sundries

[rm]

100 BILLION THINGS TO DO AND NO TIME! On the plus side: Two hour video chat with Patty this morning.

Things that happened last night: I bought a cute dress for the NYMF closing party, a sewer rat headbutted my foot and I heard gunshots. Er, yay?

Can someone help me parse this? Margaret Cho eliminated from Dancing with the Stars because of gay dress. Look, not to feed cliches -- but, I think, there are a few reasons I'm at least vaguely entitled to here: um, HELLO, IT'S A VERY KITSCHY BALLROOM DANCE COMPETITION SHOW WITH C-LIST CELEBS. I am confused. Also, her dance partner? Not handling this elegantly. !?!?!?!!?

Mmmm, speaking of ever so tangentially, Pam Cook book is sort of annoying me now. That's a long post for another time and place. But this is the problem with overview books. Passing reference to queer theory by people who aren't queer theorists, pointing out a couple of inflammatory papers, glossing over some of the most interesting elements in the subject work that are on point, and, OH YEAH, apparently having read fewer media interviews with relevant parties than I have. And I'm just like -- what's up with that? I don't like any of the answers I'm coming up with. Luckily, it's like a couple of pages, before we're back to something else, but grrrrrr, Grrrrrrr.

Gay.com gets into the debate on the usefulness of the LGBT acronym. And there are many facets of a reasonable debate to be had there. Too bad they're being assholes about it.

Spiders to Mars!

D&J fundraising is at $910. Can we break the 4-figure mark today?

Okay, gotta run, maybe more later.

Comments

[tenacious-snail.livejournal.com]

wow. As someone who grew up in a time and place in which "gay" included men and women, and when "lesbian" was about "has sex with women" and not "does not have sex with men," but then came out into a community in which that was changing or had changed, they are So so SO missing the boat.

(and arguably, my identity, in many ways, is more about "does not monogamously partner" than the gender(s) of my partner(s).)

[melebeth]

*rocks back and forth* Why did I read the comments? Why did I read the comments?

(Actually some of the comments were better than the actual article @ Gay.com but.... gaaaaaah!)

[smirnoffmule.livejournal.com]

It is a shame he's being a bit of an asshole about it, because he has some interesting points, and I'm inclined to agree there are circumstances under which trying to count such a diverse group of people, facing such diverse challenges, under one banner risks diluting the meaningfulness, and drowning out voices - not to mention it fosters a tendancy among activists to imagine including the letter is all you need to do to be genuinely inclusive, which is not so. It's a little too easy to start talking about the LGBTQQAOP community and then never bother to touch on the concerns of, say, asexual people, or intersex people, or bisexual people at all. And having encountered more than a few LGBT groups which have no idea how to deal with trans people, I'd almost rather people were honest enough to leave letters out if that's really just not what they're about sometimes.

Which is not to say I don't think a wide acronym has a place in the way we talk about ourselves; it absolutely does, but I think the tendancy to push for it as a sort of One True Acronym that's universally appropriate is flawed, because whether it's most meaningful to speak about LGB people, LGBT people, or LGBTQQAIOP people pretty much depends on what it is you happen to be talking about. Article writer there is coming over as very cis male and exclusive about it, but it's a legitimate point from other points of the spectrum too - I've certainly met straight trans people who aren't clear on why they're being counted as part of the gay community, for example.

[zare-k.livejournal.com]

Gay.com gets into the debate on the usefulness of the LGBT acronym. And there are many facets of a reasonable debate to be had there. Too bad they're being assholes about it.


Oh, those transgender people, ruining all the fun for everyone!

*sigh*

I actually agree with him to an extent-- the glommed-together inclusiveness of the GLBTOMGBBQ acronyms feels superficial, gender identity is not the same dimension as sexual orientation, and the concerns of bisexuals and, especially, transgender individuals often does not seem to be a big priority for mainstream gay organizations.

Still, way to be an asshole about it.

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

I'll be over here clinging to QUILTBAG and FABGLITTER.

[nicoli-dominn.livejournal.com]

I almost wrote a blog in your blog, and then I decided to post it elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the author of the acronym article needs a serious wakeup call on the meaning of privilege.

[alt_universe_me.livejournal.com]

In complete agreement with your comment of "gaaaaaah!"

I had to stop myself from reading more comments after a minute. Wow.

[nicoli-dominn.livejournal.com]

I will add one thing, though: I think the fact that there's so much hubbub over an acronym rather than actual inclusiveness/exclusivity and personal identity makes the argument itself superficial.

[akatonbo.livejournal.com]

I'm more a fan of 'queer' myself, since I just don't think sexuality (especially not mine) is simple enough for any of the more specific terms (and I'm quite comfortable with "strange" or "odd"), but an LGBT is a delicious sandwich.

(G for guacamole! ...actually, I'd probably just go with avocado slices, but that doesn't fit the acronym.)

The article kind of reads like "hey, I don't have anything in common with you people, so stop lumping all of us together! ...now, why don't we focus on what we ALL have in common?" And I keep trying to write up further commentary and just spending a lot of time and not being satisfied with it.

[akatonbo.livejournal.com]

y helo thar, flaming chalice! That is excellent and needs to be in stained glass all over the place.

[lookingaround17.livejournal.com]

I *didn't* read the comments to the Margaret Cho article, but: what the hell? It IS very Carmen-Miranda-excess sort of show and dance, so what the hell? If Bristol Palin or some other dolt had worn that sort of thing (and don't they, really, at various times?), would anyone have said they'd "gone gay and that's bad"...?

