Maybe it's my age but I've never objected to the word homosexual. It's clinical, precise, apolitical. I am what I am, and I'm not ashamed to say it. I can use it to refer to both men and women and (unlike this blog) not leave anyone out. I feel the same way about the word atheist.
Homo, however, is objectionable. And I would never refer to myself as a faggot or queer. In the early days I was not happy with the term gay which originally carried the negative connotation of loose morals. And there was a herd mentality in those days. Not that all gays had to be the same politically (although there was some of that) but that gays had to be the same behaviorally. Before AIDS my partner and I were sneered at for going home together; once when we stopped for a drink and camaraderie at that old bar on lower Wisconsin Ave. (wish I could pull the name out of this failing databank I call my brain) a guy came up to us and said: "We've been watching and we don't understand you two. Are you monogamous?" The last word was uttered as if a dirty word. I'm okay with gay now and don't use the word homosexual because I know it offends some.
mooresart
· 4 months ago
Much ado about nothing is my thought on the matter. Homosexual is a perfectly legitimate word just like heterosexual is. Why care who uses it in whatever context they use it? To me "gay" sounds frivolous and fey and conjures up visual stereotypes (fairy comes to mind) while "straight" implies many things that many straight people are not (moral comes to mind). Words. Just words. Too bad there's not another word we can use. Lesbians were pretty creative in taking their name from Greek Mythology. Let's get more creative!
DouginMountVernon
· 4 months ago
Oh so maybe Soddomite? That's "mythological".
AdamBlast
· 4 months ago
Absolutely. The only time I hear the word "homosexual" these days is when it's being used by someone who objects to us. Like the Mormon actor "friend" who thinks he's progressive because he's decided he can tolerate playing "homosexual characters."
Seems like I've heard this all my life. "I won't call them gay. They're *not* gay. They're unhappy. Because they're sinners." --Anita Bryant, in the age of Harvey Milk.
maybair
· 4 months ago
I noticed that the straight world has a tendency of making every word that remotely describes gays sound negative. I think it's ridiculous that they say "that's gay." I draw the line at homosexual. WE SHOULD NEVER MIND BEING CALLED HOMOSEXUAL. Stop letting straight people turn every word that describes us into a negative thing.
At this rate, 50 years from now, I fear that we're going to refer to them as the G word, and the H word.
Drew2u
· 4 months ago
"Faggot"?
maybair
· 4 months ago
A single word in quotes, followed by a question mark is not a question. What are you trying to say?
Drew2u
· 4 months ago
What about "faggot" in the vernacular; or "queer"? What is the policy on those words?
maybair
· 4 months ago
I certainly don't create policy for other people, I am just stating what I think. I am black and gay, and I resent that the words nigger/faggot are so volatile, that I am expected to be emotionally affected every time someone uses it. I feel this is giving power to others to control my mood. I don't get offended by words, but rather their implications.
donbux
· 4 months ago
nice sentiment, but not terribly realistic.
gaydem
· 4 months ago
One of the most egregious practitioners of late has been that young, black "culture maven" male talking head who has been on shows spouting on and on about Michael Jackson. He was on "Morning Joe" last week, and used the term "homosexual" at least 4 times---with an edge to his voice, too. I was getting really pissed about it.
I can't recall his name 'cause I don't take him or his intelligence seriously. I just found it odd that for a late-20-something he sure is "uncool" with regard to the lexicon, and quickly needs to get up to speed.
I barely even bother trying to look at the context anymore. If I see the word "homosexual," there are pretty much two possibilities:
1. A gay person said it to be funny. 2. A bigot said it because they're too bigoted/ignorant to bother keeping up with the language.
Would KGTV describe someone as "colored?"
psychodrew
· 4 months ago
I study homophobia and I'm actually doing a study on the use of the word "homosexual" this fall.
JustAGuy
· 4 months ago
What led you to your decision to do the study? Is there any existing scientific literature on the subject you could talk about or reference?
Just curious.
-S
psychodrew
· 4 months ago
This isn't really a homophobia study. One thing I'm interested in whether the use of pejorative terms influences the individuals perceive the target. My theory is the pejorative terms strip the target of his/her humanness. I'm collecting data on a different stigmatized group right now. If that study works the way I expect, then I will do the homosexual study this fall.
Name
· 4 months ago
Language matters. Labels matter. For sure.
Growing up in NYC in the 50's, in my family and social sphere Chinese restaurants were routinely referred to as "the Chinks," as in "Let's go eat at the Chinks tonight."
It was only when all my brain cells were in place that I realized how demeaning that was, and how it had affected my outlook on an entire people.
