A challenge to the Guardian: it's time to drop the word 'homosexual'

[William769]

Sometimes, fairness trumps concision. That's the message I'd give to Guardian journalists when the noun "homosexuals" is used instead of "gay people" in reporting. The latter may contain one whole extra word – but it also contains infinitely less insidious prejudice.

The theme for this year's National Anti-Bullying Week, which has been running all this week, is "Stop and think – words can hurt". It's a lesson we can learn beyond the school gates. So let's stop and think and examine why "homosexual" may be a hurtful word.

To stop prejudice-based bullying, gay people need to be normalised - not distanced by language. Plain English dictates that we use "people" instead of Homo sapiens so it follows that "gay people" is less stigmatising than "homosexuals". The noun "homosexual" is equally dehumanising and cold. Reporting needs to be neutral. To be clear, I'm not advocating saccharine and perfunctory warmth to replace this coldness – "those fabulous, wonderful gays!" – but the entirely neutral "gay people".

There's a deeper, more important reason to scrap this pernicious noun. It's loaded with discriminatory baggage. "Homosexual" was the carefully chosen oppressive medical vernacular employed to describe gay people as mentally ill. The American Psychiatric Association officially declassified it as a mental illness in 1974; the World Health Organisation eventually followed suit in 1992. But the hangover effect lives on: some medical professionals still use it as a justification for carrying out so-called "homosexual-cure" therapies. As such, "homosexual" can never be thought to come from a neutral position.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mind-your-language/2011/nov/18/mind-your-language-word-homosexual?newsfeed=true

EDIT: When I posted this article I forgot the link to the article. I appologize if this has caused any trouble. I alerted on myself so I could get the opportunity to be able to edit the post.

Bill

[Confusious]

1. "gay" and "queer" used to be pejoratives

Should we get rid of those to?

Sorry, smacks of censorship to me. And "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are scientific words. Can't support fucking with science.

What would you replace homosexual with to pair it with heterosexual? gaysexual?

Not a big fan of the word game, It seems like a substitute for real work.

[RC]

3. +10

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Concur

They are the correct scientific terms and need to remain as such. Much clearer and less likely to be misunderstood.

[Aerows]

34. I'm a lesbian

And I'm not ready to give up that demarcation anytime soon, since I've fought so hard to make it my own instead of something bad. I find breeders offensive because it implies that we can't be breeders, when so many of us make great parents. Seems like comparing apples to oranges.

[joeybee12]

2. KNR

[pnwmom]

4. I'll use whatever word is less hurtful, but I have trouble understanding

why homosexual isn't a valid alternative to heterosexual. As in homogeneous vs. heterogenous. These have technical meanings which seem to fit.

That actually seems more neutral to me than "gay" vs. "straight" -- which implies that "gay" is the opposite of straight -- i.e., crooked.

(Does this also mean that we can expect to hear the end of the term "breeders"?)

[msongs]

6. how often to you see heteros referred to as such by the word "heterosexual"? gays are singled out

using a word containing "sexual" while straight people are not identified with a sex label. Being gay is the overarching issue, and sex is just ONE sub issue not the only one

[pnwmom]

9. Is it okay to say "heteros" but not "homos"?

Both sound wrong to me. Equally ugly.

Could it be that "hetero" doesn't bother you because no one has called you that?

[hlthe2b]

7. Thank you... I hate the use of "breeders"

Very insulting IMO

[arcane1]

10. They fit even better when bisexuals are factored in n/t

[pnwmom]

11. Good point.

This isn't easy, is it? Trying to come up with labels that are okay with everybody . . . . too bad we need labels at all.

[Aerows]

37. Truly, it is

But we seem to need them.

[Cronus Protagonist]

12. Under what circumstances does a news organization need to identify someone's sexual orientation?

It is totally irrelevant to anything other than scientists studying the topic.

As a "homo" I would like to point out that about 99 percent of what I do, say, or think has nothing to do with my sexual orientation... me being a homosapien certainly has nothing to do with anything relevant to the news.

[stevenleser]

51. Same reason to refer to race, religion or gender. There is a news story about that group

When a minority group marches for equal rights, its a march of (insert the name of that group here) activists. If a bigoted group is trying to enact legislation to restrict that group's rights its anti-(insert the name of that group here) legislation.

