Open Letter to Arianna Huffington: "Queer Voices" Has Got to Go

Ms. Huffington:

In recent days, The Huffington Post has unceremoniously re-branded its LGBT news section, "Queer Voices." Its previous name, Gay Voices was deemed to be too exclusionary, as not everyone under the sexual minorities umbrella considers themselves to be gay.

Yes, ma'am, I'm talking to you.

The problem is, "Queer" as a word carries a lot of baggage, most of it quite negative. To many--and I'm one of them--it's plainly offensive, particularly if used by others to define me. If a person wants to identify as "queer?" Knock themselves out. Don't assign it to me. If a gay organization or publication wants to use the word or a "Q" or a variant (such as Queerty)? It doesn't bother me. It's from the community, for the community. There is no hint of malice. But when it's a section of what is essentially an online mainstream newspaper? No. No.

I understand the impulse to change the name, and it is doubtless true that you've probably received criticism from trans people, bisexual people and anyone else who doesn't identify primarily as "gay." I also understand that coming up with a short, succinct heading is quite difficult, because by its nature, a short name has a difficult job being inclusionary. Somebody is bound to be left out of a lot of the options out there.

My own gay section doesn't try to solve the riddle, since it's
just little old me here. I'm not LGBT, I'm just "G."

This is borne out by the history of the most common identifier of LGBT. We've gone from "Gay" to "Gay & Lesbian," to "Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual," to "GLBT," (which is pronounceable as glibbit, and includes trans-, whether transsexual or transvestite), to LGBT (ladies first, but unpronounceable). That pretty much stuck, but it started to gather barnacles of other letters and symbols, because it still didn't include everybody. And though that seems only natural, it also starts getting unwieldy, and begging your pardon, quite ridiculous.

The entire point of an abbreviation is that it be shorter, and succinct. LGBTTQQF*GPBDS? doesn't do that. And, invariably, it's still going to leave somebody out. So, I can appreciate HuffPo's dilemma. "Gay" doesn't cut it, what are the succinct alternatives?

- LGBT Voices, probably nixed for the reasons listed above
- Pride Voices, reasonable, inoffensive, probably in use somewhere else
- Lambda Voices, probably too obscure
- Rainbow Voices, probably too vague
- Alternative Lifestyles, nearly as bad as Queer Voices for a lot of reasons

So, again, I understand your dilemma. I happen to think you blew it, royally. You'd have done better by inventing a word, and sub-titling it with a description. You could've done something plain like, "Huffington Post Pride Page," or something more vague like, "Our World: Huffington Post's LGBTetc. Pride Page." Ultimately, it's not up to me. That's why you, Ms. Huffington make the big bucks. But changing "Gay" to "Queer" to be more inclusive and less divisive utterly misses the mark.

I wrote this as an open letter for the simple reason that this little dark corner of the internet was inspired by The Huffington Post, though my sights weren't nearly as lofty (thank goodness). Along with John Aravosis' AmericaBlog, I decided to start my own blog because of HuffPo some nine years ago. I've continued to read it daily, and have used it many times as a source for articles and links. I haven't loved everything, and am utterly lost as to why your entertainment writers are seemingly obsessed with the Kardashians to the point of absurdity. But I've always felt included in the Gay Voices section. Queer Voices doesn't feel remotely as welcoming.

Sincerely,

James L. Greenlee, Editor
Greenlee Gazette

Right Wing World: Outrage Over Houston Sermon Subpoenas

It's always something in Right Wing World, some outrage--usually outrageously overblown--to obsess about. It will usually erupt into the mainstream, first as a "what's got their knickers in a twist?-type story, then it either gets treated like a real story, or is tsk-tsked away as a nothingburger. I only wish the latter was how it always went.

This time, it has to do with a lawsuit--filed by the religious side--that has resulted in the subpoenas of church sermons. Why? Because discovery goes both ways in a lawsuit, and because tax exempt churches should not be overtly involved in politics. Simple, right?

No, it would apparently be the worst thing that has ever happened to freedom in America. Even though churches have pretty much been begging for this for years. And waiting

The Usual Suspects, from TowleRoad

for it, so they could do the present freak-out. And it doesn't hurt that the case is LGBT-related either.

Don't buy it. In fact, don't ever buy it without looking into what the current outrage is about.

[Excerpt]

RIGHT-WING FREAKS OUT OVER HOUSTON'S SUBPOENA OF PASTORS' ROLE IN CITY'S EQUAL RIGHTS ORDINANCE CASE

Back in August we reported that anti-gay activists in Houston had failed in their efforts to collect enough signatures for a ballot measure that would place Houston's LGBT-inclusive Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) up for a public referendum. The activists (which included local pastors) proceeded to sue the city over the rejection of signatures and a court date was set for January 2015. . .

Read more at: TowleRoad (and yes, I chose a gay news site on purpose)

Call Her "Chelsea Manning"

Bradley Chelsea Manning, from MSNBC

Since I'm a gay man, people I know who are not will often think that my encyclopedic knowledge of pop culture extends to the entire LGBTQQIA alphabet. It doesn't. Yes, I'm nearly as clueless about the "trans" part of the alphabet soup as you are. But that's okay. The truth is, if we totally "got it," we'd be trans, right?

I have learned a couple of things though, mostly through online communications, since my first-hand knowledge of the subject really is limited to drag queens, and though they can look similar, they aren't the same. First and foremost: trans people's concerns tend to be ignored, minimized and dismissed even within the LGBT community. It's very easy to be declared "trans-phobic" because we Ls and Bs and Gs are kind of clueless about what it's like to have an issue with gender identity. Being attracted to the same gender isn't the same as feeling as though you're a different gender from your body.

While everyone in the LGBT category is sexually--in some way--different from your standard issue heterosexual, we aren't all faced with the same issues. So, when I'm asked--and I will be--what I think of WikiLeaks leaker Bradley Manning changing his name to Chelsea, and declaring himself an M-to-F trans person? Nope, I don't really get it. But I know better to question her, because it's out of my experience. We have no reason to disbelieve her, and she's really not got much to gain by putting on a ruse. And if she goes through with gender-reassignment surgery? In my opinion, a person does that is certain about what gender they're supposed to be. Nobody would go through that on a whim.

So, good luck, Chelsea. And to any trans-people out there who might read this, know that I may have goofed in my terminology somewhere, and may have transitioned my gender-specific pronouns at the wrong point in what I've written, but I'm on your side!

[Excerpt]
 
‘I am Chelsea Manning’

“As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me,” Manning said in a statement read during an exclusive TODAY show interview with lawyer David Coombs. “I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way I have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible.”

Read more at: MSNBC