When used by uninformed straights (and self-loathing gay people), "homosexual" = "Chinks."
Valentinefrey
· 4 months ago
It's really not that simple - see mikeyDe above. I'm also old enough to remember when homosexual was definitely a better word than gay. Did you know gay started as slang adjective for a someone engaged in prostitution? In Victorian-era writings (My Secret Life) you read of men trying to be certain that a woman is "gay" before accosting them on the street. Homosexual described a constant orientation, gay was someone who's ready to fuck all the time: homosexual was actually the less sexual term. As to Chink - do you remember when Oriental became a bad word? I remember hearing about it before my Chinese coworkers in the clerical job I was in at the time. "Asian? - No, I'm not Asian - Asia's too big." I'm not saying that I continue to use the word homosexual or oriental but I am saying that it's important to remember that these arguments based on the intrinsic meanings of words are often less than air-tight. There's no reason to assume the worst especially when someone uses homosexual. It's the intention behind the use that matters.
DouginMountVernon
· 4 months ago
Personally I agree with this sentiment. I do, however, agree with some commenters that making a huge to-do over it only strengthens their hold on OUR language.
I liked someone's suggestion of being creative in "naming" our community. I was joking with the "Soddomite" thing actually so I hope no one took offense.
How about in Oscar Wilde's vein, the "community that dare not speak its name", or ala Carrie Prejean's "opposite marriage", how about just the "sames"....
tonyinseattle
· 4 months ago
Let it go. The more it bugs us, the more they'll use it. They'll keep putting "marriage" in quotes to refer to our marriages, too. They're losing the big battles. Don't give them a battle they can win.
Bill
· 4 months ago
Thanks, John, for posting this. This issue is also something that has bugged me for years. EVERYONE knows that gay people preferred to be call "gay"....That's why the right-wing bigots still call us "homosexual"....just another way of demeaning us and insinuating that sex is all we do in our lives. We need to take back the conversation, not only with regard to what we prefer to be called, but also with regard to how many LGBT people exist in the United States. I'm sick and tired of the right-wing trying to get away with saying that we are only 1% of the population. I suspect that we are 10%, and I've seen some preliminary studies that suggest that we could even be 20%.
Some might say that these issues are too trivial to worry about. But I believe that they lay the groundwork for the LGBT commumity to build much more important issues upon. If we allow the right-wing to control these two things, then THEY lay the groundwork for their continued derision of and fight against LGBT people and causes. The first step in discrimination is dehuminization of a class of people, and that's exactly what these seemingly trivial issues do.
Guest
· 4 months ago
You are falling right into a stereotypical trap.
you are saying that there is "more " to be homosexual than your sexual preference. If that is true you are stereotyping all homosexuals as you wish. Truth is there is NO stereotypical common practice among homosexuals except homosexuality. therefore the word is the correct one.
Bill
· 4 months ago
What I'm saying is that I find the word "homosexual" to be derisive, and not what the majority of gay people that I know want to be called. Additionally, it is frequently used as a pejorative by the right-wing fundies and bigots. And there IS more to being gay than just my sexual orientation. I'm not stereotyping anyone. You are trying to be clinical with a label. Is there more to being heterosexual than a person's sexual orientation? Or is it strictly who screws whom?
pender
· 4 months ago
Completely agree. "Homosexual" is the new "negro."
jm2
· 4 months ago
a word is just a word. it is a tool that is used for communicating intent and/or sentiment. personally, i don't like the word "homosexual", or "heterosexual for that matter, because they are so clinical and cold as terms.
the problem with any word comes from how it is spoken or used. if it is meant to be derogatory, even the word "and" can be offensive. words used to denote negativity usually seem to be based on either fear or ignorance. if it's ignorance, it can be fixed. if it is fear, it's going to cause a problem.
so, i agree with Rex to a great extent. it's meant derogatory in most cases by the right mouths of distinction. they spit it out rather than just saying it as a matter of fact. even if you read their writings the spittle drools from the letters they use.
i like the word "queer" myself and i identify with it. the problem i have is that my straight friends find it offensive and don't like me using it! can't win for loosing...
Bill
· 4 months ago
The way right-wingers spit and gag out the word "homosexual" is the same way our illustrious past president Ronald Raygun (sp. intentional) sneered and gagged on the word "liberal"......with much the same intent, I would say.
jm2
· 4 months ago
"faggot" is another one that most find offensive. i always think of what it was originally - a bunch of sticks tied together as kindling to light the witch-hunt immolations...
jm2
· 4 months ago
pender -
with your comment, i really recommend, to everyone, an article over at "Killing the Buddha" - 'Gays Are the New N*****s' by Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou. he brings in so much history related specifically to Bayard Ruskin, Martin Luther King Jr, and the connection that Civil Rights are Civil Rights and too many people forget that.
it's especially important since Ruskin not only planned the March on Washington in 1963 and was Dr. King's closest advisor, but also because he was an openly gay black man at a time when just being black was a problem.
