How do you pronounce "LGBTory"?

A trip into the world of acronyms, logo designs and wordplay.

So how do you pronounce "LGBTory"? Is it "Ell Gee Bee Tory", "Ell Gee Bee Tea Tory" or "Ell Gee Bee Tea Ory"?

Over the years the language, names and acronyms of much to do with lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (and more) matters have frequently changed. The acronyms seem to grow every few years - there's one monster of "LGBTTQQIAAP" that is impossible to remember or say correctly.

But problems also affect LGBT (let's stick to that for here for now) groups. Frequently they find changing acronyms and emphases can cause their own names to come under scrutiny. Initialisms can make it worse as they often lend themselves to pronounceable acronyms and/or fancy logo designs that get mucked up by extra letters.

One of the better known cases was the Liberal Democrats' LGBT group using the short name Delga for many years long after the long name had stopped being "Democrats for Lesbian and Gay Action", a hangover from the days when the newly merged party got in a mess with its name but also because "Liberal Democrats for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Action" is hard to turn into a pronounceable acronym. Eventually in 2011 they became "LGBT+ Lib Dems".

I seem to recall, but can't find a quick chronology to hand to be sure, that the "Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights" was using that title for a number of years after it had formally adopted LGBT as its full scope. It is now "LGBT Labour".

Conservative LGBT groups have been particularly prone to names that make for good acronyms and/or logos. The original "Conservative Campaign for Homosexual Equality" later renamed itself the "Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality" because someone forgot the party hasn't been "Tories" since the 1830s and thought "Torche" made for a fancy acronym. It kept that name until ending in the mid 2000s, long after the rest of terminology had moved on. I forget if the name outlasted the party's old torch logo.

The current Conservative LGBT group also annoyingly uses "Tory" but it's also gone for a portmanteau effect by combining LGBT & Tory to become "LGBTory".  Unfortunately it's got the needs of the logo and the text muddled.

"LGBTory" is frequently written and often spoken as that. And many people don't see a clever portmanteau but rather the omission of Trans. Language matters - if a whole group is left out of the name they naturally wonder if they're also left out of concern.

Now portmanteaus are not uncommon - here's one from the 1990s Doctor Who spin-off video Downtime:

But the name of the institution in the dialogue, in the contemporary novelisation by the original author (one of the Missing Adventures if you're looking) and on the DVD sleeve (sorry I haven't seen the VHS sleeve in many years) is "New World University", written clearly as two separate words. Logos often omit characters that are often present in text - commas are especially likely to be left out.

LGBTory's logo doesn't use multiple coloured letters or an "L" shape to emphasise the joint use of the "T". And what's good for a logo design isn't necessarily good for running text or especially Twitter which frequently destroys the subtlety of capitalisation. It's unsurprising that many ask about Trans or protest about its exclusion.

Currently LGBTory is consulting on a proposed change of name. It's time to correct this unfortunate situation and also take the opportunity to move away from the outdated word "Tory".

Put your own house in order first Gordon!

Gordon Brown has attacked the ban on same-sex marriage recently passed in California. (BBC News: Brown attacks US gay marriage ban & PinkNews: Exclusive: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown declares Prop 8 gay marriage ban "unacceptable") Perhaps he should first look at the situation in the UK, where he can do something about it.

Under the enactment "Proposition 8" the situation in California is that mixed-sex couples can get married and same-sex couples can get inferior civil partnerships. This is exactly the same unequal arrangement that exists in the UK. Worryingly people are now calling for civil partnerships to be extended to mixed-sex couples, with some unable to disguise their hope that it will lead to the extinction of marriage.

So here's a simple suggestion. Let's sweep away this two-tier, pseudo "separate-but-equal" arrangement, abolish civil partnerships and make the state marriage laws gender blind and available to all. Any couple should have the right to enter into this great institution, to partake in the responsibilities it involves and derive the benefits from it. Those who do not wish to enter into marriage should not be entitled to the benefits by any side provision.

It will be an equal system. And there are other benefits as well - it will be a simpler system than there is at the moment. It will protect marriage in the way the current arrangement does not by removing inferior alternatives and allowing more people to partake in it. And if the UK Prime Minister wants to condemn inequality in other parts of the world, he will not be a hypocrite.

Outrage! backs Boris's move!

In an interesting follow-up to the news that Boris abolishes a do-nothing advisory panel, the move has been backed by none other than OutRage! (PinkNews: OutRage! backs Boris over abolition of gay advisory panel)

Brett Lock of direct action LGBT rights group OutRage! said that Mayor Boris Johnson was "quite right" to scrap it.

"It was elitist, unelected, unaccountable and anti-democratic," he said.

"No one elected the panel. They were hand-picked by Ken and were not necessarily representative of the LGBT community.

