{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "I could probably hit up ye olde googleheim for this but I wonder how they chose the order for LGBTQIA like \u2026 what type of...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/146081924848/", "html": "

agaywithwords:

\n
\n

h0odrich:

\n
\n

fratbru:

\n
\n

h0odrich:

\n
\n

I could probably hit up ye olde googleheim for this but I wonder how they chose the order for LGBTQIA like \u2026 what type of alphabet

\n
\n

have you seen the white gays reorganize it to have the G first lmao

\n
\n

no but not like it would change anything anyway that\u2019s basically how it is

\n
\n

This is something I know a lot\u00a0about, so pardon me for this\u2026

\n

Prior to the Stonewall Riots, even activist groups tended to default toward some variation of the word\u00a0\u201chomosexual\u201d in their titles. Until the slang term\u00a0\u201cgay\u201d began to catch on in the 60s.

\n

So in the 70s, it was simply the\u00a0\u201cgay liberation movement\u201d - at a time \u201cgay\u201d (sort of) functioned as a catchall for all sexual and gender minorities. It was thought of as an umbrella term, even if it wasn\u2019t.\u00a0

\n

As time passed, because lesbians felt that they were (and they actually were) excluded in many cases from the movement, \u201cgay and lesbian\u201d became commonplace throughout the 80s and into the 90s.\u00a0

\n

\u201cGay and lesbian\u201d is still on the founding documents of many organizations that sprang up in the post-AIDS-crisis era of Human Rights Campaign-style activism that was primarily concerned with visibility politics and increasingly focused on the concerns of white, middle-to-upper class assimilationist queers (the\u00a0\u201cwe\u2019re your doctor, your lawyer, your neighbor, your cousin, and we\u2019re just like you\u201d\u00a0crowd). Examples:\u00a0

\n

But because of this assimilationist trend in the political movement and the style of activism with the most visibility, people who felt excluded began pushing back. Some advocated for better representation of bisexual and transgender people, hence GLBT began to get added to mission statements. Some, particularly nonwhite communities, rejected the terms altogether, proliferating terms like\u00a0\u201cMen who have sex with men\u201d/MSM, and\u00a0\u201csame gender loving\u201d/SGL or even the problematic \u201cDown Low\u201d (DL) into certain activist spaces. As GLBT became common in the late 90s, more groups started pushing for inclusion: Intersex (I), Asexuals (A), Questioning (Q), Queer (Q), Two Spirit (TS), etc.\u00a0

\n

Meanwhile, some folks thought we should avoid the alphabet soup altogether and run with Queer. An umbrella term that would also encompass things like polyamory, fetishism/kink, etc., without excluding anyone.

\n

Groups coming into play around this time tried to avoid wading into the debate altogether, thus we have organizations like\u00a0\u201cEqual Rights Nevada\u201d \u201cEquality Utah\u201d\u00a0\u201cEmpire State Pride Agenda\u201d \u201cMassEquality\u201d \u201cOut & Equal\u201d and\u00a0\u201cPride at Work.\u201d

\n

It was in the early 2000s that feminist and lesbian leaders convinced people to switch from GLBT to LGBT. Queer never quite caught on for activist circles and organizations, in part because it was too broad, and sometimes you need a little more specificity in your mission statement\u2026 otherwise you run the risk of getting hijacked by cisgender, straight allies intent on pushing an oppression narrative about how they\u2019re discriminated against for liking to get spanked. But, probably more importantly, a lot of people of an aging generation had extremely bad connotations around the word and weren\u2019t interested in reclaiming it. Anyone over the current age of 45 or so probably grew up being bullied under the word queer. Queer was too controversial for risk-averse organizations depending on the fundraising support of older gay men and women.\u00a0

\n

So by the time I was in college (late 90s), GLB or GLBT was the default for most.

\n

I remember the debate around changing GLBT to LGBT (or even TBLG) very well. I worked in the queer press at the time (2000-2005). It made a lot of people very mad. It still makes some people mad. But the idea was to emphasize that gay men were not primary. It was a feminist thing. Sadly, the argument for TBLG (which argued that we name them in order of most oppressed and/or least visible) never really caught on beyond a few academics and some hardcore activists.\u00a0

\n

We made the editorial decision in 2001 to officially switch to LGBT unless quoting someone or as part of a proper name (e.g. the title of an organization). So did many other papers. GLAAD pushed this standard into the mainstream press. It caught on.

\n

Most groups/editorial boards/journalists/activists put their foot down around the lengthy alphabet soup stopping at 4 - although Q, I and A are sometimes added depending on the group. Whether A stands for asexual or ally and whether Q stands for queer or questioning all depends on the group in question.

\n

As far as I can tell, LGBT is the settled default. I\u2019m not aware of any concentrated political push to move on and change it now, at least not like there was in the late 90s and early 2000s. Although it could happen. I would welcome it. Language, and how we frame our movement, must evolve.

\n

Sorry, I know I wasn\u2019t asked, but I wanted to throw some history out there.\u00a0

\n
"}