I'm firmly in the "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me" camp.
And I still haven't forgiven the American liberal community for responding to the Reagan years NOT by fighting back, but by becoming the PC language police. As a result, anyone who says "the N word" in public can be hounded out of their job - so did that make racism go away?
To me, having right-wingers use "homosexual" in that derogatory way (and I agree, that's how they intend it) is just an annoyance, on the same level as when they say "Democrat Party" because they know it gets our goat. So instead of giving the satisfaction of getting a rise out of us, let's try to be above it.
The proper response to hate speech is more and better speech, not declaring war on a word for its own sake.
Tysalpha
· 4 months ago
A better construction for the article (if it needs to be pointed out at all) would have been: "At one point, DeMaio -- who is gay -- smiled without making a comment."
Homosexual should only be used as an adjective -- as in the clinical sense of describing activity or orientation. It should never be used as a noun, at least in a news article.
People may have a homosexual orientation or engage in homosexual activity. But few would identify with the idea of being called "a homosexual". It demeans our existence to the most basic and clinical part -- whereas "gay" references being part of a culture with shared experiences, history, language, etc.
Guest
· 4 months ago
Boy if only we could all ignore reality and just have people call us whatever we wanted them to call us.
You are either attracted to sexual relations with someone of the same sex which makes you homosexual or you are a poser. You may wish to gloss it over with a word that doesn't accurately describe the attraction but then if you want to gloss it over and go into a verbal closet why are you publicly blogging?
But I like your logic and demand you follow it too.
I think from now on I want people to call me "benevolent". I have redefined the word to mean "one who prefers people to refer to themselves accurately."
SO as a proud benevolent I demand you refer to me that way.
After all anything else is so "out of style" and obviously if you don't want to refer to me as BENEVOLENT you are a bigot.
Mike_in_the_Tundra
· 4 months ago
Gee, I would think that "closet case who can't keep away from gay blogs" would be more accurate, but if you wish to be called a closeted, proud benevolent, you may. Normally, one doesn't choose the adjectives used to describe themselves, but you can have proud. I can think of several others.
Your wording seems to indicate that you're the only proud benevolent in the world. That makes the chance of you reproducing practically nil. I can sleep soundly tonight.
hizonor
· 4 months ago
I don't buy the "word is just a word" argument, I'm afraid. Words hurt. In this case, the word "homosexual" is overwhelmingly used in a negative context by people who don't like gay folks... and by those who don't know better.
Stuffed Animal
· 4 months ago
There's no such thing as a homosexual, just as there's no such thing as a heterosexual. You can't narrow people down to their sexual practices. This word is an adjective, not a noun. But I'd sooner someone called me a homosexual than a "queer", and far too many Gay people feel they have my permission to do that. They don't. Nobody does.
JustaLawya
· 4 months ago
I'm less concerned with the actual label and more with the need to add the definnition in the first place. Why, allegedly, should it matter whether so-and-so is gay? Why do we never hear "Carl, who is openly straight, argued that. . ."? Actually, the only time we do hear that is when they're talking about gay rights but don't want to be *gasp* thought of as gay. . . Does anyone know when and how the "openly gay" thing in the media started?
Oh, and for the record, I prefer sodomite. It has a certain ring to it =)
All Comments
Homo, however, is objectionable. And I would never refer to myself as a faggot or queer. In the early days I was not happy with the term gay which originally carried the negative connotation of loose morals. And there was a herd mentality in those days. Not that all gays had to be the same politically (although there was some of that) but that gays had to be the same behaviorally. Before AIDS my partner and I were sneered at for going home together; once when we stopped for a drink and camaraderie at that old bar on lower Wisconsin Ave. (wish I could pull the name out of this failing databank I call my brain) a guy came up to us and said: "We've been watching and we don't understand you two. Are you monogamous?" The last word was uttered as if a dirty word. I'm okay with gay now and don't use the word homosexual because I know it offends some.
Seems like I've heard this all my life. "I won't call them gay. They're *not* gay. They're unhappy. Because they're sinners." --Anita Bryant, in the age of Harvey Milk.
At this rate, 50 years from now, I fear that we're going to refer to them as the G word, and the H word.
