Dear Washington Post, please stop calling me a "homosexual"

Americablog.com ^ | 7/05/07 | John Aravosis

[tuesday afternoon]

So apparently I can now offend homosexuals by calling them homosexual.

[tuesday afternoon]

Ping.

[Radix]

More Orwellian BS.

[Keith in Iowa]

It’s the correct, clinical term.

Apparently, this person is unwilling to deal with reality.

[JohnD9207]

That’s a rather Queer opinion.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Is fruitcake OK?

[facedown]

So apparently I can now offend homosexuals by calling them homosexual.

And I intend to do so at every opportunity.

[Red_Devil 232]

So Queer or Fag is ok?

[null and void]

So apparently I can now offend homosexuals by calling them homosexual.

Yeah. That's just soooo gay!

[poinq]

So, is Homo right out?

[toddlintown]

faggot

[Theresawithanh]

To the author of this piece: I do have an ‘ear for language’ after having worked as a medical transcriptionist almost the entire 35 years of my working life, and there is nothing offensive about the term homosexual.

[cripplecreek]

I like the Simpsons. Does that make me homersexual?

[rabscuttle385]

But they called us "homosexuals" throughout the piece, and that's not great. It's degrading and offensive and archaic.

Homosexual is quite appropriate, but the homosexuals don't like to hear it because it exposes them for who they really are. Their lobby can hide behind the other terms, but they can't hide behind the real, medical descriptor: homosexual.

[Mark was here]

Aren't they supposed to be called “poofers”?

[dighton]

Again, I don’t mean to opinionated about it, but if you don’t hear the negative nuance in the word homosexual, it’s either because you’re not listening, or more likely, you don’t have an ear for language.

In plain language, this professional homosexual is full of crap.

[cripplecreek]

Turdburgler?

[svanni]

Fag.

[NucSubs]

Very gay.

[TonyM]

No, not the “H” word!