Gay DUers -- what do you think of the "GLBT" banner?

While it seems plainly intuitive that Gays and Lesbians would be under a common banner, and slightly less so to include Bisexuals as well -- something about including Transexuals in the same interest group seems to me to be a stretch.

For the dogmatic crowd, let me make sure I clarify that I have ZERO against Transexuals or anybody else.

If you say that Transexuals have non-traditional sexuality in common with GLBs, then the question becomes "why not include a whole lot of other groups?".

Why is it that "GLBT" is considered a compact and rounded interest group? What do you think about it?

That is what binds us together.

But sometimes I have to laugh when people fall all over themselves to make sure they are 1000000% inclusive.

Several years ago in San Francisco, the Pride committee had it's collective tits/balls in ringer about what to call the festable.

The battle went on and on and on .... then finally they came up with this gem:

The San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bi-Sexual Transgendered and Questioning Youth Pride Festable

You can't even fit that on a fucking banner!!

Of course there was a HEATED battle over the order in which "lesbian" and "gay" were placed.

This is one of the reason why got less and less involved in SF gay politics.

Oh, sorry I meant to say San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bi-Sexual Transgendered and Questioning Youth politics.

;)

:)

An alternative is often considered secondary IMHO.

will want to marry their dogs.

What upsets me more is when people call it a "sexual preference," which IMHO suggests a choice.

So I often think feminists should be included as well.

which -- I assume you'd agree with me -- seems contradictory, but the problem with having such inclusive groups is that it's hard to work out a very specific platform. Analogously to this bullshit 2-party system we have, in which everyone is forced to vote with their noses pinched. Well except for the fundies, lately.

and very attached to the idea of strict gender roles. They just don't see that as being a problem

So many straight people are put off by "queer" but I love that word-it's so inclusive and disarming.

I think a lot of "LGBT" came from our history where we had trouble getting some in the male "gay" community to even say "lesbian" and we had a lot of lesbian separatists who felt that our issues were not the same as the men's. I think people who recognize our power in finding similarities, at least as far as civil rights go, want to make sure we don't offend anyone. And while I think some folks are way too sensitive about the terms of inclusion, quite honestly, I am not gay; I am a lesbian.

I'm curious, though, what other "whole lot of other groups" do you think are closer to us than trangendererd people

I didn't say that a "whole lot of other groups" were closer to Lesbians or Gays than the transgendered people were -- I just said that any sort of a set of parameters that I can think of which would include Gays, Lesbians, Bis, and Transgendered people, would include other groups as well -- if that set is "alternative sexuality" then, for example, polyamorous people should be included as well. The point of my question is basically to figure out the set of parameters that includes Gays, Lesbians, Bis, and Transgendered people, and excludes everyone else; the very fact that we're defining "LGBT" issues suggests to me that such a set of parameters exists. I just can't figure out what it is.

I just thought you raised an interesting point and wondered what your perspective was on people's similarities.

I think that people who are choosing non-monogamy, for example, are already in one of the subgroups (SLGBT) or are somewhere on the scale.

What does the 'S' stand for in SLGBT?

Damn, these acronyms are getting huge.

-- A proud member of the QWERTYUIOPASDFGHJKLZXCVBNM community.

I don't know how old you are .. but I HATE the word "queer".

I was living in SF at the time when "Queer Nation" started to become a major force. At first I didn't mind it that much, but it became such an issue to use the word "queer".

I went on a blind date with this guy and he went on and on about "queer" this and "queer" that. He was very active in QN (I was too), by the end of this blind date, I was begging for it to be a DEAF one as well! :silly:

I just think that LGBT is so hard to keep saying, especially when giving an address or talking to civic groups about our issues. I get all paranoid that I'm going to forget someone and, in turn, offend someone by omission. To me, it's more of a questions of semantics.

My pet peeve is when people say "gay" as if that includes all of us.

It's my pet peeve when it's framed like that in the public debate---I usually don't even notice when we're talking informally or among friends (as we are now). And I generally don't believe that people do it to be non-inclusive (is that a word?)on purpose. I seem to be sounding very critical and PC and, honestly, nothing could be farther fromt the truth.

I'm the same way. Debating bigotry of word origins, and the responsibility of countering that bigotry in public life is one thing; walking around with a stick up your ass and being a verbal cop is another.

:evilgrin:

Some issues that are put under the GLBT umbrella only apply to either the G, L, B or T. I think it's just another way to round everybody "different" into a single group.

