My gratitude for our country discussing LGBT rights abroad wasn’t overshadowed by the headlines only mentioning “gay rights”, but it did force me to stop and think.
LGBT means Lesbian (society lumps them in “gay rights” so okay), Gay (right on target, good job!), Bisexual (in the general family if you squint) and Transgender (nothing to do with sexual orientation or being gay at all). So really, does that title of “gay rights” include and represent everyone mentioned in the article? Not a chance.
The article could have easily said LGBT rights, right? And then the title of the article would have been accurate, and truly informative. Was LGBT not sexy enough? Is “gay rights” more digestible than “LGBT rights”? Or was it that the people who were in charge of this article simply thought they had covered all the bases lumping “it all” under one general, understandable term?
This article struck a chord with me, like a toddler recklessly plucking at an expensive guitar. Just like when I attend one of my support groups and they mention our “gay sons and daughters” never stopping to consider that I’m sitting right there in the front row and they’ve actually just excluded me. When I’ve mentioned it before I’m met with a general and heavy sigh, like my request for inclusion is just me standing on a soapbox asking to further “my cause”. And nothing could be farther from the truth, and yet it’s not.
If my own local group leader can’t see that trans kids are not under the umbrella of “gay” how do I expect mainstream media to get it right?
You are absolutely right! The four letters have been grouped together, but are so often reduced to “gay.” As someone who identifies as Queer, I find the same issue. There are many of us, and when the community is reduced to “gay” it reduces many members to a silent member.
There is also the need for us to be allies for one another. So, I promise to make sure that I will speak up and make sure that all are included
Thank you Jane! I’m all for support & inclusion. Hopefully as we use our voices to represent ourselves , and in my case my child, we can raise understanding and awareness. Small steps, right? Best, Jen
Small steps!
I don’t like LGBT. Here’s why. By assuming all transgenders are gay, this implies that transgender women are not really women but really gay men. It undermines everything a trans woman works so hard to achieve.
I got the same impression but understood it really wasn’t meant to be all-inclusive in word only, and really focusing on LG rights (bisexual come along when they’re gay or lesbian). Transgender people are the tag-alongs who’ll get added in the fine print if it doesn’t hurt diplomatic relations and not worth complaints if a few transpeople are victims.
I fully expect Secretary of State Clinton to quietly speak over transgender rights as inclusive under the LG umbrella if a country, eg. Malawi, changes their laws. I think she considers transgender people gay, partly because it’s not about their identity but their partners being seen as gay or lesbian. It’s still wrong but the reality is lost in the political and diplomatic rhetoric.
From what I understand, it’s all about SEO. “Gay” gets way more hits than “LGBT” any day. Which is problematic in its own right.
Great post, and equally great comments. I wonder how we can raise the visibility of trans and queer people while, as Jane wisely said, still being allies for one another. It’s going to take a lot of work, and “small steps” are probably the best place to start.