I don’t know if I agree. While I’m all for inclusivity, I don’t like the politicization of everything lately and how you can virtually go back in time and rewrite history to advance a particular agenda if need be. I also tend to agree with my peers here: Samuel Isaac Dealey and Patt Gavin.
The author almost states in the article “thousands of gay men and transwomen died,” implying the majority were males (as we know, sex (male) at birth need not always map to gender (trans-/cis-) as is the case for trans and queer folks).
It was always about gay men first for obvious reasons which previous generation scholars have explored: boys and men being held to higher standards of “masculinity”. Even a slight deviation from the norm (heteronormativity) has traditionally been frowned upon in patriarchal societies and is the very cause of bullying, hazing, and the struggle of gay men. Religious texts explicitly forbid same-sex activity among males, adding more fuel to the fire.
If an issue concerns men, that is okay — it does not make it any less important for society and does not need to be proved worthwhile by making it about everyone else as well. But, I can understand the general bias we have against men — we assume because “men are powerful”, they can “deal with it” themselves, are stoic, etc. when that’s not always the case. This is also something feminism and feminists propose to fight against, at least in theory.
To give you an example, for a woman or a “tomboy” girl, it’s relatively very easy to pass as a straight (young)woman. At least, I never suspected some of my closest friends were lesbian because “it’s okay” for girls and woman to be tomboyish or act outside of norms in today’s day and age. In fact, for the past few decades, “Grrl Power” and similar slogans have told young girls/women to “snap out” of the norms; break them, let go of stereotypical roles and empower themselves.
Boys and men on the other hand “must be tamed” and properly nurtured. There can be, and are good reasons for that but as we are moving towards a more egalitarian society, I think it’s fair that both boys and girls be given equal and fair attention.
Look at multiple news sources around the world (not just the U.S.) related to the subject and, if I recall correctly, years ago it used to be about “gay rights”, “GLBT movement”, etc. And only in the last few years, I saw the abbreviation having been altered to “LGBT,” with more letters being added.
Not that I have a problem with either abbreviation — it doesn't matter. But if we must analyze them, let’s at least get the history right.
Lastly, if we talk about fair representation, anecdotes (for lack of better word or census statistics) will repeatedly tell you there are probably a lot more gay/bisexual men out there (and therefore gay bars, gay saunas, businesses capitalizing on the gay male market…) than there are lesbian/bisexual women, followed by the trans population, making “GLBT” sound more appropriate to me. “LGBT” almost seems like a lip-service attempt to put “women first” as an attempt towards equality (as if that alone will make a difference) but it doesn’t necessarily make it better or more logical.
At the end of the day, I acknowledge that the struggles of the trans community are very different than those of gay men or lesbian women and that is why I am not a fan of the media lumping us all into one category.