[stevenleser]

52. Same reason to refer to race, religion or gender. There is a news story about that group

When a minority group marches for equal rights, its a march of (insert the name of that group here) activists. If a bigoted group is trying to enact legislation to restrict that group's rights its anti-(insert the name of that group here) legislation.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. The thing is, straight people have never been subject to

identification as such, culture wide derogatory lexicons of verbal abuse. If you think really hard, you might note that other minorities have also gone through a process of picking the terms they would like to be called, and insisting upon them. White people not so much. Because of that majority, power, status thing.
In short, what we get to call ourselves and what you get to call us is up to us, not you, you have no say in the matter at all. That's how these things work.

[pnwmom]

20. As I said, I'm fine with using whatever label is preferred by the people associated with it.

Are you? Or do you think it's okay to use terms like "breeders," "heteros," and "fag-hags"?

And do you consider children of gay people (straight or gay) to be part of the gay community? Or are our opinions completely of no interest to you?

[yardwork]

16. The word homosexual has a lot of negative connotations because of its historical use.

It just does.

And yes, the term "breeder" is extremely offensive.

[Aerows]

36. Extremely

For a multitude of reasons.

[NMMNG]

50. Homosexual historically was used as a pejorative

RRRWers still use it for that reason. It's associated with the time when "homosexual" was in the DSM as a mental disorder. It's a clinical term that turns us into things to be feared and loathed rather than human beings. Anti-gays also like to draw the word out and put emphasis on the third syllable; "ho-mo-sex-shu-al". That way they can keep the public thinking we're all about anal sex while decent, moral straight people are all about love and "normal" relations. Gay was not originally a pejorative. It was originally a code word gay men used to identify themselves to one another. It's only recently that people have come to use it in derogatory ways.

[hlthe2b]

5. I'm happy to oblige though I hadn't thought of it that way

But I have to say that I will probably never stop cringing
To hear "queer" used so cavalierly. That term was almost as derisive
In its use as the "n" word applied to African Americans or the F
word for gays. Not for me to decide of course, but I really hate it.
(And don't get me started on some women's attempt to reappropriate
The "c" word..... Sigh

[pennylane100]

15. what's wrong with the "c" word.

It is just a slang word for a body part, we have lots of them to describe the male counterpart.

[hlthe2b]

18. In the US, it has long been a very crude gender slur...

used with anger against women in the same vein as the "n"
word has been against African Americans. I realize it does not
have the same stigma in G Britain and some younger women have
tried to reappropriate it here--just as some in rap have tried to do
so with the "n" word; nonetheless both terms are likely to
be met with considerable anger when thrown out there. (as well they
should IMO)

But no it is NOT just a benign anatomical term here. Use it
On DU and you might well end up earning a "pizza"

[pnwmom]

21. In this country, it's basically a hate word. n/t

[Aerows]

35. I don't use queer personally

or fag, or dyke, because they offend me. Now homosexual, or lesbian? Have no problem with them, and happily identify.

Breeder is offensive because it offers that gay people are incapable of having and rearing children, which is a crock.

[William769]

14. Some people just don't get it & they never will.

What a great thread to show what I was looking for.

[hlthe2b]

17. One can not expect that those whose experiences may be so different

than your own will automatically "get" it. I don't think that means
They don't WANT to. Seems as though you might engage and
discuss your POV, rather than keeping all others at "arms length?"
Just a thought.... :shrug:

[William769]

19. I think it does it has been proven over & over in this forum and also throughout DU.

Yes I said it & I stand by what I say.

Take it for what it's worth, you nor anyone else here cannot change what already has happened.

[pnwmom]

22. Please, William769, I'm trying to understand what is bothering you so much in this thread.

Is it really so offensive, for example, that I think the "gay" vs. "straight" dichotomy might also be a negative one?

And that the term "breeder" is a slur?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

24. No one here, lately.

But friends of my father's use it casually. Are you saying that you've never heard it used among friends?

Here's a recent discussion from DU (just found it googling):

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x28417


Are you also saying that once a gay person's child grows up that person is no longer part of the community? I hope you don't have children yourself. They share some (not all, but some) of the same issues. For example, whenever I meet people and the subject comes up about parents, I have a moment of "coming out" about having two fathers. This is something all children of gay parents do. Depending on the context, this can be easy or hard -- just as it is for gay people. Fortunately, it's a lot easier today than it was a few decades ago, when my family first started to come out (right in the middle of the AIDS crisis, when AIDs was called "the gay man's disease.)

