just call-em a fag... much easier.
Posted on 07/06/2007 4:19:18 PM PDT by tuesday afternoon
The Washington Post published a pro-gay editorial today about marriage. And that's great. But they called us "homosexuals" throughout the piece, and that's not great. It's degrading and offensive and archaic.
I've written about this before, and some have disagreed. But I'd argue that those who disagree don't understand the nuance of language or of this particular phrase. Ask any gay person, regardless of whether they agree or disagree that the word "homosexual" is archaic and offensive, whether they use the term "gay" or "homosexual" to described themselves. I.e., "I'm gay" or "I'm a homosexual." Just ask them. Unless they're living under a rock, gay people rarely if ever use the word homosexual. (My gay-friendly straight friends, however, use the term all the time. In the same way that I still hear friends use the word "oriental.")
Why? First, because it's become archaic. Usage changes, and just as Negro and colored changed to black and African-American, just as oriental gave way to Asian, homosexual has become gay. But second, and more importantly, the word homosexual is offensive in the same manner as negro and oriental. Sometimes archaic words sting. In the case of homosexual, I think the main problem is three-fold. First, the clinical nature of the term. It's a scientific word that mildly dehumanizes gay people by suggesting that they have a medical or psychological condition. Second, the words "homo" and "sex." Both words connote something negative, or at least something that shouldn't be spoken out loud, to a lot of Americans. Third, and most importantly, homosexual is the word the religious right uses expressly and uniquely in an effort to dehumanize gays. Anti-gay religious right activists have said publicly that they will not use the word "gay" - rather, they insist on using "homosexual." Why? Because for some reason or another they figure that the word homosexual helps their cause. And while I don't agree with the religious right on many things, their ability to gay-bash swiftly and effectively is unqestioned. If they think the word gay helps us and the word homosexual hurts us, who am I to argue?
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. There's a reason that colored and Negro and oriental weren't offensive terms years ago, yet are today. The nuance of words changes over time. And while gays were once thought to be mentally disturbed - that all changed in 1973 - the language has not changed since that time.
It's time it did.
PS Don't believe me? Read what a communications professional has to say about this. (Actually, I hadn't read his piece until after I wrote mine, but the logic is remarkably similar.) Also, check out this recent editorial in the lead gay newspaper in the US.
I still believe the most appropriate term is “sodomite”.
grouse3 /graʊs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[grous]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Â
–adjective
Australian Slang. excellent; great; wonderful.
just call-em a fag... much easier.
The worst part is that when I'm trying for puns I run out so quickly...
I guess this guy doesn't like being called homosexual because it states clearly the type of sexual relations he prefers.
Exactly right. And, only due to political pressure was Homosexuality removed from the DSM by the APA. This manual identifies mental illnesses which are categorizes as such due to the fact that they all appear within the human population at very low percentages; hence they are deemed to fall outside of the normal range of human behavior. Homosexuality was removed from this manual after the pro-homosexual lobby managed to manipulate the population percentages through combining other discrete groups in with homosexuals (i.e., bisexual, transgendered, hermaphroditic individuals) which boosted the percentage up around 10 percent instead of the 1 to 3 percent previously reported (which is much more accurate).
In 1972, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality, removing it from their list of mental illnesses.
Thankfully so.
Whoops I meant to say...
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality, removing it from their list of mental illnesses.
A skunk is still a skunk even if you prefer to be called a pole-cat........
For the record, I take offense to the term "Gay" because I find nothing happy about homosexuals......
I guess we’re back to faggot?
Perhaps the word "drab" would be a better alternative word to describe a homesexual. I have never known a person living in the "alternative lifestyle" who did not suffer from serious bouts of anger and depression.
Better to call them homos in print, saves ink.
A homo by any other name is still a homo.
Australian Slang. excellent; great; wonderful.
A new one on me too, but no great shock, considering Aussie recreation.
;-)
I had another friend. His parents immigrated to the US in the 60’s from Portugal. Big ranch owners. Pretty wealthy.
He rode the Hispanic grants through college.
That's true! All are manifestations of a politically correct neurosis. Only a seriously imbalanced person is offended by a straightforward descriptor.
Don’t you mean “that” homosexual or are you tell Freepers something we haven’t previously known.
In that case, what about “heterosexual?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.