"LGBT Soup for a reason" - Lesbilicious

[Guest member25959]

Here's an article from Lesibilicious, taking a critical look at an earlier article from GCN (Gay Community News)

Here's the brief overview...

March 28th 2013

Yesterday an article was published by GCN (Gay Community News), a free magazine for the Irish LGBT community. Or so I thought. Entitled LGBT Soup, the article sparked uproar with its biphobic, transphobic and asexphobic slant. Written by Ciara McGratten, the Deputy Editor of the magazine, many saw this piece as the voice of GCN, and turned away in astonishment.

McGrattan begins her article with a brief history of the terms gay and lesbian – an interesting read. But then goes on to state her distaste at the words bisexual, transgender and asexual, amongst others, from being “tacked on” to the LGBT community.

GCN's article takes a shot at asexuality, which Lesbilicious calls out here:

Asexuality is absurd too

“Seriously now. Asexual? Asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction to anyone – same-sex, opposite-sex, whatever. When exactly did LGBT become the dumping ground for every non-heterosexual orientation?”

A “dumping ground”. How inclusive of you. Asexuality is a term often misunderstood, and is paired with the LGBT community so as to allow a space for understanding. Not long ago I didn’t ever get asexuality – this was until an asexual banner joined us in the Pride Parade. The people marching explained their thoughts, marginalization, and joy at being able to join such a huge celebration of expression. Why should they be left out to make a shorter name?

The original GCN article was written by Ciara McGratten, the following Lesbilicious article by Sophie Cairns

[Vyanni Krace]

Jesus Christ is that offensive or what. What an absolute twat. Dear God, I don't even-ugh. Just no.

[iff]

this is the editors response to the articles http://gcn.ie/The_Editor_Responds

cue the general standard response - controversial opinion is personal opinion, diverse opinion, right to say it, freedom of speech, opening up gcn to more opinion pieces and other meaningless things.

other publications when they do opinion pieces, the writers who write them are not editors of the publication. this is that theres a lack of connectness between the writer and the publication. the real problem is this is the deputy editor writing so in that way, it gives some credence that this is the view of the magazine and not just some persons opinion. that's the biggest flaw in the editors response.

as for myself, i always prefer the first article to look at http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/LGBT_Soup and it's really an awful piece of writing.

even look at the contact page, you send general queries to deputy email address.

also the youtube video on the lesbilicious article is very good. :)

[sinisterporpoise]

Your link does not seem to be working. It's a shame, too. I've been trying to track down the original article for days.

[Guest member25959]

Your link does not seem to be working. It's a shame, too. I've been trying to track down the original article for days.

No copies of the original article at all?

LGBT Soup

There are so many letters being added to LGBT, it's getting way out of hand. Lets get back to basics, says Ciara Mc Grattan.

Whos up for a little light etymology?

In the beginning, there was the word gay, a late 14th century term meaning: full of joy, merry: light-hearted, carefree, deriving from the French word gai, originally thought to be Germanic in origin.

Through the centuries the meaning of gay changed, gradually inflating the joy angle to connote a hedonistic, uninhibited lifestyle full of frivolous fun, carnality and gluttonous desires.

By the mid-20th century the word began appearing as a synonym for homosexuality and, after briefly being hijacked Enid Blyton as the perfect noun to describe a spiffing day picnicking in Cornwall, was adopted by pre-Stonewall friends of Dorothy.

And so the gay community, in name at least, began.

In time, the homosexual ladies felt unrepresented by gay and so the word lesbian (first coined in 1925) was included to refer to all those women suffering from the sexy, but burdensome, pain of same-sex attraction.

So, the gay community became the gay and lesbian (GL) community. Then in the 80s, perhaps because L and G were feeling lonesome, bisexual (B) was added. GLB became the initials of choice for political correct citizens in describing the gay community.

By the 1990s T (for transgender) was tacked on despite the obvious difference between sexual orientation and gender identity and the LGBT initials now familiar to all was born.

By including an identity not specifically referring to same-sex attraction (T), the flood gates were opened. Now, before you run off to compose a face-meltingly indignant email to the editor about the unseemly transphobia of GCN, consider the fact that gay and trans are not synonyms. Gay refers to same-sex attraction only, transgender to the state of ones gender identity.

