Is the use of 'gay' as an adjective homophobic? [Archive]

Forward Union

19th January 2007, 17:51

Words are a way of conveying meaning.

But meaning is not tied into the word itself in some absolutist way. As in, you cannot make an absolutist judgement about the meaning of a single word (sound) if you ignore the context in which it is said.

I only care about what people mean, not what they say. And so, if some revolutionary leftist or someone I know is not homophobic, says that such and such a thing is "gay" I really couldn't care less.

Because what they mean is that the thing in question is "bad" not that "homosexuals are repulsive" Perhaps originally it was a belittling phrase but now, individuals learn the phrase "that's gay" separately from the idea of homosexuality, so more often than not the negative link simply isn't there. I used to call people Twats and ****s before I knew what those words meant, and I love women. :wub:

And as I have said plenty of times before, if you ban the word "gay" then you must also ban several other words, like; Hysterical, because it belittles women. Coming from the Greek; 'Histar' or "to be woman-like" so when someone is hysterical they are 'acting like a woman'

Furthermore, stopping people saying "gay" will not achieve anything, as this form of oppression is entirely to do with class society, and not what people in it say.

chimx

19th January 2007, 18:14

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 19, 2007 05:37 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 19, 2007 05:37 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 08:21 pm
And... it isn't definitively right or wrong, morally speaking, because it is both accepted and unaccepted by both gay and straight men and women alike.
That's a ridiculous analysis.

Reality isn't based on peoples subjectivity. It has nothing to do with "morals", it's about oppression [/b]
well, you just said that "reality is about oppression," which perhaps you could elaborate on cause I don't understand your meaning.

The Feral Underclass

19th January 2007, 18:28

Originally posted by chimx+January 19, 2007 07:14 pm--> (chimx @ January 19, 2007 07:14 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 05:37 pm

[email protected] 15, 2007 08:21 pm
And... it isn't definitively right or wrong, morally speaking, because it is both accepted and unaccepted by both gay and straight men and women alike.
That's a ridiculous analysis.

Reality isn't based on peoples subjectivity. It has nothing to do with "morals", it's about oppression
well, you just said that "reality is about oppression," which perhaps you could elaborate on cause I don't understand your meaning. [/b]
That's not what I said. I didn't make a statement about what reality was, only what it wasn't.

The subject of using the word "gay" is not about morality, it's about oppression.

chimx

19th January 2007, 19:21

I'll get to that in a second, but you said:

Reality <s>isn't based on peoples subjectivity. It has nothing to do with "morals"</s>, it's about oppression.

Unless you mean "it" to be something else.

The Feral Underclass

20th January 2007, 16:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:21 pm
Unless you mean "it" to be something else.
Yes, the use of the word "gay" you moron! I apologise for not differentiating the two statements more clearly for your very limited American brain.

The Feral Underclass

20th January 2007, 16:13

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 19, 2007 06:51 pm
But meaning is not tied into the word itself in some absolutist way. As in, you cannot make an absolutist judgement about the meaning of a single word (sound) if you ignore the context in which it is said.
You have totally oversimplified language and oppression. There are reasons why the word "gay" is used to refer to things in a negative way.

Language evolves, meaning evolves but it does so from a basis of history with a bit of empiricism thrown in with it.

Our attitudes and understandings of the world are totally nuanced and dictated to by our social conditioning.

Humans create oppression through their actions - it's not some mystical entity that can be destroyed or ignored simply because an individual decides on a particular context for a particular word - which you have totally voided of any historical meaning.

The question of latent oppression is a very complex one and requires an almost spiritual regression of the "self" ( :rolleyes: ) in order to finally understand it and ultimately rid oneself of these nuances.

Using the word gay to mean something negative, regardless of what you think you are or how you think you are using it is imbeded in a vast history of oppression - it perpetuates a view of homosexuality, whether you mean it to or not and, I'm afraid, whether you think it does or not.

Nuanced it may be, but oppression it is nevertheless.

Furthermore, stopping people saying "gay" will not achieve anything, as this form of oppression is entirely to do with class society, and not what people in it say.

