“LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ: Gay Rights Movement or Alphabet Soup?” — by Eric Marcus
December 11, 2007
December 10, 2008
Gay rights pioneer Frank Kameny branded the gay rights movement before most out gay people were born. He came up with the slogan “Gay is Good!” and carefully considered the marketing techniques that would work best in 1960’s America to challenge the status quo.
Have a look at the photograph below from one of the 1965 gay rights protests in front of the White House (that’s Frank Kameny in the middle). It was no accident that the men wore suits and ties and the women wore skirts and blouses. And the slogans were all carefully considered before the posters were drawn. Frank took the temperature of the times and responded with a precision that one would expect of the scientist he was.

So what happened on the way to the 21st century? In terms of our “brand,” we’ve progressed from “Gay is Good” to the GLBTQ rights movement. And I can’t say that I think our new brand is a good thing for any of us under the GLBTQ umbrella.
I was reminded of what I don’t like about our cumbersome moniker when I attended a GLBT (or was that LGBT?) youth conference last week in Westchester sponsored by GLSEN and PFLAG, among others. More than 600 people attended, including middle and high school students, parents, social workers, educators, and school counselors. (I was there to sell copies of my newly released book for teens, What If Someone I Know Is Gay?)
One of the young people I met had led a workshop earlier in the day called “LGBT 101.” I asked him what he talked about in his presentation and he said that he explained things like “what LGBT means.” That’s a good start. But you have to wonder if we’ve got a problem if we have to introduce ourselves and our cause by explaining that this mouthful of initials stands for the various subgroups within our movement.
We’re now so far along in the process of balkanized inclusion that we’ve been left without a simple way to explain who we are and what we’re fighting for. And it’s left some of us who don’t embrace the tongue-twisting LGBTQ label scratching our heads when asked why we aren’t more inclusive. That’s what’s happened to me on a couple of occasions in recent months because my of book’s title. (I don’t think What If Someone I Know is LGBTQ? would have had quite the same impact and, besides, it would have been false advertising because my book’s focus is on what I know best, which is same-gender sexual orientation).
I don’t have any suggestions or answers. I just have questions. Like, why do we have to enumerate every subgroup within our social/political movement? That may make some of us feel good about being inclusive in a very visible way, but what do we gain or lose as a movement by slicing and dicing ourselves into ever more categories? Why do some people say LGBT and others GLBT? (Am I risking my life by pointing out that if we were to consider the alphabet that “G” comes before “L”? And “B” comes before “G”? Although if we take into account population totals and list ourselves in descending order in terms of overall numbers, then “G”—assuming for argument’s sake that “G” stands for “gay male”—should come first because there are twice as many gay men as lesbians. Then again, there are probably more bisexuals—male and female combined—than gay men or lesbians, so maybe we should be the BGLTQ movement).
So I’m curious to hear what you think. Am I the only malcontent out on this limb? Am I just an old guy who can’t adjust to the LGBTQ new world order? If the alphabet is here to stay, what letter of the alphabet will we be adding next? And can anyone come up with a slogan for our current political and social movement that’s as straightforward, alliterative, and powerful as “Gay is Good!”?
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized. .
8 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed



1.
tom kane | December 13, 2007 at 12:14 am
If we need to rearrange this, BGLT seems to alphabetically be fair to all. But, though i love the Queer part, it seems unnecessary with all that proceeds it. BGLT spells out queer clearly to all. Except perhaps to the B’s—they possibly see themselves as either more enlightened or just lucky. Part of me would love to get rid of it all and just be a guy capable & hoping for love, but then I consider how I do love our culture and would despise losing that to assimilation. What would happen to “camp” if we integrate fully into the status quo?
2.
Keith Elston | January 2, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I am in complete agreement with you, Mr. Marcus. I have squirmed many times over the past decade or so as this alphabetical mush has grown ever longer and more complicated. (I even saw a recent reference on a gay youth web site to LGBTQQA — I’m assuming that the QQA part stands for Queer, Questioning and Allies, but I may be mistaken…) Pretty soon this obsession with assigning a letter to each of us will extend the name to an infinite amount of letters, for example, if you just add your initials and mine, we could have the LGBTQQAEMKE. Imagine how much fun it would be to sit your parents down and announce, Mom and Dad, I’m LGBTQQANGLTFHRCACLUMOUSE!
3.