Also consider that open dialogues on this particular subject LGBT nomenclature are few and far between. Why? Because no one wants to be accused of being a bigot. For the record, I support the trans community in their quest for equality. But as big a fan as I am of sensitivity to marginalised individuals, I am more concerned with accuracy of language.

The same spirit of inclusiveness that created the LGBT initials now threatens to smother it with superfluous letters. But where does it stop? Already in liberal arts colleges in the US LGBT has become LGBTQIA: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual/allies.

Seriously now. Asexual? Asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction to anyone same-sex, opposite-sex, whatever. When exactly did LGBT become the dumping ground for every non-heterosexual orientation?

Now, a truly staggering array of letters have latched on to the LGBT initials. Other additional variations to the LGBT soup recipe include: pansexual, omnisexual, trisexual, agender, bi-gender, third gender, polyamorous, and on and on. Some groups have taken to just using LGBT+ to connote the endless additions. While I applaud their pragmatism, it still seems to be avoiding the real issue: since LGBTetc has come to mean everything that isnt exclusive heterosexual sexuality and now contains almost as many initials as are in the alphabet, isnt it time to reassess the situation?

Even the current LGBT mouthful is unnecessarily long, when gay suffices for all same-sex attractions. This doesnt cover bisexuals, you might argue. It doesnt need to: bisexual is only a description of what someone is doing when theyre not same-sexing it up. The T doesnt need to be there either, as gender identity and sexuality are two different things. While, its obvious that the trans and gay communities fight the same kinds of fights, and as such make logical allies, trans individuals, are not part of the gay community by virtue of their non-traditional gender orientations (except the ones in same-sex relationships, naturally).

So, I propose its time to simplify and perhaps employ a modicum of moderation to the unwieldy beast of LGBTLMFAO initials. Do you sleep with people of the same sex? Welcome to Gay Club. In a relationship with someone of the same-sex? Welcome to Gay Club. Trans and exclusively attracted to people of your gender? Welcome to Gay Club. Attracted to both sexes? Good for you, but unless youre with someone of the same-sex, you arent part of Gay Club.

So, for the purposes of accuracy and economy of expression, LGBTetc should be replaced with gay. Just gay. Thats all. Simple. Elegant. Accurate.

What do GCNs readers think? Would this renaming represent regression or revolution for our community? Let me know your thoughts on Twitter @mc_ranter using the hashtag #LGBTsoup

*All opinions expressed are that of Ciara McGrattan and do not reflect the opinions of GCN*

[sinisterporpoise]

Gah, dear Moderators --

I accidentally reported the above post. Do not warn the poster above me.

I simply need a link to the original for Examiner.com and/or Asexual News.

[MadlyOlivia]

also the editors cant spell apologize

[iff]

also the editors cant spell apologize

if you mean "apologise", this is the correct form in English (UK and Ireland) rather then the use of Z and this is throughtout English (UK & Ireland) as opposed to "apologize" in English (US).

Gah, dear Moderators --

I accidentally reported the above post. Do not warn the poster above me.

I simply need a link to the original for Examiner.com and/or Asexual News.

i tried the link in my post and it still comes up for me. it takes a while and it's not in html form but it comes up in text after a bit.

[Ace Amoeba]

Here is a link to the original article.

http://72.30.186.176/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=everything+that+isn%E2%80%99t+exclusive+heterosexual+sexuality&type=W3i_DS%2C157%2C0_0%2CSearch%2C20130313%2C19857%2C0%2C65%2C0&fr=w3i&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=everything+that+isn%E2%80%99t+exclusive+heterosexual+sexuality&d=4831959419519825&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=BQN9a3lylAyVUg4At_5aSavUdn1GETMw&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=eNJ102xm0Y3zKZudcKNtsQ--

[Sally]

also the editors cant spell apologize

Can't.

It's an axiom that when you report someone else's supposed spelling mistake, you make one yourself.

[MadlyOlivia]

technically it would be a punctuation mistake

@iff i didn't know that, now i do, thank you for telling me :)

[Ace Amoeba]

BURN!