comments re: lack of inclusive language in editorial by Joan Garry, ED GLAAD
[cc’d to GLAAD and posted back to BIACT-L list. -Thomas]
[deleted],
Probably because they were publishing in USA Today, which is really a
lowest common denominator publication whose target audience is just about as
“middle America” as you can get; i.e. one in which the use of “gay” as a
generic term was calculated not to unnecessarily alienate or confuse
readers - I have to admit, it struck me as odd to see a lesbian referring to
herself as “gay”, but I understand why “queer” might not have been a viable
alternative when reaching out to this audience.
What I find less forgiveable, even if it was an issue of space, was the use
of “gay and lesbian” alone (twice), when not generically referring to the
entire GLBT community. Sure, it is nit-picky, but if we don’t protest each
and every time, these organizations will never learn.
“…88% of Americans support workplace protections for gays and
lesbians…” (and bisexuals too, one would hope, although I doubt the
original question was phrased that way)
“…even if the Supreme Court finds that gays and lesbians are entitled to
equal protection of the law…”
***
In a larger sense, this is a problem of language - what the Supreme Court
said in its “Sodomy” decision was that people who engage in same-sex conduct
are entitled to privacy and equal protection under the law, not “gays and
lesbians”, or “gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people” … but
phrasing it in the former fashion doesn’t tie in with language based on
identity politics (of which I’m as much a practitioner and advocate for as
anyone).
To be truly inclusive, those two sentences should be reformulated to
“…88% of Americans support workplace protections for those who engage in
same-sex conduct or identify as someone who does…” and “…even if the
Supreme Court finds that those of us who engage in same sex conduct or
identify as someone who does are entitled to equal protection of the
law…”, but in doing so, in a sense we wind up stuck with redefining who we
are as “queer” (which is the most inclusive term possible, even if
individual elements of various communities reject it), or we erase ourselves
as distinct communities of individuals who are particularly affected by
these issues (which I don’t think is anyone’s intention).
Given the audience, I think the practical expedient of simply doing the
laundry list thing is the only thing we can do… but, I think, within our
own communities, we ought to be examining whether or not there are times
when we do need to let go of that, and let go of our preciously crafted
“identities”, which are imperfect fits at best, and often leave large
numbers of people feeling excluded, and simply use descriptive terms, “such
as same-sex conduct” and “same-sex couples”.
Apologies if this isn’t entirely thought through; it is late, but I hope
y’all get where I’m going with this.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
—– Original Message —–
From: [deleted]
To:
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:03 PM
Subject: Joan Garry op-ed
> … on Lawrence vs. Texas. Am forwarding because I
> thoought it curious that a generally b- & t-
> sensitized organization such as GLAAD would use “gay
> or straight” language.
>
> http://www.glaad.org/publications/op-ed_detail.php?id=3404
>
> [deleted]
>
>
>
>
>
