"Journalist's Bible" Updated

GLAAD Applauds Updated Associated Press Stylebook Entries

GAY, LESBIAN, TRANSGENDER AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION REFERENCES REFLECT ACCURATE, CONTEMPORARY USAGE

NEW YORK, MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the nation's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media advocacy group, today applauded the Associated Press' (AP) unveiling of updated LGBT-related AP Stylebook entries as a significant step forward in promoting fair, accurate and inclusive language throughout the nation's media.

Nicknamed "the journalist's bible," the AP Stylebook is the most widely used style guide for reporters and editors in the United States. Today's LGBT-related terminology updates to the AP Stylebook are detailed below. They are now available online at APStylebook.com and will also appear in the 2006 print edition, slated for publication this spring.

"For the AP Stylebook to update these entries is a significant milestone," said GLAAD President Neil G. Giuliano, who praised the AP's decisions to, among other things, encourage use of the term "transgender," restrict usage of the word "homosexual" and prohibit use of the term "sexual preference."

"Given the fundamental inaccuracy of terms like 'sexual preference' and the pejorative connotations of words like 'homosexual,' the AP's style guidelines have been updated to reflect contemporary usage that's more fair, more accurate and more inclusive," Giuliano added.

During 2005, GLAAD's National News staff met with senior AP editors to discuss proposed terminology updates and recommendations. In one of those meetings the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) co-facilitated a presentation about the evolution of transgender-specific terminology. Today's newly updated entries reflect many of those recommendations.

To put the AP Stylebook updates in context, GLAAD has posted detailed looks at the evolution of the Associated Press Stylebook's LGBT-related entries and, for comparison, similar LGBT-related style guidelines from The New York Times and The Washington Post.

In the previous edition of the AP Stylebook (2005), the entry for gay read as follows:

"gay" - Acceptable as popular synonym for both male and female homosexuals (n. and adj.), although it is generally associated with males, while lesbian is the more common term for female homosexuals. Avoid references to gay, homosexual or alternative "lifestyle."

The updated 2006 entry reads:

"gay" - Used to describe men and women attracted to the same sex, though lesbian is the more common term for women. Preferred over homosexual except in clinical contexts or references to sexual activity. Include sexual orientation only when it is pertinent to a story, and avoid references to "sexual preference" or to a gay or alternative "lifestyle."

The 2006 edition also relocates the sex changes entry under the more accurate and inclusive term transgender. The transsexuals entry, which used to direct readers to the entry for sex changes, now also points to transgender:

"transgender" - Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth.
If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly.

Another welcome update for 2006 was the deletion of the term lesbianism -- another word that has taken on pejorative connotations. Prior to 2006, the AP Stylebook entry for lesbian, lesbianism had read, "Lowercase in references to homosexual women, except in names of organizations." GLAAD applauded the deletion of the term lesbianism and the removal of the reference to "homosexual women," though the removal of the entire entry was unexpected (currently, the AP's style guideline for "lesbian" is located in the entry for gay).

GLAAD will continue to advocate for contemporary language usage and style guidelines at the Associated Press, including a proposed entry for bisexual and language recommendations related to coverage of LGBT civil rights.

In August 2000, GLAAD praised the Associated Press for a set of AP Stylebook updates that reflected a growing understanding of gay and transgender terminology. Visit GLAAD.org for more information.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate, and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

 

What was the problem with "homosexual", exactly?

 

It's rather clinical and is used in the press, especially by conservative media outlets, as a pejorative.

 

Perhaps. But "gay" is used far more often as a negative term. Does anyone actually get offended from being called one rather than the other?

 

The AP Stylebook as well as the UPI Stylebook set the standard for American Journalists (not unlike the Reuters version of it) for appropriately addressing diverse communities. LGBT or GLBT people would be offended at being called the "Homosexual" community, it's not an accurate description of the community. Words like transsexual or transvestite aren't an accurate description of transgender people and often times are used in a derogatory or degrading manner. We don't say the negro community we say the African American community. Same with Korean Americans, Japanese Americans, Native Americans etc., And as the article stated it's important that communities are represented with up to date common usages of appropriate descriptive terms and that the terms are inclusive of a particular community's members.

The word "gay" as a negative term I see used really only amongst the youth. It's so far removed from the community it supposedly represents, as a slang expression, that I think most people don't associate the word with actual gay people. Fag, dyke, buttfucker, yeah, that's different, I highly doubt that those words would be used unless the news story was recounting an anti-gay attack. I believe it will pass like other sad fad slang like "totally tubular" from the 80s. I could be wrong.

For journalists though, they come to the communities they are writing about to find out what the appropriate terms are... I don't write the Stylebooks, however, if you prefer to call yourself a homosexual that's fine with me.

