Inclusivity is generally a good thing, and I have always been a big supporter of the addition of “T” to “LGB.” But there are times when inclusiveness — just for inclusiveness’s sake — can be misleading.
Take, for example, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signing of two important bills — one proclaiming May 22 “Harvey Milk Day” in California and another recognizing that same-sex couples married before the passage of Proposition 8 are entitled to full recognition as married spouses in California, regardless of whether they married in California or out of state.
These are great bills. I commend the governor for signing them, and I commend Equality California (EQCA) for working tirelessly to get them passed. But are they really, as EQCA says in their recent press release linked to above, “historic LGBT rights bills” that will “improve the lives of LGBT Californians”? (italics mine) Or are they historic LGB rights bills that will improve the lives of LGB Californians?
It should be noted that, at the same time that the governor signed these bills, he vetoed two trans-related bills — one that deals with trans people and birth certificates and another that deals with trans people in prison. Schwarzenegger vetoed these bills as “unnecessary,” because apparently policies dealing with these issues are already in place. EQCA has expressed their disappointment in these bills not being passed, but they believe that trans people are still protected with the policies that are in place, and I have no reason to doubt them.
I’m not criticizing EQCA, and I believe that the two bills that the governor signed will benefit LGB trans people directly, and some straight trans people indirectly through our alphabetic association with the LGB community. But I’m not sure that they are really LGBT bills.
I have the same issue with survey or study results claiming to represent the thoughts or habits of the LGBT community. I often get press releases at work regarding these surveys, because I am the editor of an LGBT publication. But many times, when I read these results, I wonder how many trans people actually took the survey or participated in the study.
Do the results really reflect the thoughts and habits of the LGBT community? Or has the phrase has become so common that the assumption is that LGB thoughts and habits represent trans thoughts and habits as well? Or are the authors of the press release — or the study — afraid to leave the “T” off, lest they appear non-inclusive, even if no trans people actually participated?
The problem with inclusiveness when it is not truly there is the assumption that our voices are being heard when they are not. It is the assumption that we have scored a legal victory when we have not. It is the assumption that our views are being represented when they are not.
While I fully support — and argue constantly for — the inclusion of T in LGBT, I also support its exclusion when it doesn’t apply. If LGB people have a reason to celebrate, then let them celebrate, and I will celebrate with them. If LGB people have certain opinions or buying habits, then let’s hear about them.
Not everything has to be LGBT — only if it really applies to the trans community as well.
What do you think?
All a bit smoke and mirrors as usual!
Caroline
Yeah, I agree. It’s sometimes really hard to know what to make of “LGBT.” I am totally in favor of the T being in there, as you know, but we do run the risk of not truly being represented. I think as much is true for bisexual people, and for people who identify in other ways, as well.
To me, letters B for Black, W for Women, L for Latino/latina, D for disabled belong to that acronym as much as the T.
Also, although lesbian issues often are the same as gay issues, they often are not.
We have to remember that this acronym is what the gender normative uses when talking about us. It’s not only a symbol-acronym for us, the Ls, the Gs, the Bs and the Ts, but more so for the non-minority to label us and identify us through issues pertaining to our differences to “them” and their normative.
This acronym is an identifier used by the non-minority. It’s useful only because we are made queer and non-equal by them, not because we are per se, and as such, this acronym is useful only when discussing sociological matters and policy making.
Since this is the case, the T should be dropped from the LGB because T is a matter of gender identity, not sexual orientation; in policy making and sociological matters, they are very different issues. This also explains that when policy is being made for the LGB/T, it’s either for the first group (LGB) OR the second group (T), just as your examples in your post.
For the perspective of the non-minority individual, this acronym also says that the trans are all homosexual, which is also misrepresenting the group.
Sometimes this LGBT acronym gets elongated to ridiculous length, e.g., LGBTIQQ2SA. Hey, if we’re to include the T to the LGB, then we have to include the Intersex, too many correlating issues, then we have to include the Questioning too since they don’t identify to the mainstream model… ad nauseaum.
In the same line of thought, I also think that the B of LGBT should be dropped since it’s unnecessary, the B issues being covered by the L and/or the G. For example, if a bisexual is fighting for their right to marry the same sex, it’s a gay or a lesbian issue, not a bisexual issue, they don’t need to fight for the right to marry the opposite sex…
Trans issues have nothing to do with LGB issues. Well, they do, but not in regards to the specifics, they have one thing in common, they have to fight for their rights, rights trampled by the non-minority who abuses the minorities (which, paradoxically, composes the majority): the BJWLDLGBTIQQ2SA, an awfully incomplete acronym.
In the end, under an anthropo-sociological perspective, we’re not looking at it all with the right vantage point, we should not set our sight and focus on those being victimized but rather on the perpetrators of such acts. We should study to try and understand why perpetration is committed and work at eradicating it at the source.
For each letter of the acronym, there are advocates et al., people on the front putting out fires set by the non-minority. We are very far from looking at inequality from that vantage point mentioned above. We will remain divided and putting out fires, each and every minority group, alone, apart from the others. In the end, there is only one single issue, it’s abuse being committed. Therefore, only one acronym is necessary : A. But I won’t live to see that, because A comes from everyone, the non-minority just as much as the minorities. Even within the same group there is dissension, we, the T are the best example. T is probably the minority group that encompasses the most minorities and majorities.
Since we cannot work together, since it’s so so so important for all of us to differentiate ourselves from one another when making policies, we should not put all our eggs in the same basket. It’s too confusing for all of us, non-minority AND minorities included. The T should definitely have its own head office.