Tina | February 22, 2008 at 1:51 am
I don’t have the answers either, but I found your blog while googling “gay rights movement, if we don’t who will.” While we’ve added many letters to the soup, it definitely seems to have lost some of its potency. I coordinate grassroots advocacy efforts for Marriage Equality USA and I often wonder where all of our LGBTQIA… are hiding out! I mean, it is great that we have some rights, but why have so many become so comfortable with second-class citizenship. Maybe the gay movement has fizzled because of this lack of an understood identity. I mean if we can’t identify who we are, how will we ever identify what we are fighting for? I’m all for inclusion, but maybe we need one term for anyone under the rainbow.
4.
Casey | March 9, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Tina, I absolutely agree. I often think of my dearly departed friend, Quentin Crisp who, upon thinking about the whole GLBT moniker issue, would say this:
“I am a gay male, thus to me it is GLBT. However, when push comes to shove, we are all Queer so, can’t we simply all be “Q”?” He was such a precious being…
5.
Shane | June 25, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I work in diversity issues at my office and this is one subject that continues to chafe my ass. I think T is enough (and I have to admit I sometimes wonder why the G, L, and B even belong with the T) and I’d like to beat whoever started saying LG instead of GL. I think the acronym was constructed somewhat based on numbers, lots of gay men, lots of lesbians but not as many as gay men, some bisexuals, and some transgender but not as many as bisexuals. That makes sense, right?
)
Anyway, if people continue to add letters and want to switch them all around because the Ls have some sort of complex over the Gs, then we are losing sight of what we really have to fight for – and then we lose completely.
6.
Lauren | March 17, 2009 at 11:34 am
It AMAZES me how bigotry shows itself among gay and lesbian people the minute transgender people are brought up.
First off, in nearly every case, TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ARE, OR HAVE BEEN LESBIAN OR GAY at some point in their lives. Think about it! They’ve either been gay/lesbian before transitioning, or after, in nearly every case. So, why is it so many of you want to exclude them from the same support you offer those who are easily defined as gay or lesbian? Hmmm, could it be the same reason hetero-society treats them like jokes and sexual-fetish items? Because they more obviously violate exactly the same taboo YOU violate — you don’t act like your gender is “supposed to” (i.e. you’re supposed to love someone of the opposite sex), but YOU don’t have to wear it on your face. And because they do, it embarrasses the bigoted among you who want to feel “normal”. IT’S ALL ABOUT GENDER NORMS, and as I said, T-people are almost always, also G or L for much of their life. The only reason they are so dismissed by the gay and lesbian community is bigotry, pure ugly and simple as that!
7.
Stephen | March 18, 2009 at 8:57 am
Lauren, I’d like to say that as a gay male, I have looked at the transgender issue and thought to myself some of the same things. Its really hard to see how a movement of sexual equality and freedom could let “T-people” go by the wayside on so many things. I think though the problem stems from a lack of understanding… most of us love being the gender we are. Im a man that loves men, or Im a woman that loves women, we didnt have that need or feeling to change our sex to best suit our desires, and I think the idea of it makes some people uncomfortable. Untill we all realize that this movement isnt just to ensure that we have the rights as the next, but also to ensure that our brothers and sisters have the same rights as us, we will not fully come to a satisfactory place.
8.
Carolyn Marie | March 25, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I have been, in my own little right, a local “gay rights” leader. And the fight I’ve had to fight the most is not non-discrimination in laws and policies but actual non-discrminiation inside the movement. I have been told mutliple times by gays and lesbians that I need to *choose* to either be lesbian or straight. There is this assumption that because I’m in leadership in the movement, I must be lesbian. The mention of old boyfriends make many think it’s all in the past. I’d hate to think the work I’ve done and will continue to do will be negated when I start dating a man.
The only people I ever see bring up the question of the “alphabet soup” are gays and lesbians. I often see this along with a belittlement of bisexuals and the argument that gender identity isn’t a winable battle right now and is an education issue (therefore the gay rights movement needs to focus on sexual orientation rights; we’ll get to transgendered eventually. I have yet to see that happen). Or in an attempt to show gays and lesbians really are thinking about transgender rights, they hide gender identity protections inside the definition of sexual orientation in laws. While successful, it’s very quite belittling.
I understand the need for a concise word or phrase, but either bundling bisexuals and transgendered people up under the mighty flag of gay just doesn’t do it. And it isn’t my own desire to be recognized for myself; gays and lesbians have an ownership over gay that doesn’t allow us into it. The rainbow flag of unity leaves me out because gays and lesbians want it.
I hate the gay rights movement. I hate gay marriage. I hate gay pride. I hate all the things that try to use “gay” as all inclusive because people let that mentality leave out others. And that’s not my fault. It’s not straight people’s fault. It’s your fault. If you can’t bother to explain it, of course they won’t understand.
http://gaykansas.blogspot.com/2008/11/mad-voter-exclusive.html