(Please see update at end of post)
I often harp on language usage, and I’m often irked when authors use it thoughtlessly.¹
This post by Alexis Hall expands on a couple of reasons why we all should think a bit more about how we express ourselves:
And for that matter, LGBTQ+ has issues as a term because it implies the inclusion of groups of people who are often, in reality, excluded by the mainstream LGBTQ+ community. And, bringing this back to publishing, it’s especially problematic in romance because very often LGBTQ+ is used to basically mean m/m. And part of me says that the use of inclusive language is a necessary precursor to genuine inclusion, but part of me says that it can be used as a smokescreen to disguise to absence of that inclusion. And my poor word choice at the RITAs is a good example of this. I instinctively used the more general term and, in so doing, betrayed my own failure to recognise the achievement of a writer of non-m/m LGBTQ+ romance.
See edit at the bottom
I’ve been quietly fuming for weeks over the court house clerks who are refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, going against the US Supreme Court ruling, based on the clerks’ religious beliefs.
So we keep hearing how the Boy Scouts of America, in their infinite assholery, are so afraid of homosexuality that, while they may admit boys who identify as gay, they will not–I repeat, will not!–accept adult gay men within their leadership.
In other words: give us your money for twelve years, then fuck off, you (insert homosexual slur of choice here)!
The Girl Scouts of America? They will accept not only girls of all colors and religions, they also accept girls who identify as lesbians, and they welcome trans girls.
After the truly horrible attacks on racial, and ethnic, and gender minorities in the United States of this past year, I am feeling so relieved and happy that the Supreme Court finally–finally!–ruled that the civil institution of marriage is a civil right, and that therefore, sexual orientation and gender identification have fuckall to do with it!
This is only a start, and it is sure to be challenged by all the assholes who honestly think that only they, privileged majority that they are, should have rights. (May they rot in everlasting hell, amen.)
One of the meanings of misogyny is contempt for women.
Not too long ago, I posted something about the ingrained and often invisible misogyny found in science.
As I said in my reply to Lori’s comment over there, we cannot change what we don’t see.
The obvious sexist issue was that an reviewer at a scientific journal would see nothing wrong telling two female PhDs to find a male researcher to validate their study. The second obvious issue would be that nothing was done by the editor of said journal about the first issue, until there was backlash in social media. The invisible issue would be how said (male) editor apologized for the whole thing, by framing is as a ‘sensitive lady feelings’ thing.
I don’t know who all writes for him, but they couldn’t be more on the money here:
On Saturday, what was once unthinkable happened. A mainly Catholic nation legalized gay marriage by popular vote.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe the right to love is a basic, inalienable human right which should not be granted or denied at the whim of the majority.
However, it often is, indeed, denied. Minorities of all types are often ground beneath majorities’ heel–ignored, hidden, punished, their very right to even exist denied. (Egypt, I’m looking at you.)