I can't recall his name 'cause I don't take him or his intelligence seriously. I just found it odd that for a late-20-something he sure is "uncool" with regard to the lexicon, and quickly needs to get up to speed.
1. A gay person said it to be funny.
2. A bigot said it because they're too bigoted/ignorant to bother keeping up with the language.
Would KGTV describe someone as "colored?"
Just curious.
-S
Growing up in NYC in the 50's, in my family and social sphere Chinese restaurants were routinely referred to as "the Chinks," as in "Let's go eat at the Chinks tonight."
It was only when all my brain cells were in place that I realized how demeaning that was, and how it had affected my outlook on an entire people.
When used by uninformed straights (and self-loathing gay people), "homosexual" = "Chinks."
I'm not saying that I continue to use the word homosexual or oriental but I am saying that it's important to remember that these arguments based on the intrinsic meanings of words are often less than air-tight. There's no reason to assume the worst especially when someone uses homosexual. It's the intention behind the use that matters.
I liked someone's suggestion of being creative in "naming" our community. I was joking with the "Soddomite" thing actually so I hope no one took offense.
How about in Oscar Wilde's vein, the "community that dare not speak its name", or ala Carrie Prejean's "opposite marriage", how about just the "sames"....
Some might say that these issues are too trivial to worry about. But I believe that they lay the groundwork for the LGBT commumity to build much more important issues upon. If we allow the right-wing to control these two things, then THEY lay the groundwork for their continued derision of and fight against LGBT people and causes. The first step in discrimination is dehuminization of a class of people, and that's exactly what these seemingly trivial issues do.
you are saying that there is "more " to be homosexual than your sexual preference.
If that is true you are stereotyping all homosexuals as you wish.
Truth is there is NO stereotypical common practice among homosexuals except homosexuality.
therefore the word is the correct one.
the problem with any word comes from how it is spoken or used. if it is meant to be derogatory, even the word "and" can be offensive. words used to denote negativity usually seem to be based on either fear or ignorance. if it's ignorance, it can be fixed. if it is fear, it's going to cause a problem.
so, i agree with Rex to a great extent. it's meant derogatory in most cases by the right mouths of distinction. they spit it out rather than just saying it as a matter of fact. even if you read their writings the spittle drools from the letters they use.
i like the word "queer" myself and i identify with it. the problem i have is that my straight friends find it offensive and don't like me using it! can't win for loosing...
with your comment, i really recommend, to everyone, an article over at "Killing the Buddha" - 'Gays Are the New N*****s' by Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou. he brings in so much history related specifically to Bayard Ruskin, Martin Luther King Jr, and the connection that Civil Rights are Civil Rights and too many people forget that.
it's especially important since Ruskin not only planned the March on Washington in 1963 and was Dr. King's closest advisor, but also because he was an openly gay black man at a time when just being black was a problem.
here's the link to the article: http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/damnation/gays-...
And I still haven't forgiven the American liberal community for responding to the Reagan years NOT by fighting back, but by becoming the PC language police. As a result, anyone who says "the N word" in public can be hounded out of their job - so did that make racism go away?
To me, having right-wingers use "homosexual" in that derogatory way (and I agree, that's how they intend it) is just an annoyance, on the same level as when they say "Democrat Party" because they know it gets our goat. So instead of giving the satisfaction of getting a rise out of us, let's try to be above it.
The proper response to hate speech is more and better speech, not declaring war on a word for its own sake.
Homosexual should only be used as an adjective -- as in the clinical sense of describing activity or orientation. It should never be used as a noun, at least in a news article.
People may have a homosexual orientation or engage in homosexual activity. But few would identify with the idea of being called "a homosexual". It demeans our existence to the most basic and clinical part -- whereas "gay" references being part of a culture with shared experiences, history, language, etc.
You are either attracted to sexual relations with someone of the same sex which makes you homosexual or you are a poser. You may wish to gloss it over with a word that doesn't accurately describe the attraction but then if you want to gloss it over and go into a verbal closet why are you publicly blogging?
But I like your logic and demand you follow it too.
I think from now on I want people to call me "benevolent".
I have redefined the word to mean "one who prefers people to refer to themselves accurately."
SO as a proud benevolent I demand you refer to me that way.
After all anything else is so "out of style" and obviously if you don't want to refer to me as BENEVOLENT you are a bigot.
Your wording seems to indicate that you're the only proud benevolent in the world. That makes the chance of you reproducing practically nil. I can sleep soundly tonight.
Does anyone know when and how the "openly gay" thing in the media started?
Oh, and for the record, I prefer sodomite. It has a certain ring to it =)