I'm Gay. I'm not a Lesbian, I'm not a Bisexual and I'm not Transgendered. I'm gay.

So just call me Gay!

:)

transgression of 'traditional' gender roles?

In that sense, I certainly think TG are in the same boat as GLB.

It seems to me that the gays or lesbians most likely to be harrassed are those who are perceived as not conforming to normative gender. And the most extreme of non-conforming gender is TG.

...because it includes gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, two-spirit, transgender, pansexual, gender-queer, and a whole range of sexual and gender identities without having to name each one and revise the community "banner" every time a group feels left out.

I understand that "queer" still offends a lot of people, so it doesn't really work. I know the ED of a prominent LGBT organization was interested in replacing the LGBT in the org's title with queer, but decided against it because he didn't want to alienate a lot of older people for whom the word hasn't changed its connotation.

I think people of transgender experience definitely are part of, and should be part of community and our activism. Although sexual identity and gender identity are different issues, as I've said many times, it's the idea of gender betrayal that's at the root of homophobia.

(Also, it's sad that people of transgender experience had so much to do with stonewall and starting the gay rights movement, and then have been left behind by it.)

Non heterosexuals--?
Or The not-hets?
or sexual disconformists?

Personally, I don't care that the "T" is there. However, I see transsexualism as a gender issue. It is not a sexual orientation. There are, of course, transsexuals who are GLB and that is fine, but over all it is more of gender issue than anything.

which is pretty much what peopel think of gays/lesbians anyway

:cry:

I don't know what to call y'all anymore.

So how about if I call you Ronny and liberal veteran, etc?

I'm being tongue in cheek but this has been a fascinating thread, as I have wondered, too, what "members of the homosexual community" think of the LGBT/GLBT "label."

Well from my experience "GLBT" is a crock of shit because 90% of the time it's not really meant. Us Bs (and the Ts) are afterthoughts if we're included at all. So while one part of me agrees with the need for it and thus I use it, part of me (the cynical, hurt way too many times by "the family" part of me) sees it as an eyerolling attempt to throw us a bone. As if to say, "Okay, here's a crumb, we put you in our acronym, can you bitches stop whining now?" I know that's completely unfair but as a bi person I have a lot of issues with the so-called community. Which is why I usually avoid it (except on DU, you guys are alright!). I just can't help feeling bitter. Sometimes I feel like a bisexual separatist but then I realize there's a whole lot of bis that get on my damn nerves, and then I think I don't belong anywhere at all.

I prefer queer because I think it's a revolutionary sort of word and I like the idea of reclaiming its power...I also feel like it includes me and is a very Big word. Then again I am also pretty young and have never been confronted with the negative connotations of the word. I really think it's a generational thing but I respect older people's feelings about the word.

Very well said. I feel that way a lot too.

I feel like there is no place for me
I am bi I like people, and I don't care what sex organs they have
I am transgender,an androgyous trangender on the male appearing side.Don'tr want boobs but have no desire for a penis either.
I am a "furry" I identify myself as feline spirit,and a feline person( currently getting tiger tats to cover my body..)
And..I am asexual,I just don't get turned on by porn,by sex in of itself..,I prefer closeness,companionship,freindship affection,sex by itself in fact to me is boring.
Naked bodies are naked bodies I have a so what? addituide twords looking at people.Bodies arent importand I wanna know who you are..
I fall in love with a whole person,sex is just an after thought If I think of it at all.
There is no category for a queer kitty like me.

Am also bi, and grow weary of defending my place at the "GLBT" table. It's not so much that people say anything to me directly (although this has happened) as much as it is this subtle assumption that since I am not "fully homo," I'm not really on par with the concerns/discrimination/etc. Gay men have unique concerns...lesbians have unique concerns...bisexuals have unique concerns... transgendered/transexuals have unique concerns, BUT being a gender/sexual minority does really band us together under the GLBT banner.

The 'phobes don't split hairs. They're coming for all of us.

Why some folk in the community can't seem to understand that is mindboggling to me.

I'm so irritated because I lost my whole post here before by misclicking!

Hey Everyone I'm new to DU!

Okay. First of all. The "T" in GLBT stands for both Transgendered and Transsexual as far as I know.

A transsexual person is one who has sex reassignment surgery to become the 'opposite' sex. Many (but by no means all) of these people are in the 'born in the wrong body' camp. That means that if they are born female and like females they do not consider themselves a lesbian. They consider themselves "a heterosexual man with a clinical physical disorder." Of course there are MANY transspeople who are not heterosexual (anotherwords, a transman who likes birthmen or other transmen. Or a lesbian transwoman.)