That's easy for you to say, but when straight people use the word "gay" as a negative or a pejorative word it perpetuates to gay people a feeling of isolation and alienation. Essentially oppression.

chimx

21st January 2007, 03:06

The problem with your assumption that gay can only be used in the negative is that you have an extremely simplistic, literal-minded idea of language. The very idea that when a homophobic asshole uses the term "gay", it is synonymous with a queer-lib advocates use of the term "gay" is an extremely polarized view of language and ignores the contextual reality behind both groups.

A homophobic preacher that says "that is gay" has a completely different meaning from people on this forum. The progressive mind, following the approval by a large portion of the gay community, uses the term knowing the historical baggage so as to break down barriers between sexual groups. That is to say... the progressive mind does it despite the baggage. The homophobe does it because of the baggage. It is an extremely different context.

It is an attempt to breakdown the notion that gays should be treated as an "other"--something that I think is one of the most detrimental attitudes towards gay rights. That is why you can't view language solely as a binary formula. We do not derive meaning solely from words, but rather the context surrounding the words. Gay, queer, and fag can all be used as healthily as any other word, depending on how they are used, and the intentions behind their usage.

p.s. if you want to split this into discrimination so that more people will read it, be my guest.

Hiero

21st January 2007, 14:01

The only way you could get away with saying "that's gay" without having homophobic implications is if you are old and talking about something happy or colourfull.

loveme4whoiam

21st January 2007, 14:48

Indeed Hiero - calling something gay has taken on a negative connotation due to the homophobic nature of those who use the word gay as an adjective (although I doubt that they would know what an adjective is if it smacked them in the nose).

Perhaps its possible to change that, perhaps not. But right now its a vile and ignorant, homophobic use of the word.

apathy maybe

21st January 2007, 14:54

It is my opinion that we should not use words such as 'gay', '****' or similar. Using these words as insults implies that they are bad things. People would not use 'shithead' or 'that is shit' is shit smelt nice and was pretty.

"And as I have said plenty of times before, if you ban the word "gay" then you must also ban several other words, like; Hysterical, because it belittles women. Coming from the Greek; 'Histar' or "to be woman-like" so when someone is hysterical they are 'acting like a woman'"
The difference is that fuck all people know the root meaning of the word hysterical, where as 'gay' is used to refer to gay people and to things that are some how stupid or objectionable.

There is more oppression then simply class oppression, or do you think that it is alright for people to use the word 'nigger' or 'abo'? After all, racism is entirely down to class society.

The Feral Underclass

21st January 2007, 15:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:06 am
The problem with your assumption that gay can only be used in the negative is that you have an extremely simplistic, literal-minded idea of language. The very idea that when a homophobic asshole uses the term "gay", it is synonymous with a queer-lib advocates use of the term "gay" is an extremely polarized view of language and ignores the contextual reality behind both groups.

My point is that homophobia/sexism etc is ingrained in all of us and that oppression does not just disappear simply because of the context in which language is spoken by individuals.

Oppression is so ingrained and nuanced in our behaviour and actions to such an extent that we don't even acknowledge it to be oppression. The word "gay" has historical meaning and context and regardless of who you are and how you think, using the word pejoratively creates a negative perception of homosexuality.

A homophobic preacher that says "that is gay" has a completely different meaning from people on this forum. The progressive mind, following the approval by a large portion of the gay community, uses the term knowing the historical baggage so as to break down barriers between sexual groups.

That's not true. I don't at all accept that the majority of "progressives" and gay people use the word for such a specific and considered political motive. Even if they did there is an argument against that.

In any case, this assertion is just an attempt to justify its use and sorry, I don't buy it.

We do not derive meaning solely from words, but rather the context surrounding the words.

But that does not negate the oppressive nuance of using the word in a pejorative way and the alienation and isolation that decidedly causes among politically conscious and otherwise gay men and women; not to mention the perpetuation of the notion/implication that homosexuality is second rate - which it undoubtedly does.

The Feral Underclass

21st January 2007, 15:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:48 pm
Indeed Hiero - calling something gay has taken on a negative connotation due to the homophobic nature of those who use the word gay as an adjective (although I doubt that they would know what an adjective is if it smacked them in the nose).
The biggest problem now is that people who don't regard themselves as homophobic have begun using the word without understanding the nature of oppression.

