Over the past few years as we’ve built the FH Out Front practice group, we’ve talked a great deal about what to call ourselves: LGBT communications, gay and lesbian PR, gay and lesbian communications? We’ve settled on gay and lesbian communications because, frankly, it’s shorter and easier than LGBT. Although I prefer the specificity and inclusiveness of the awkward acronym that is LGBT, it is often confusing and difficult to say/spell correctly (and then there’s the issue of whether the L should come before the G: LGBT or GLBT).
One thing we have never considered is the term "homosexual." A recent op-ed in the New York Blade reminded me of one reason why that was the case.
In the op-ed, the editors make the point that the American people react more positively to the term "gay" than to the term "homosexual." And they cite poll numbers from Gallup to back up that contention: apparently Gallup numbers show that approval of "gay" people is more popular than approval of "homosexuals."
I’ve always thought that the term "homosexual" was more clinical than helpful and indeed, it has been used by anti-gay organizations as a way of slyly denigrating us as a group of people. And I suppose that this distinction is one of the reasons that "homosexual" doesn’t test as well: it’s been used negatively and that perception tends to stick, even when the folks using it aren’t particularly credible on the issue to the majority of people.
This issue has broader implications for communications and marketing to our community and points up one of the cardinal sins we often counsel clients on: what to call us.
While it may seem to some marketers that simply acknowledging our existence is enough, how you acknowledge us is at least as important as the fact that you do it. More credibility has been lost than gained by companies that awkwardly reach out to our community with nomenclature, imagery and/or language that betrays their lack of knowledge of who we are. In some cases, this awkwardness probably masks a certain amount of discomfort as well. In all cases, it’s important for marketers to understand that there is both an art and science to outreach to our community. The art is capturing our interest in ways that demonstrate you understand our lives and the things that motivate us. The science is using language that demonstrates you value us as people, not just the "other" that you may grudgingly realize you need to reach out to for business reasons.
And that brings us back to "gay" vs. "homosexual." This issue is really just a natural extension of the "f-word" debate that broke out into the open earlier this year with the "Grey’s Anatomy" spectacle that we’ve written about extensively already. There are few hard and fast rules, but there is this: exercise common sense in engaging our community and use terms that both you and your target audience feel are appropriate. If it sounds wrong, it probably is. Asking for professional guidance to figure this out is the best way to know if you’ve hit – or missed – the mark.
SUBSCRIBE
Hello! i’m a queer lesbian who has recently subscribed to your site by RSS. I just wanted to let you know that I’m enjoying the read, and comment a bit on your acuity of the topic of finding the correct language. One thing that I feel that your post doesn’t address is the growing need/ movement to include (rather than exclude, as many gays themselves are guilty of) the emerging “Queer” subculture of our already subculture. I have ben seeing the acronym GLBTQ more and more of late, and personally feel it is an important inclusion. Many femmes, for instance within the Butch/Femme cummunity, don’t care to identify as “Lesbian” for their own varied reasons. The term Queer” seems to be on the upswing, and may indeed have to be addressed soon.
Dear Washington Post, please stop calling me a “homosexual”
AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth
The Washington Post published a pro-gay editorial today about marriage. And that’s great. But …
You chose the title Gay and Lesbian Communications because it was easier than LGBTQ? The exclusion of the transgendered, bisexual, and queer populations seems akin to the straight world’s exclusion of gays and lesbians. Hmm, why don’t we include each other and provide a positive, supportive community based on understanding and inclusion rather than a simpler, easier, gay or straight version of the world?
K.R., thank you for commenting, although I’m not sure why you felt the need to do so four times. For future reference, we try to be responsive and once is enough.
I think maybe you missed my point: we are not excluding anyone in our outreach efforts, but in our descriptor/name we use a shorter form to make communications less cumbersome and to make what we do and WHO we reach clearer to all audiences, particularly straight ones. Not everyone knows what LGBT or LGBTQ means and we’d prefer to be “out front” about what we do so that it’s immediately clear that we’re talking about outreach to our community. Using the term “gay and lesbian” accomplishes that. It’s not a perfect solution, but it seems to be the best one for the situation. And because we do use that term, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we are clear in our substantive communications that we mean the entire community (LGBT and Q). We try to do that – including in our many posts on this blog.