By the way, in my very first post in this thread I said I'd want to use whatever term is not hurtful, and I later repeated that. So why are you snapping at me?

[Aerows]

31. It's offensive

It implies that gay people aren't having or capable of raising children, either. Not to mention divisive as though there is this huge gulf between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

[Aerows]

30. It isn't as though homosexuals have never been "breeders"

Personally, I'm not, but I've known some wonderful lesbians and gay men who do end up "breeding". I agree that it's a nasty term, and I'm a lesbian and have never shied away from stating it.

It's rather absurd.

[queerart]

40. I Have To Say......

After reading your post/posts....


At first, I thought I was clear on your position.... NOW, not so much.....


Whether a word is offensive or not aside... you do get the fact that no Queers called ANYONE a "breeder".... correct?


That it was in fact a "heterosexual" (possibly 2..... different heterosexual posters) that interjected the word/nonsense (breeder) into this thread in a failed attempt to hijack the thread.... and let everyone know how they are the "real victims" here......


Just so we are "crystal clear" with the fact that no Gay poster (here in the GLBTQI posting area) uttered such crap.


Now, what her Dad's friends say to her is quite another matter.... and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US HERE AT DU!


Blaming posters here, for what others have said to her in life would be liken to saying:


I know a woman whom wrote a bad check:, so in turn it's the fault of all women across the United States that she kited a check... therefore I surmise... no woman should ever be trusted, as she will in fact be a serial larcenist.....


In which that deduction is so skewed..... it simply boggles any thinking/reasoning mind to try and process..... (or at least, it sure the fuck should)

[pnwmom]

59. Other gay people in this forum have used the term breeder in the past.

So what if I was the first person to bring it up in this particular thread?

I said right from the beginning that I wanted to use the term that didn't hurt people. But this should go both ways.

[pnwmom]

57. That's for sure! n/t

[William769]

25. pnwmom I have the utmost respect for you & sorry I didn't get back to you till this morning.

As for the term "Breeder" it's not for me to say if it's a slur or not for the simple fact I don't reproduce. What troubles me for starters is the first 3 posts. Secondly is the arrogance whether it is meant or out of ignorance (I mean not knowing the subject matter) whats best for Gay people. No body knows whats best for Gay people except Gay people.

I hope this clears up what is bothering me in this thread.

Peace
Bill

EDIT: I just posted this news article "Colorado state House Dems pick gay man to lead", notice what it says? There is a difference.

[Aerows]

32. Personally, I think the term "breeder"

Is offensive and creates unnecessary hostility between people.

[yardwork]

27. It's offensive for a member of a majority group to tell a minority group what is and isn't offensive

Particularly when the minority group is still greatly discriminated against and doesn't have equal rights.

It's for us to say what is and isn't offensive to us, not members of the privileged majority to determine whether or not we are allowed to be offended.

[Aerows]

33. That, too

But using offensive terms just widens the gulf. I'm a lesbian, and I think the term breeder is offensive, since we are just as capable of rearing children as anyone else is.

[yardwork]

53. I agreed that the term breeder is deeply offensive, upthread. I'm a lesbian and a mom.

It's an ugly slur. I've never heard anybody use it in real life. I've seen it posted on the internet, and I'm sure that there are people who say it, just as there are people who use the n word and make other offensive bigoted remarks. The reference to it in this thread as a justification for offending gay people puzzles me. Shirley Phelps and Phyllis Schlafly say horrible bigoted things. Does that mean that feminism is wrong? Are all women required to tolerate discrimination just because some women are bigots?

That's what the message seems to be. "Some gay people use the offensive term 'breeder,' therefore no gay people deserve to be treated with respect." Is that the point? If not, what is the point of bringing it up?

Not getting it.

[pnwmom]

58. Where is the reference to it as a justification for offending gay people?

I said I would use whatever term that was the least hurtful. I'm not attached to the word "homosexual" though I've never considered it a pejorative. When my father, decades ago, first told me he was homosexual, he didn't see the word as pejorative -- as he did the word "queer." But if people now are hurt by it, I won't use it.

Just because I pointed out that straight members of the gay community (e.g., your children) can be hurt by the use of the word "breeder" doesn't mean I'm trying to justify the use of any other term that hurts other people.