 

Well obviously "homosexual" doesn't cover the whole LGBT community, but neither does "gay". You'd use it to describe people who are actually homosexual. I'd have thought most journalists could handle that.

I dunno, I just don't trust LGBT organisations to represent me. All this pontification over semantics just seems a little... faggy.

 

This post was highly edited to add:

I believe they can, they just want to be sure to be using the most accurate and up to date terms. Obviously "gay" does not cover the entire community which is why journalists use LGBT or pinpoint the actual group they are talking about whether it be lesbians or transgender people... did you read the article?

Well, that's certainly an opinion. And you are welcome to it. You might want to get involved with an LGBT organization so that you can be better represented. It's like the people who piss and moan about pride not representing them.. well get your damn ass out on the street and represent. Really, whether or not I disagree with you doesn't matter, the Journalist Associations realize the majority of LGBT people prefer to be referred to in a particular way and so they are simply updating their stylebook standards, nothing really worth getting nervous about.

 

Skimmed. I was referring more to your reasoning, really. I just don't see any situation where "gay" is more or less applicable than "homosexual". Obviously some people think it's "clinical", but some people think "lol" is a real word.

I hardly piss and moan. I don't have the option. Of the LGBT organisations I'm aware of, about half don't do anything at all, and the other half spend most of the time sitting in a circle discussing terms for "homosexual", incidents which could be interpretted as homophobic, etc. and oust you if you've ever had sex. I represent my outlook on my sexuality by not joining groups like that, and just getting on with my life.

I'm not arguing with the manual, just doing my thang. I guess I'm kinda saying that if they go to LGBT groups they're going to get an over-sensitised view of reality. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe everyone who isn't me finds "homosexual" ickypoo.

 

Nice... what makes you so special? You seem to take advantage of the freedoms that were given you by those that fought for them in your country... you don't think your ass would be thrown in the clink if 50 years of gay activism wasn't present in your country?

Besides there is plenty to do in the UK even with some of the milestone achievements in the last few years. Last I heard, in the UK, violent hate crimes against LGBT people are through the roof, but it's ok to blind yourself to that, right? There are orgs that you could volunteer for to help with that. Who knows, what you do might help someone in your neighborhood or bring more of a police presence to the local gay bar. Every little bit helps!

But why do I get the feeling that whatever involvement you've had in LGBT activism or volunteering in the community itself has had more to do with YOU and what you thought you should get from it personally rather than for the good of the community?

I've noticed you belittle forward movement for LGBT people in many of your posts and while I can tell you are incredibly smart, you come of as a sort of sad rag, embarrassed almost of who you are... determined not to have it define you.

Well, I look at heterosexuals who share every part of their lives at work, in the pub, where ever, they talk about their families and wives and children, their heterosexuality hugely defines them. So it begs the question of what your real issue with your sexual orientation is?

Seriously, if you want to be represented more fully within your community you have to become a part of it. You have to be able to compromise and you have to be able to actually do some of the dirty work to cause change, otherwise you come off as some "contrary Mary" who has lots of generalizations about the people who work in these orgs. Your words actually end up betraying you then.

I am not trying to to target you, I can see you have a functioning mind and are full of thought and I also know you are an artist, as am I... and we are all tortured in one way or another. I hope I haven't made an enemy in you, but you have been a curiosity to me since I came here. Inconsistent at the very least, because sometimes even on this forum you are a strong voice of advocation. Yes I have read those posts too Which makes me believe you are still trying to figure out who you are and that is fine. I am sorry if I started something I shouldn't have.

 

Christ, this again. Re: your heterosexual analogy, it's clearly not applicable. Ask your average heterosexual to describe themselves and they probably won't mention their sexual orientation. Do we think they're ashamed of it? I can honestly say I'm not ashamed of myself. I'll freely admit that there are vast sections of the LGBT community that I don't particularly want to be associated with, but my reasons for that have nothing to do with being ashamed of myself. At the risk of sparking you off again, it's fairly typically LGBT to insist that anyone who criticises anything does so because there's something wrong with them.

Basically I have very little issue with my sexuality, just with the people I share it with. I've gone to LGBT meetings out of curiosity, genuinely having no idea what they would entail, and just found that they tended to attract the kind of people I don't have much in common with beyond sexual preferences. I've been described as a liberal and a fascist in my time, but either way, I don't get the idea of a community that tries to be so all-inclusive at the expense of its own identity. I mean, we have little or nothing in common except sex, and yet no-one really talk about it. No-one in any group I attended ever mentioned any acts of homophobia. The group leaders always seemed desperate for it to happen, I guess so that they'd have something to talk about, but it never did. Maybe we just got lucky. Eitherway, it just wasn't for me. I have enough awkward silences at home.

I've not seen much evidence that gay hate-crime is "through the roof"; the one occasion I'm aware of that someone had any homophobic abuse, it was pretty much the standard treatment anyone would get in this town for being loud, obnoxious and boarish. The guy in question insisted it was because he was gay, but to be honest, I've wanted to kick the shit out of him a few times.

