Re: The Queen has turned her back on the gay community
Agree wit
I agree with a lot of what you say, even though my outlook on it might be a bit different. Where you might see pure tokenism, I might sense a (even though sometimes inedequate) gesture of solidarity. But besides my positive and your more negative spin, there are issues with the use of LGBT that I do recognize.
What I don't fully understand is your argument regarding the author's implied trans- or biphobia. To me, this seemed rather careless, based on the text that was cited and in light of the initial discussion in this thread. That said, I'm not familiar with the author's body of work (and wasn't initially aware you were). At least part of my dissagreement with your statement likely stems from that.
I am familiar with the issue of erasure. Not the least because this issue begins on an even more fundamental level in the German language, where the default gender for most words is masculine and women (and people not identifying with any particular gender) are often enough carelessly excluded from everyday speech. However, I still think there is one important difference here (as with your examples regarding racism): There erasure spreads through exclusion and monopolizing certain words, terms and phrases. LGBT is (at least superficially) a sign of awareness of non-exclusiveness. Even it's use in the cited article weakens your transphobia statement somewhat. As the author - again, superficially - included trans and bi initially, not mentioning them later mostly because the Queen not talking about gay issues already implies she's also not talking about those other topics. Which, of course, in itself can be critized.
But I don't want to look like I'm defending the author. I'm not. And I fully recognize that our sensibilities for these issues might differ somewhat. It's still a discussion too interesting to just dismiss it. :)
I agree with a lot of what you say, even though my outlook on it might be a bit different. Where you might see pure tokenism, I might sense a (even though sometimes inedequate) gesture of solidarity. But besides my positive and your more negative spin, there are issues with the use of LGBT that I do recognize.
What I don't fully understand is your argument regarding the author's implied trans- or biphobia. To me, this seemed rather careless, based on the text that was cited and in light of the initial discussion in this thread. That said, I'm not familiar with the author's body of work (and wasn't initially aware you were). At least part of my dissagreement with your statement likely stems from that.
I am familiar with the issue of erasure. Not the least because this issue begins on an even more fundamental level in the German language, where the default gender for most words is masculine and women (and people not identifying with any particular gender) are often enough carelessly excluded from everyday speech. However, I still think there is one important difference here (as with your examples regarding racism): There erasure spreads through exclusion and monopolizing certain words, terms and phrases. LGBT is (at least superficially) a sign of awareness of non-exclusiveness. Even it's use in the cited article weakens your transphobia statement somewhat. As the author - again, superficially - included trans and bi initially, not mentioning them later mostly because the Queen not talking about gay issues already implies she's also not talking about those other topics. Which, of course, in itself can be critized.
But I don't want to look like I'm defending the author. I'm not. And I fully recognize that our sensibilities for these issues might differ somewhat. It's still a discussion too interesting to just dismiss it. :)