Quills

21st January 2007, 15:13

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:06 pm

But that does not negate the oppressive nuance of using the word in a pejorative way and the alienation and isolation that decidedly causes among politically conscious gay men and women; not to mention the perpetuation of the notion that homosexuality is second rate.
I agree. When I was 12 it was used extensively amongst my peer group, and it made me feel like shit. Despite the fact they didn't even consciously associate it with gay people. Maybe straight people who use it don't associate it with homsexuality because homosexuality isn't a big part of their life. But to people who are gay, it is. And the word is very alienating and it makes being an 'in' gay teen even more difficult.

The Feral Underclass

21st January 2007, 16:30

Originally posted by Quills+January 21, 2007 04:13 pm--> (Quills @ January 21, 2007 04:13 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:06 pm

But that does not negate the oppressive nuance of using the word in a pejorative way and the alienation and isolation that decidedly causes among politically conscious gay men and women; not to mention the perpetuation of the notion that homosexuality is second rate.
I agree. When I was 12 it was used extensively amongst my peer group, and it made me feel like shit. Despite the fact they didn't even consciously associate it with gay people. Maybe straight people who use it don't associate it with homsexuality because homosexuality isn't a big part of their life. But to people who are gay, it is. And the word is very alienating and it makes being an 'in' gay teen even more difficult. [/b]
And straight people should take note of that.

Cryotank Screams

21st January 2007, 18:00

I think it is homophobic, because saying something is "gay," in modern slang usage means that it is dumb, wrong, and other various negative connotations, and never means something positive, and is only reaffirming societies heteronormativist view, that homosexuality is "wrong," and "unnatural," while heterosexuality is "normal," and thus "right," which again is why I think is homophobic, I mean you never hear anyone say "that's fucking gay," and it means something positive, and is really showing that homosexuals and homosexuality is still not accepted.

Also, I think that it can’t be compared to hysteria, or hysterical because those have been totally divorced from their etymological roots, and now take on a entirely different meaning, which I think Apathy Maybe was alluding to this point as well.

I mean you don’t hear heterosexuals having to mention their sexuality at all, nor do you hear people saying “that’s fucking straight,” therefore it only reaffirms that saying something and or someone is gay, is saying they are dumb, stupid, unwanted, etc.

The ONLY time it is used in a good context is when it is used to refer to homosexual activism, or other related organizations, people, and ideas.

But to people who are gay, it is. And the word is very alienating and it makes being an 'in' gay teen even more difficult.

Exactly.

chimx

21st January 2007, 20:26

My point is that homophobia/sexism etc is ingrained in all of us and that oppression does not just disappear simply because of the context in which language is spoken by individuals.

I agree. We are raised within cultures that maintain persistent and unhealthy views of a lot of groups. Fortunately, if you look at history, this cultural stigma of gay men and women is on the decline, but it is certainly something one should be aware of and calculate ones actions accordingly.

The word "gay" has historical meaning and context and regardless of who you are and how you think, using the word pejoratively creates a negative perception of homosexuality.

It does have historical meaning, and to use it with this meaning would certainly be a pejorative statement--depending on what one is attacking. But one doesn't only have to use it pejoratively, depending on the context of what is being said. I can think of plenty of ways it can be used for reclamation and dignification.

When I was a teenager I used to be significantly more uptight about language and think only in terms of black and white. I never said things like "gay" until I became better acquainted with the local gay community, and so initiated my switch to understanding language contextually.

Tekun

21st January 2007, 20:59

Perhaps its possible to change that, perhaps not. But right now its a vile and ignorant, homophobic use of the word.

Right, and therefore I for one do not use it nor tolerate it

The Feral Underclass

21st January 2007, 21:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:26 pm
When I was a teenager I used to be significantly more uptight about language and think only in terms of black and white. I never said things like "gay" until I became better acquainted with the local gay community, and so initiated my switch to understanding language contextually.
Well, that's very convenient for you, isn't it?

For the last time, it is totally irrelevant whether the gay community uses the word, or what the context is; it does not negate the nuanced oppression of using this term in a pejorative way.

For the record, 'Introvertetd Oppression' is a by-product of societal oppression and the fact you use it as a justification for this latent homophobia is yet another example of the nuances seemingly imbedded in your consciousness.

Reuben

21st January 2007, 21:33

TAT is completely right on this matter.