A transgendered person is one whose gender expression is so radically different from the gender role expected by their biological sex that they are discriminated against based on their visual difference, no matter who they have sex with.

The crux of the issue here is what is our political position. Are we about fighting discrimination against those with 'same-sex orientation'? Or are we about fighting discrimination against those who are visually "gender atypical".

Here's how it gets confusing: I am a femme dyke (for lack of a better word). I look like most hetero women, only maybe a little tougher and trampier. I will never be beaten and raped for being 'gender unrecognizable'. I only date transgendered butch dykes. Anotherwords, their passport says FEMALE but most people call them 'sir' or 'young man'. My partner faces open hostility almost daily, even in NYC because he (he prefers the pronoun he) is masculine. If he were involved with a man nothing would change.

The big issue here is framing the debate. I think some gays and lesbians, who have defined their identity for years as 'same-sex oriented' feel intimidated by these people who are talking about 'trans' people and 'more than one gender' and even 'more than one biological sex.' (see Ann Fausto Sterling's book "Sexing the Body" for an explanation on how intersexed people fit into this scheme.)

This stuff is getting really complicated and necessarily so (because we are fighting for sexual FREEDOM and the FREEDOM to LOVE WHOEVER, not a perfect taxonomy and grand logical sexual order). But we need to come up with a word that encompasses all of us who actively do not fit into the compulsory heterosexist agenda. (And, personally, I think that includes gender atypical heteros).

I think 'queer' is the wrong word, personally. In fact, if I hear 'queering' the this or that one more time I'm gonna freak. When Britney and Madonna kissed nothing was 'queered'!!!!

More and more I don't like 'queer' because I don't think I'm the GLBTers are the strange ones. I think strict allegiance to a biologically determined pink-and-blue order is very very queer indeed.

We need a new word that includes everyone.

Thanks for letting me rant!!!!!!!

Hi there! :hi:

:hi:

...of gender varient people. It includes people who identify as crossdressers, transvestites, drag kings, drag queens, transexuals, ftms, mtfs, gender-queers, etc.

Other than that, really great post. I agree about queer. I understand why people like it, because there's a need. But it just doesn't work.

Yeah, I wasn't going to go on about all the different ways one can be TG. So many ways. Some folks would include all gays and lesbians as transgendered because the simple fact of being gay or lesbian defies proscribed gender roles.

My main point is that one is defined by self-expression and the other is by physical surgical change. And because of the nature of the post I was describing those terms only in the most rudimentary terms.

I mean, come on, even those definitions are so blurry. Twenty years ago the term in the US was 'transgenderists' for anyone having a sex change and 'cross dresser' for other tg folks. When my boi went to Ireland, he visited an SRS clinic where they stated in their pamphlet "After surgery, the patient is no longer a 'transsexual' she is a fully complete woman in every way." (paraphrase) But their point was that you're only 'trans' before surgery: surgery solves all identity problems. So our specific taxonomies don't hold up historically or cross-culturally and that's what's so difficult about forming a language.

I think so many of us just feel outside language all together.

We really do need an umbrella term. Maybe we should co-opt their language. Compulsory Heterosexuals -vs- Normal People. Normal people meaning those who strive for sexual and social self-realization within a supportive community of other calm, rational, loving people who each have a variety of like/dislikes, bodies, and gender expressions. (current allies who are considered to be hetero are of course welcome to join the Normal People Brigade.)

:hi:

I can live with GLBT. It's not perfect but it is a convenient shorthand that I think most of us understand. It is not written in stone and these descriptive terms come and go with the changing seasons. The word is not the thing, there are always going to be some rough edges. I identify as a gay man in terms of sexual orientation, and, to a degree, culture. I'm sure there are folks more or less gay than me. I am willing to identify people as they wish to be identified or not. All of us GLBT folks are members of sexual and cultural minorities, and history shows us that when minorities organize they often spend fruitless effort trying to decide who they are. Effort that could be better spent in working for their ends. We are a big tent. We contain multitudes, as Walt Whitman might have said.

Everyone hates us and wants to tell us we're going to HELL for being who we are.

At least here in California among the community. I see "GLBT" in more east coast venues. I have had the argument a few times. The homosexual issue is distinct from the gender issues I think. The argument, "we must include transgered because they have no place else to go" doesn't ring true to me. There are other, better arguments for this however. I see them as allied, closely-linked movements.