"Instead of negatively sniping at the Mayor, LGBT groups should concentrate on presenting Boris with practical and constructive policy ideas for the benefit of LGBT Londoners," he said.

Note also Brett Lock's comments about LGBT Labour activists being more concerned with LGBT for Labour than Labour for LGBT:

"Instead of petty party-political point-scoring, gay Labour activists should concentrate on pressing their own party to stop mistreating LGBT asylum seekers and end the ban on same-sex marriage," said Mr Lock.

Unfortunately it seems some are determined to make party matters of the personal.

Boris abolishes a do-nothing advisory panel

This shouldn't need to be a story should it? Ever since Boris Johnson was elected Mayor of London a new broom has been sweeping through the Greater London Authority and many of the wasteful and tokenistic initiatives of the Livingstone era have been abolished. However the decision to abolish a Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Advisory Panel that had only been formed a few months ago and had just a preliminary meeting has provoked some criticism. (PinkNews: Boris team rejects criticism over LGB advisory panel) But surprise surprise the first person to speak out about this is a Labour Party councillor - the reaction of many Labour members to Boris's victory struck me as one of outrage that the voters had dared to deny Labour its supposed God-Given-Right to rule. On close inspection the panel membership is also suggestive:

...the panel which was chaired by Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, included Linda Bellos of Black Lesbians UK, Jackie Lewis of trade union UNISON, Lynsey River of Polari, the older people's LGBT network, Brenda Ellis of REGARD, a disabled LGBT group and Mr [Pav] Akhtar in his role as Chair of Imaan, a Muslim LGBT group.

This sounds suspiciously like a mainly Labour mates show that did very little but ticked a few boxes, of the kind all too common under the Livingstone regime. For another example see PinkNews's interview with Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes where he talks of a disability adviser who similarly served to tick boxes. (PinkNews: INTERVIEW: A heartbeat away from the Mayor of London)

I remained to be convinced that this advisory panel that only ever had a preliminary meeting was actually doing anything to the benefit of Lesbian & Gay (and I deliberate use just those words) Londoners and that their lives were in any way enhanced by its existence. Maybe the timing of the announcement wasn't the best but I don't want Labour style gesture politics that creates positions and throws around money for appearances' sake, I want results and substance. And I believe many Londoners want the same.

So I hope Boris Johnson will carry on getting rid of wasteful tokenistic bodies that just serve to tick boxes and get one with delivering real results for all Londoners.

LGBT group commit heterosexism

You couldn't make it up... A former Mayor of Cambridge has been accused of being "heterosexist" by an LGBT group after he said more homes for families should be built. (BBC News: Mayor demands 'anti-gay' apology) Has this LGBT group lost the plot? LGBT people have families too!

Cameron to back adoption row law

There'll be squeals from the ill disguised bigots who squeal about everything, as well as genuine concern from those who are uneasy about the effects of the law (and let's not let the two be conflated, as the former have been pretending to) but David Cameron has announced that in the absence of any compromise on the adoption issue he will vote for the anti-discrimination law when it comes before Parliament. (BBC News: Cameron to back adoption row law) This is one of those days when I feel very proud of my party's leader.

The LG... BNP?!?!

Martine Martin has discovered the existance of the Gay BNP Group. (martine martin's lebwog: We're Here, We're Queer and... We Vote BNP)

The worrying thing is that in the current climate of ignorance, suspicion and fear between communities it's not too hard to grasp why some gay and bisexual people would support the BNP. But anyone who believes that a BNP United Kingdom would be a utopia for a British gays and bisexuals is seriously deluded.

From Yesterday's Party to Tomorrow's Party

It really hasn't been the Liberal Democrats' year, has it? They started by brutally stabbing their leader in the chest, have had so many scandals surrounding leading figures that I've lost count and have since staggered about under their new leader, with many openly questioning whether they made the right choice and invariable speculation about a Kennedy restoration, whilst the party tries to find a direction and only gets the occasional good cheer from nasty, vicious, hypocritical local campaigning that had even some of their own ashamed of their campaign.

Now comes the news that three of their candidates from the last general election have joined the Conservatives. (BBC News: Lib Dem trio become Conservatives) Now the Lib Dems will try to write these three off as insignificant individuals. But amongst them is Richard Porter, who authored the Lib Dems' 2005 manifesto for the LGBT community. So do the Lib Dems consider LGBT issues to be insignificant or are they lying?

The comments by the three no doubt say a lot for many still within the Liberal Democrats:

'[Richard Porter] described Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell as a "has-been" who had put the party "in reverse gear".'

'Tariq Mahmood [said] ... the Tories "could make the NHS better". '

'John Barstow, a union steward, said his former party were "bland, formulaic and out of touch with real life".'

I'd like to welcome them all to the party and invite all Liberal Democrats who wish to be part of the real alternative to Labour to come aboard.