[mitchtv]

43. say it , yardie

I resent being identified by my sexuality when the subject is not sexuality. As for the term "breeder", it can be used offensively, but I try not to worry about the dominant society, they'll get over it ;it certainly pidgeonholes them by a tiny portion of themselves , just like "homosexual".

[Jamastiene]

56. True.

And those of us who DO get it are told how we should think and feel about it. It is like being told to sit at the kiddie table and not interrupt the grown ups. I know of no other minority group that is treated like that here, just us.

[Smarmie Doofus]

26. Fascinating article but I don't agree.

There is something "wrong" ( theoretically, at least) with all available terminology.

"Homo" and "hetero" are the least compromised and most objective... i.e. neutral.... terms I can think of in English. ( At some point the quality of communication has to be considered.)

They are also, therefore, the most likely to endure.

"Gay"... has a linguistic family tree that meanders all over the place. The most recent dominant usage... previous to circa 1969... was "happy", "light-hearted", "care-free". ( Yes I understand there are other branches of the same tree but that was "the meaning" of the word in the USA prior to '69 or so. )

I'm not comfortable with the suggestion raised by the word that I am any of those things at any particular time. ( Frankly, among other things, that's too much pressure. If I feel serious or even depressed, I want linguistic permission to feel that way.)


OTOH, I totally agree with this, also from the article:

>>>Last week the author Stella Duffy tweeted that she was bemused by pinkpaper.com referring to her as "openly gay", stating that the phrase is "as offensive as 'self-confessed'" and suggesting they'd been "taken over by the Daily Mail".>>>>

But apparently I'm in the tiny minority. What else is new.

[closeupready]

28. How often do people refer to themselves as "heterosexuals"? Not as frequently

as gay people are referred to as "homosexuals".

And that is offensive when coming from a random person because it is an attempt to box us in, and that label can be misused in stigmatizing us.

That is why, unless I know you are openly gay or lesbian, I do not appreciate being referred to as a "homosexual".

[Aerows]

39. Only because of heteronormative beliefs

I'm not afraid in the slightest to call myself a homosexual or a lesbian. It's part of who I am, and when people assume since I'm femme that I'm straight? It bugs me a lot.

[closeupready]

45. Yes, most people have heteronormative biases and prejudices.

And then, at the same time, they pretend they don't, and you are being 'oversensitive' when you object to them referring to gay people as 'homosexuals'. :mad:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. I think the principle is sound but the application probably isn't.

I think that when given a choice of words, trying to use ones that will offend fewer people is a good objective.

However, I'm not convinced that there is a significant difference between the number of people who would prefer to be called "homosexual" and the number who would prefer to be called "gay".

I certainly *don't* think that the linguistics of either term is relevant. What matters is what people *will* be offended or distressed by, not what they *should* be offended or distressed by. I'm not going to start calling people "hussy" or "nigger" just because the root-words of those aren't offensive, or stop calling people "bastards" just because there's nothing wrong with illegitimacy.

To make a strong case for consistently using one or the other, I think you'd need a poll showing a significant majority preference. If such things exist, I might well change my views in light of them, but I'm not aware of any.

[Aerows]

38. I don't get why homosexual is bad

I don't like to be described as a dyke, but I don't mind being called a lesbian or defining myself as homosexual. It's just fact, and a concise way of putting my orientation.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. because it sounds like a scientific 'problem'. i dont think its bad per se

i think it lacks the non-threatening and friendlier word like gay

incidentally the right wing knows this. they have deliberately been using the word homosexual isntead of gay. its how they turned some football player tyler gay into tyler homosexual by accident

[Smarmie Doofus]

42. Hmmmm... less that , one suspects, than that they know...

... that the term "gay" is more or less the consensus choice of the modern lgbt political movement. It's the RW's way of saying " fuck you".

>>>i think it lacks the non-threatening and friendlier word like gay

incidentally the right wing knows this.>>>>>

[mitchtv]

46. I'm sure Tyler Gay

popped up on some RW spellcheck

[Withywindle]

54. Yup, that really happened.

http://boingboing.net/2008/06/30/homophobic-news-site.html


It was the American Family Association's "news" site. (Heh, I originally typed "shite." Truth in typos!). They deliberately always use "homosexual" instead of "gay" because of the more negative connotations. Sort of like the way, to right-wingers, it's always "Democrat party" instead of "Democratic party." This is very deliberate. It's not even like a dog-whistle, it's more like the kind of conscious framing they are taught to do.

