lesbophobia-receipts:

fireandwonder:

givergirl:

h0odrich:

agaywithwords:

h0odrich:

fratbru:

h0odrich:

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

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

no but not like it would change anything anyway that’s basically how it is

This is something I know a lot about, so pardon me for this…

Prior to the Stonewall Riots, even activist groups tended to default toward some variation of the word “homosexual” in their titles. Until the slang term “gay” began to catch on in the 60s.

So in the 70s, it was simply the “gay liberation movement” - at a time “gay” (sort of) functioned as a catchall for all sexual and gender minorities. It was thought of as an umbrella term, even if it wasn’t. 

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

“Gay and lesbian” 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 “we’re your doctor, your lawyer, your neighbor, your cousin, and we’re just like you” crowd). Examples: 

• GLAAD (Gay and lesbian anti-defamation league)
• The Task Force (founded as National Gay Task Force, then the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in 1985. They started going by just “The Task Force” in the early 2000s, before officially changing their name to National LGBTQ Task Force only in 2014) 
  
• NGLJA (National Gay & Lesbian Journalist Association)
• National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
  
• PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)

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 “Men who have sex with men”/MSM, and “same gender loving”/SGL or even the problematic “Down Low” (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. 

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.

Groups coming into play around this time tried to avoid wading into the debate altogether, thus we have organizations like “Equal Rights Nevada” “Equality Utah” “Empire State Pride Agenda” “MassEquality” “Out & Equal” and “Pride at Work.”

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… otherwise you run the risk of getting hijacked by cisgender, straight allies intent on pushing an oppression narrative about how they’re 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’t 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. 

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

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. 

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.

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.

As far as I can tell, LGBT is the settled default. I’m 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.

Sorry, I know I wasn’t asked, but I wanted to throw some history out there. 

very interesting thank u for sharing!!!!!

This is amazing! Thank you!

Personally I also find that “LGBT” is also phonologically easier? Like, “el-gee” blends together more easily than “gee-[glottal stop]-el.” But that’s just my linguistics nerdery talking.

-mod kitttin