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

"hey, I don't have anything in common with you people, so stop lumping all of us together! ...now, why don't we focus on what we ALL have in common?"

The terrible, terrible irony of that is that there is a word for that...Queer.

But hey, I'm not one to go around telling people how to identify. ;)

[lookingaround17.livejournal.com]

I also have no useful observation on the acronym, which used to be GLBT when I grew up, but I secretly get a kick out of adding as much as possible, and love the GLBTQQBBQWTF sort of thing, not derogatorily, but just to express that perhaps inclusion and exclusion and that stuff has gone sosososososo far--I don't define me at all, and don't deny being or having been anything at all--heck, I've certainly been the BBQ by getting cooked and WTF for various reasons! ahahaha!

[akatonbo.livejournal.com]

YES (and also yes to the parent comment). THIS.

Also, I will grant that part of his problem appears to be with other people making something of an umbrella term that it isn't (community), instead of acknowledging its usefulness for its ACTUAL purpose (hey guys, we could all work together on this one thing we all want, and then maybe we could support you on this other thing you want, and you support us on this third thing that we want? and we could come up with a name that lets everyone know we're doing it?). I'm not sure he actually knows that, though.

[thatwordgrrl.livejournal.com]

I parsed the DWTS article not that the judges outright said anything, but that it was second-hand hearsay from Cho's dance partner. With a sizeable helping of sour grapes for losing.

I mean, what? Like at no point BEFORE the competition he might have told Cho "Ya know, you might want to rethink that costuming choice..." Or that he had NO IDEA what the costuming choice might signify? No, I actually think this was his way of creating a tempest in a teapot because he lost.

Which, given he identifies as having a gay "lifestyle" (implying it is a choice), makes me wonder how much self-loathing is going on there.

[akatonbo.livejournal.com]

It's a lot shorter than 'dated more men, pursued more women, more interested in looking at men for eye candy, lifetime committed to a woman, she's asexual, I'm happier celibate, etc.'! ;)

[akatonbo.livejournal.com]

I like those!

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I find there is a problem in using the LGBTQ+ because often it implies you're talking about a whole spectrum when you're not - and it implies you're including some of those letters without in any way touching on their issues or talking about a subject and implying it is their issue as well when it's not

I prefer the alphabet soup because I'd rather include than exclude and I don't find any other reference comes close to being as good. It's always going to be about the best possibility

[dsmoen.livejournal.com]

It's a great dress, and as a straight woman -- if I had the bod for it, I'd wear it. So the f* what if it has a rainbow on it? When did we become afraid of natural phenomena like rainbows?

[smirnoffmule.livejournal.com]

Yes to your first - it always makes me eyetwitch when people talk about LGBT marriage without so much as a nod to the diverse legal and social challenges trans people face if they want to get married.

[drinkingcocoa.livejournal.com]

I think Margaret would have gotten eliminated no matter what she wore or what message she proclaimed. Her dancing just wasn't that good. I liked that the judges, especially Carrie Ann Inaba, seemed very fond of her.

[citrinesunset.livejournal.com]

I find there is a problem in using the LGBTQ+ because often it implies you're talking about a whole spectrum when you're not - and it implies you're including some of those letters without in any way touching on their issues or talking about a subject and implying it is their issue as well when it's not

Yeah, I've noticed that. For example, most of the time when I read something regarding LGBT rights or issues, very rarely are there any references to trans people.

I think the standard acronyms work pretty well in general, though, so I do like them.

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

I like QUILTBAG best because it works so effortlessly as a noun.

"blah blah blah...should be inclusive to the whole QUILTBAG..."

[sunhawk.livejournal.com]

I'd like to say that I'm surprised about Margaret Cho being eliminated for being gay (or "too gay"?) but I'm sadly not :/

[nicoli-dominn.livejournal.com]

You're right. I think he's confusing the two purposes and taking personal affront where he shouldn't. It really makes me wonder how much he thought about what he was arguing before posting his entry.

[upstart-crow.livejournal.com]

Wow, I don't know if the gay.com guy had a point there. I couldn't really read anything beyond "WATCH ME WAVE MY PRIVILEGE AROUND!"

[elusis.livejournal.com]

"A transgender." Excuse me while I go vomit.

[redeem147.livejournal.com]

I watch DWTS for something to do between Chuck and Castle, and I think I saw enough of Margaret Cho trying to dance to say her elimination wasn't because of her dress.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with you here in that there's an unaknowledged divide between "community" and "common goal" that's causing his problems. The entire QUILTBAG is hurt by the general existance of "gender norms" and prejudice against people who deviate from them. Beyond that, there plenty of opportunity for favor-swapping among the various groups that doesn't necessitate claiming they're all the same.

(Then again, it's a hallmark of modern politics to lump together everyone who might vote similarly on a single issue and then declare that they're all the same. Because every democrat is a gay abortion-loving communist latte-swilling elite surrender-monkey.)

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

By "priviledge" do you mean "penis"? Because that's the only explanation I can come up with for that picture in the article.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

I really kinda like "FABGLITTER". How does the acronym work out, though?

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

FABGLITTER: Fetish, Allies, Bisexuals, Gay, Lesbians, Intersex, Transgender, Transsexual Engendering Revolution.