It is not up to any given individual to simply wrtie his or her own dictionary. Themeaning of words is socially determinedm and it follows from this that the consequence of using a particular word is also socially determined. What if i decided that henceforth i was going to use the word'kike' as a neutral way of describing jewish people. Would it be ok for me to go round describing jews as kikes - of course not - because whatever my intentions, whatever my inner thought processes behind the use of such a word - the word kike has social consequences which i cannot personally determine. THe same applies to the word gay.

I think peopel need to remember that we are not buddhists, we are communists. We dont believe social progress happens simply because people perfect their internal morailrty. By contrast we are conceerned primarily with the way people interact with and impact upon society. And whether people like it or not, the use of the word gay reinforces the existing heterosexist order.

Reuben

The Feral Underclass

21st January 2007, 21:38

Werd to Reuben!

Reuben

21st January 2007, 21:50

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 09:38 pm
Werd to Reuben!
:D

Red Menace

21st January 2007, 22:39

The original intent of using the word "gay" to describe something is meant to demean the homosexual community. It can be considered the same as describing something to be "straight", "bi" or maybe even religion, thats so "mormon" or "protestant." No good is meant to come out of it.

Myself and others relize that it is apart of culture, that, that is what people say. But that isn't a an excuse to humiliate or demean a group of people.

Cyanide Suicide

21st January 2007, 23:05

I don't usually consider it homophobic.

I just think it's really stupid and shows a lack of intelligence, calling inanimate objects homosexual and all..

Cryotank Screams

22nd January 2007, 00:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:05 pm
I don't usually consider it homophobic.

Did you not read the entire thread?

Cyanide Suicide

22nd January 2007, 00:49

Yes.

The reason I don't think it is usually homophobic is that among younger people the word "gay" takes a different meaning. That of lame, bad, etc. It may have come from 'homosexual', but now it doesn't always mean that. It's like pair and pear. I think most of the time when one says "oh that's so gay", then don't mean it as an insult to homosexuals, despite what it may sound like.

hoopla

22nd January 2007, 00:50

Well, I've never challenged anyone about it, but i have kinda wanted to, mostly because i think they are secretly saying that "homosexuals" are "gay", and they know it. But perhaps I am paranoid.

If the user does not think it homophobic, and they understand what homophobia is, then tbh I don't have a problem with them. Though it is open to debate whether the use is structurally oppressive.

Imho.

Anyone one read anything interesting on the use of words - and oppressions?

chimx

22nd January 2007, 00:54

Reuben:

It is not up to any given individual to simply wrtie his or her own dictionary. Themeaning of words is socially determinedm and it follows from this that the consequence of using a particular word is also socially determined. What if i decided that henceforth i was going to use the word'kike' as a neutral way of describing jewish people. Would it be ok for me to go round describing jews as kikes - of course not - because whatever my intentions, whatever my inner thought processes behind the use of such a word - the word kike has social consequences which i cannot personally determine. THe same applies to the word gay.

I agree, that would not be appropriate. But if you look at my original statements, I took this into account already. To quote myself: "The progressive mind, following the approval by a large portion of the gay community, uses the term knowing the historical baggage so as to break down barriers between sexual groups." Whereas your example is solely the work of an individual, I took into account community awareness and the resulting approval. Every gay guy I know or have met, save for the politicized gay men of this forum (who are thus far all British? perhaps there exist distinct cultural undertones) has openly used the expression, and have been quite welcome to hearing it from non-gay men and women, in certain contexts that were not at all perjoratives.

Look at mass media and the often stereotypical portryal of gay men and women on television. I shutter to use the example, but shows like Will and Grace embrace stereotyping so as to better acclaimate what was once an unspoken-of subculture into popular culture. They make jokes at the expense of gay people, ridiculing their "fabulousness" not to alienate them (and I know this may seem hard to understand), but to embrace them culturally. Thus far I think it is working. Like I said, it is an attempt to break down the notion of the gay community as being an "other" not socially accpeted into popular culture. The use of the term "gay" [can] fits within this model.

I think peopel need to remember that we are not buddhists, we are communists. We dont believe social progress happens simply because people perfect their internal morailrty. By contrast we are conceerned primarily with the way people interact with and impact upon society. And whether people like it or not, the use of the word gay reinforces the existing heterosexist order.

