<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What To Call Us</title>
	<atom:link href="http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us.html</link>
	<description>The Full Spectrum of LGBT Communications</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:45:36 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Finzel</title>
		<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-495</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Finzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:44:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us/#comment-495</guid>
		<description>K.R., thank you for commenting, although I&#039;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&#039;d prefer to be &quot;out front&quot; about what we do so that it&#039;s immediately clear that we&#039;re talking about outreach to our community. Using the term &quot;gay and lesbian&quot; accomplishes that. It&#039;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.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>K.R., thank you for commenting, although I&#8217;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.<br />
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&#8217;d prefer to be &#8220;out front&#8221; about what we do so that it&#8217;s immediately clear that we&#8217;re talking about outreach to our community. Using the term &#8220;gay and lesbian&#8221; accomplishes that. It&#8217;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 &#8211; including in our many posts on this blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K. R.</title>
		<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-494</link>
		<dc:creator>K. R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us/#comment-494</guid>
		<description>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&#039;s exclusion of gays and lesbians. Hmm, why don&#039;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?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;s exclusion of gays and lesbians. Hmm, why don&#8217;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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Radio Left</title>
		<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-496</link>
		<dc:creator>Radio Left</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:15:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us/#comment-496</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Dear Washington Post, please stop calling me a &quot;homosexual&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;

AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth
The Washington Post published a pro-gay editorial today about marriage.  And that&#039;s great.  But ...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Dear Washington Post, please stop calling me a &#8220;homosexual&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth<br />
The Washington Post published a pro-gay editorial today about marriage.  And that&#8217;s great.  But &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thorne</title>
		<link>http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-490</link>
		<dc:creator>Thorne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outfrontblog.com/2007/04/what-to-call-us/#comment-490</guid>
		<description>Hello!  i&#039;m a queer lesbian who has recently subscribed to your site by RSS.  I just wanted to let you know that I&#039;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&#039;t address is the growing need/ movement to include (rather than exclude, as many gays themselves are guilty of) the emerging &quot;Queer&quot; 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&#039;t care to identify as &quot;Lesbian&quot; for their own varied reasons.  The term Queer&quot; seems to be on the upswing, and may indeed have to be addressed soon.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello!  i&#8217;m a queer lesbian who has recently subscribed to your site by RSS.  I just wanted to let you know that I&#8217;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&#8217;t address is the growing need/ movement to include (rather than exclude, as many gays themselves are guilty of) the emerging &#8220;Queer&#8221; 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&#8217;t care to identify as &#8220;Lesbian&#8221; for their own varied reasons.  The term Queer&#8221; seems to be on the upswing, and may indeed have to be addressed soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