Anyone who doubts whether "homosexual" has negative connotations in a lot of contexts just needs to look at that!

[pnwmom]

60. Why would it sound like a problem when the counterparts are "heterosexual"

and "bi-sexual"?

Maybe this is generational. Do you think that could be? My father taught me to use the word "homosexual" and he hated the word "queer." He also hated it when I said "yeah" instead of "yes" and when I called my friends "kids" -- which are goats.

[Amimnoch]

44. I, personally, refuse to allow hateful people define terminology for me.

William, let's look at the root cause on why you are finding the word homosexual offensive. It's because of the way the right wingers use it.

I refuse to let those people turn a benign word that describes me into a word with hateful meaning. I will NOT tolerate them making homosexual, queer, gay or any word that describes my orientation into a bad thing.

If we allow THEM to define homosexual as a bad thing, then we allow them to win a battle in this war they are waging on us.

I am gay, I am a homosexual, I am queer, I am a fag.. and I am damn proud of it! Words like these can only hurt us if we allow them to, and I will not be hurt by words that define who I am.

Let's say you win this battle that you want.. and we get homosexual turned into a taboo word that isn't allowed in print, in news, or in public.. it doesn't change anything for the ones that we are adversarial with. They will just turn to another word that is used to describe us and use it in a hurtful way, then we go onto the next word.. then the next.

The way to win isn't to allow them to decide how the word is defined, to allow them to change the connotation from meaning a sexual orientation to meaning something evil, bad, or disgusting. The way to win is to show them that us GLBT's, and our great allies will NOT be silenced, that we will NOT tolerate being relegated to second class citizens, and we will NOT allow them to change the connotation that words used to define us are used in.

I love you man, I love your passion, I love your drive, and it broke my heart in the other thread when you said you were leaving, and it brings me GREAT joy that you are not! I just can't agree with you on this one, babe.

[William769]

47. All I did was post the article.

I took offense when people that are not gay are deciding the defining me as a homosexual. I hope you can understand that.

I love you too! But I believe this is a discussion strictly for Gay people & no one else. I hope you understand.

[Amimnoch]

48. ahhh, gotcha!

Hell, I do agree with ya then. :pals:

[William769]

49. Hugs always.

[pnwmom]

62. Only for gay people and no one else?

How do you feel about their children? Do we get thrown out of the community when we turn into straight teens or adults?

One thing about being the adult child of a gay parent is that it is so isolating. For a long, long time, if I hadn't had siblings I wouldn't have personally known ANYONE with a gay parent. For reasons you can probably understand, it's often not a subject that comes up with new acquaintances. And when it finally comes up, you can see that look of surprise -- that new appraisal. A few decades ago, the new look usually came with pity, too. The "enlightened" (those who didn't think homosexuality should be a crime) thought being gay was a disease. In the eyes of the larger world, we were the children of a sick man.

Fortunately, things have changed for the better in the intervening decades. But I still feel drawn to this forum sometimes because, like everyone else here, I care about these issues: even though I'm straight. How could I not? It would be like not caring about racial issues if I looked white but had a black father.

[pnwmom]

61. +1. n/t

[Jamastiene]

55. Homo-SECKS-SHU-al

I've heard it pronounced that way so many more times than just saying the word normally. I can always tell when someone who hates gay people is saying that word. They say it just that way, putting the most emphasis on the capitalized letters in my subject line. That irritates the shit out of me when they do it that way. They do that to demean us.

Seeing it typed (as opposed to hearing how someone pronounces it), I have to read to find out if they are against gay people or not. Usually, they are.

Personally, I don't use the word homosexual and hate the word. It is another one of those words that we have to explain on DU why it is offensive. I wonder what other minority group on DU has to explain in deep detail why each and every individual slur is offensive. I know of none at all that have to do that (other than the GLBT community) and we are still told, point blank, that it will still be allowed and that we are wrong, but that is the nature of this place, unfortunately. There is no way to fix it. It will always be that way here. I have zero illusions that it will ever change now.

[LiberalAndProud]

63. Maybe I'm crazy, but it sounds less perjorative to me when pronounced with a British accent.

Short o-sound -- hah' mo sex u al. It's hard to do accents on the keyboard, you know?