressed in a certain way.

    If and when the legal/cultural playing field is leveled (as in, when gays and lesbians have equal employment rights, have equal access to public accommodations, and so on) then there will no longer be a need to create an “objective class” or any other kind of “class”. If and when we get to the point when the cultural norm is that everyone is treated on an equal footing, the argument about who is and who is not in the “objective class” will be moot.

    Perhaps conservatives should work toward that goal, rather than fighting against equal treatment at every turn.

  3. posted by Jorge on

    I couldn’t get much into the article yesterday because I was running late for work.

    Glenn T. Stanton is… the director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family…

    FotF, in my highly cautious view, has maybe a 70-95% rate of making stealth attacks against gay rights whenever I have noticed them discussing gay anything (which I’ll admit is not often at all). I also recognize that Glenn Stanton is not James Dobson and it’s probably insulting for me to even mention the two in the same sentence. So I must test Mr. Stanton’s past views and statements on the last cultural change, the most recent rising (and falling) tide of the transgender movement. This leads me to his blog and its section on transgender issues. “How to Love Your Transgender Neighbor” seems to be a very fair example. There’s nothing stealth about this one: it discusses compromising neither “truth” nor “love”. Neither is there anything I would consider denigrating, though I do not enjoy reading all of it.

    “Given who I am and my work at Focus on the Family, I have met no small number of very angry and not-so-kind gay and lesbian people. They have probably met angry Christians.”

    *Sigh!* Fine, I’ll read your stupid article now.

    “Many Christians will justify developing such relationships with the objective of sharing the Gospel. However, as noted earlier, Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself and it’s worth noting he didn’t add a condition like “…so that you might gain the opportunity to share my Gospel.” This is certainly not because He didn’t think salvation was critically important, but He is telling us true love needs no justification. Seek to be genuine friends for friendship’s sake and the important spiritual conversations will come naturally and in fact, more powerfully.”

    Or, “Honor your father and mother,” without adding the condition “…so that you might gain the opportunity to share my Gospel.” That’s been what I’ve been faced with of late.

    Anyway. I myself also resist the “alphabet soup.” I often write or speak out “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender” And when talking about gay individuals I only talk about gay experiences, transgender experiences for transgender individuals, bisexual and occasionally lesbian experiences for bisexual individuals. The histories have some very important differences (one could get lost for hours in black lesbian history alone) and I consider it denigrating to mix them.

    It seems that may be the point Mr. Stanton is reaching for. However, I think by making a stealth attack against “LGBT” itself, he inadvertently demonstrates why people *should* use the Q.

    “The people lumped into this designation are not always the political or social allies most assume. Many Ls think Gs are too promiscuous. Many Gs are shocked that the Ls get so serious so quickly. Many Ls and Gs believe the Bs should stop pretending and just pick a side already. Many Ls, Gs, and Bs believe the Ts are a curiosity. And most of the other letters never show up at the marches.”

    You either accept that Queer and Questioning identify an important aspect of individual struggle, or you do not. You should not make this decision based on the petty ideological and political disagreements the “Ls” and the “Gs” have with each other or their lessers. If you do, and you are speaking to or about an audience that is likely to include Q/Q people (primarily minors), then I think you should add some version of the question mark.

    The way my city’s government has gotten around it has been simply to use the categories of gender identity and sexual orientation and say “It could mean anything.” Which certainly solves the problem from a legal point of view.

    • posted by Jorge on

      There’s nothing stealth about this one…

      That came out funny in my editing.

      I was originally writing that FotF almost always makes either stealth or direct attacks against gay rights.

      So what I’m trying to say is that Mr. Stanton is making a direct attack.

  4. posted by David Bauler on

    Gee wiz, Golly Gee! I am sure glad that the Federalists and Focus on the Family exist to help us poor, poor gay folk from being lead astray. Say, where do these two groups stand on equality?

Comments are closed.