I think this is my problem; there's a lot of traits which have become associated with homosexuality (to the point where a lot of guys seem to adopt them within seconds of their noisy coming out routine) such as campness and so on that aren't really tolerated by society at large but are accepted by the LGBT community. A lot of those traits have little or nothing to do with homosexuality per se, they've just been absorbed into the culture. I'm seen as weird by a lot of gay guys because I haven't chosen to camp it up. They're all convinced I'm closeted, that I have issues with my sexuality or what-have-you, simply because I don't conform to that stereotype. It's frustrating really, that the peripheral stuff gets in the way. Deep down I would like to be fighting for equal rights and all that. But I feel like it's a losing battle. For every measured, intelligent, well-adjusted homo I meet, there's at least five who happily embody bigotry, predjudice, self-interest and shallow amorality, and I lose all the will.

I'm going to stop now, as I suspect this is going nowhere.

 

If you need links to reported anti-gay crimes within the UK for the last six months I'd be happy to supply them. I disagree with your assessment of my analogy but you already knew that. I also disagree with your stance that LGBT people have nothing in common, I personally have lots in common with many people within the community, and none of it has to do with sex, I wonder how that happened... must just be some kind of "faggy" anomaly. You can choose to believe that or not. It could be the circles I run in.

I do need to apologize for the tone of my last post. I believe it is ok to disagree with each other without getting personal. I realize everyone's experiences are different. But I also think it's dangerous to generalize. Just because you believe that 5 out of every 6 gay persons "happily embody bigotry, prejudice, self-interest and shallow amorality" doesn't make it true. I don't think you really believe that either. Maybe you just need to change the circles you run in.

So... apologies for the tone of my post. I hope to discuss other things with you in this forum.

 

.

What was the problem with "homosexual", exactly?

The problem is in it's usage, meaning and connotation. The word homosexual is a clinical term, Just like the word Negroid, or Caucasoid, or Mongoloid. The word should be used to describe a fact, a clinical fact. Any two organisms of the same sex who engage in a sexual activity are having homosexual relations. Two men in prison may have homosexual relations. However, the term does not adequately describe the emotional and romantic connection I may share with my same sex partner.

You would never hear the term "Heterosexual matrimony" uttered in a church wedding, because a wedding is not suppose to be about sex. To constantly refer to members of the GLBT community as Homosexual is to emphasize sex over the rich variety of our relationships. Relationships which you point out may not be adequately addressed with the term gay. I agree. However, I would like to hope, dear SelfControl, that you are more then what the term "Homosexual" connotates.




Perhaps. But "gay" is used far more often as a negative term. Does anyone actually get offended from being called one rather than the other?

Point well taken. In the early part of the struggle for Racial rights in this country African Americans preferred to be referred to as 'Negro'. A term that leaders of that community found more appealing than 'Colored', which was used in many "news" papers or the clinical term 'Negroid.' Later it was traded for the term 'Black', still in use today even after attempts to focus on the term "African American," a term that black folks from the Caribbean took issue with.

When terms become loaded with negative meaning they may be changed. Gay is used as a demonstrative on the playground and by the intellectually lazy. If it does take on stronger negative connotations, like the turn that "Negro" took in the mid to late 60s, then I would imagine that many political activists will be calling for a change to a more neutral or more inclusive term.

There is a huge war going on in the American Press over the right wing controlling how the debate over certain issues is "Framed." The terminology used is only one battle in that war. It's hard to say how much effect these changes have when the larger discourse is still controlled and directed by the right wing media establishments.

But the reason some activists choose this battle is understandable. It is amazing how little people listen to or understand what they hear and read in the news. If they only remember one word, and that word has a negative connotation that is all that may be register in their memory.

 

I'm not disputing that they happen, I'm just not convinced they're "through the roof".

I think you're misreading me here. I'm not saying gay people have nothing in common besides sex. I'm saying that what they have in common, besides sex, is incidental to their sexuality, and so can't really be accreditted [sp?] to the LGBT community. I mean, would you say that you get on with gay people better than straight people?

It may be dangerous to generalise, but in the long run it's also quicker. If someone presents himself as a jerk to the outside world, do I have to take the time to get to know him, or do I just right him off as a jerk? Because if I did the former, I'd be doing it a lot. I would hope that it is the circles that I run in, but a lot of the gay guys I meet are that bad, and they tend to be the ones I meet in bars or at groups. I'd have used the term "right wing", but that implies a coherent political ideology. They're mostly just dumb and shallow. If I was nurturing and accepting of other people and didn't ever generalise, I'd be hanging out with people like that pretty much 24/7. It's only because I have high expectations of people (myself included) that I have any quality of life at all. Deep down I'm a liberal, but I can't help but feeling that the tolerant society of the LGBT community is frequently taken advantage of by those who are pariahs for reasons that have nothing to do with their sexuality.

