LGBT (1991, 1992); London's "Daily Express" & Big Apple Whores (6-25-05)

[Laurence Horn]

>On Jun 28, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Barry Popik wrote:
>
>>LGBT
>>...
>>Can anyone beat Grant Barrett's 1991 for LGBT or LGBTQ? Google
>>Groups seems to take it back to 1992 at best...Why isn't it the
>>more alphabetically ordered BGLT? Would that be bacon, guava,
>>lettuce, tomato?
>
>there are three questions here: the ordering of initials, in
>particular whether it's GL or LG; the inclusion of B (always after B

that should read G

>and L, i believe); the inclusion of T (always after B, i believe).
>(Q is an even later addition.)

I agree that the ordering is partly determined on chronological
grounds.  Bisexuals were afterthoughts historically,
Transsexual/Transgendered people a still later thought, and so on.  I
can't think of any initialisms that are ordered alphabetically, if
Barry was--contrary to my suspicion--asking non-ironically.  I think,
as Arnold suggests, that it wouldn't be that hard to find GL- as well
as LG- ordering.  Another consideration is phonology, when acronyms
are involved, as in GLAD, the Gay & Lesbian Awareness Days at Yale
(the inaugural was in '82).  I see elsewhere similar events are
called, or have mutated into, B-GLAD, where the BGL ordering is
clearly motivated on acronymic rather than alphabetic grounds.

Larry

>
>GL and LG (as in NOGLSTP, the National Organization of Gay and
>Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals) certainly go back
>before 1992.  So do GLB and LGB (as in the Ohio State AGLBFS,  the
>Association of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Faculty and Staff).  i'm
>not sure when the ordering of L before G, so as not to put gay men in
>the position of greatest prominence, started.  the addition of T
>might actually be since 1992.
>
>campus diversity offices and groups would be a good place to look.
>i'll forward this query to a friend who runs an LGBT office, in the
>hope that she knows where some of the history might be found.
>
>arnold