I don't want to believe these things, I really don't. But in my experience, taking the time to overcome your initial predjudices about a person and see the beauty inside is pointless, because most of the time you find that people are exactly as they present themselves to the world, at least to all intents and purposes.

I'd hope so too. But my point is that none of those things have anything to do with my being gay or homosexual. I don't play a gay guitar just because I don't play a homosexual guitar. (I hope that makes any kind of sense, I'm struggling to get it myself.)

 

I really hope I'm not coming across as a mental here.

 

I disagree. While those things may not have anything to do with you yourself on a deeply personal level, they have everything to do with how the world perceives and treats you as a man who loves other men. Use what ever term you wish.

However, this topic is about the manner in which the news media choose to describe people "like" you and me. Not how they are actually describing you in a one on one interview. Don't take it so personally. It ain't just about you.

You may not play a gay guitar, or a homosexual guitar, however when your song about your undying love for another man makes it to the top of the charts and Rolling Stone describes it as "a song about a Homosexual Experience," I hope you do take offense, if for your own pride.

.

 

Well, this was my original point; I wouldn't be any more offended if they felt the need to describe it in those terms than if they called it "a song about a gay experience". I mean, I really wouldn't. And to be honest, I fail to see what my pride has to do with any of this. It wouldn't make any difference to me which term they used; if someone feels the need to mention your sexuality in reference to something which has nothing to do with it, it doesn't matter (to me, at least) which word they use.

Obviously we just disagree on this one though, since you seem to be intimating that my indifference to this, if genuine, is something I should feel ashamed of.

 

.
Yes, indeed, the reference I gave was to a hypothetical situation, a song that would spacificially deal with your affections for another man. Because of the semantic traps you always seem to focus on, I find it increasingly difficult to carry on a conversation with you. It seem that any reasonable term I might use, "gay" for instance becomes a point of contention.

The fact is that I presented a hypothetical situation whereby you do write a song that would be anything but "heterosexual." In that context, you said that it would make no difference to you how the "story" of that song would be described in the press. I believe you. I don't know where your attitude comes from? Is it from a school yard lesson: "sticks and stones," or a deep zen philosophy of acceptance of all things? If so, I fail to see the nobility in it; and so you're right, we disagree. If the reason is that you simple can't be bothered or don't give a damn? Fine, you have read my inference correctly.

.

 

I'm just baffled as to why you think it would make a difference. I'm not saying "gay" is a bad word. I'm saying that "homosexual" isn't a bad word either. I don't really know any other way to explain this.

And what's being discussed in the original article is semantics. You and I both know that, however the debate may be framed, the content of it is unlikely to change simply because of a few vocabulary changes. Unless of course you feel that, by exorcising control over said vocabulary, we are making in-roads into controlling other things.

Wasn't the whole point of things like Brokeback Mountain to illustrate that gay and straight love aren't fundamentally different? A love song's a love song, unless you're talking about specific organs they're basically androgynous. I'd be annoyed if the press felt the need to dwell on my sexuality at all, is what I'm saying. But you seem to believe that it has to be an issue. I thought you were originally arguing that there are things unrelated to who you sleep with that could still be described as "gay" (as oppose to "homosexual"). So far I haven't heard any, so maybe I just misread you completely. If so, I condole you.

To be honest, "sticks and stones" is a damn good credo. Of course I don't believe in acceptance of all things, otherwise I'd hardly be bothering to discuss this matter beyond the "YAY LUV & PEACE ACCEPTANCE OF LIFESTYLEZ LOL" level. And I have no pretentions of nobility, I just fail to see much reason to delight in the futile. Little victories and everything, but do you ever wonder how many potential activists see something like that and think maybe we do have equality, and so don't end up addressing the issues that actually get people kicked in rather than mildly offended?

 

Different words are going to hit different people in different ways.

The word "homosexual" generally strikes many people as very clinical. It's the "sex" in the middle that does it. Many of us would argue that being gay (or lesbian) is about more than sex.

When I was young and just beginning to come to terms with my sexuality, "homosexual" was a rather neutral, matter-of-fact word. Those of us who were attracted to others of our sex and thought of it as a good thing used "gay" as a way to say that. "Gay" people were out and living happy lives. "Homosexuals" were unhappy and closeted. "Queer" meant you went around saying and doing things just to shock people.

In other words, we used the word "gay" to mean something above and beyond "homosexual" in a positive way.

Even today, it can often be a struggle to feel that way. Like SelfControl, I find myself meeting plenty of shallow jerks. I don't know if there is a greater representation of them among gay or homosexual men, but it seems to be my experience...or else maybe it bothers me more because I want so badly to meet people I can connect with.