I suspect that may be the problem exactly. Like I mentioned above, this is a politicized forum, and it is no surprise that this is where most of the decryment exists. There is a tendency within the anti-capitalist milieu, despite the best intentions, to segregate and alienate. Differences between people aren't celebrated, but rather manipulated for your own politicized ends. Personally I try not to get upset over it, because most of you do mean well, but I think the consequences are dire and ultimately limit your effectiveness towards political change.

TAT:

it does not negate the nuanced oppression of using this term in a pejorative way.

I never said it did negate. In fact I recall saying that it goes so far as to acknowledge it, yet does it despite the historical implications so as to breakdown cultural barriers between gay and straight people. See above. edit add: an also see directly below.

chimx

22nd January 2007, 01:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:50 am
Anyone one read anything interesting on the use of words - and oppressions?
Not necessarily about words, but by images. Momus wrote an article (http://imomus.livejournal.com/254221.html) on Kate Moss going in "black face" in the Independent and the resulting denoucements of "racism" attributed to it. From his perspective, it was extremely healthy. He writes:

"The thing is, having someone play someone else raises a whole series of interesting juxtapositions, new meanings, involves fascinating skills and telling shortfalls. It lands us in the "uncanny valley" (see the link in his essay), the place where categories fail and ostranenie takes over. When categories get mixed up, we have to question our reflexive assumptions -- and that's a good thing."

I think this is remarkably relevant to the current discussion.

Cryotank Screams

22nd January 2007, 01:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:49 pm
Yes.

Apparently not.

The reason I don't think it is usually homophobic is that among younger people the word "gay" takes a different meaning. That of lame, bad, etc. It may have come from 'homosexual', but now it doesn't always mean that. It's like pair and pear. I think most of the time when one says "oh that's so gay", then don't mean it as an insult to homosexuals, despite what it may sound like.

They specifically mean and are referring to homosexuality, whether they consciously see it or not, the specific meaning is clearly there, and is only reaffirming the heteronormativist attitude and outlook society has by casting homosexuals in a negative light, and alienating it from what is considered the "norm," and what is acceptable, even to a minor degree as this, and I think to say it isn't referring to homosexuality, and homosexuals is down right naïve, and stupid.

Cyanide Suicide

22nd January 2007, 01:24

Yes, because I disagree with you, that means I must not have read the topic. <_<

They specifically mean and are referring to homosexuality, whether they consciously see it or not

So if I told a Russian who knew absolutely no knowlege of the English language to say "I hate black people" and he did say that, would that make him a racist? No, because he's ignorant to the meanings of what he has said. Many of the people who say "this is gay" are ignorant to the fact that it shows homosexuality in a negative light.

and I think to say it isn't referring to homosexuality, and homosexuals is down right naïve, and stupid.

I believe originally it referred to homosexuality, but that over the years it has evolved in our language and many of the people that use it today are not homophobic. I guess what I'm really arguing is that the majority of the people who say it are not homophobic, not that the phrase itself is not.

Cryotank Screams

22nd January 2007, 01:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:24 pm
Yes, because I disagree with you, that means I must not have read the topic. <_<

No, the fact that you said the term "gay," doesn't refer to homosexuals anymore because of majority usage makes me think you haven't read the thread.

So if I told a Russian who knew absolutely no knowlege of the English language to say "I hate black people" and he did say that, would that make him a racist? No, because he's ignorant to the meanings of what he has said. Many of the people who say "this is gay" are ignorant to the fact that it shows homosexuality in a negative light.

That is entirely irrelevant, americans who use it know what the term "gay," means, they are certain not like you little scenario, which is talking about two completely different languages, every single solitary person in america and most if not all english speaking countries, knows what it means, I mean when I am say I am gay, I don't see americans standing in a stupor wandering what I am talking about, they know what it means, and even when saying something like "that's gay," are indirectly referring to homosexuality, as previously stated.

I believe originally it referred to homosexuality, but that over the years it has evolved in our language and many of the people that use it today are not homophobic. I guess what I'm really arguing is that the majority of the people who say it are not homophobic, not that the phrase itself is not.

It didn't evolve, into anything, and to prove my point go up to someone and say "I'm gay" and then ask them what they thought you meant by your statement, they will tell you that you just "outed," yourself as a homosexual, then right after say "that's gay," and ask them what they thought you meant, after hearing the first and ask the same question, you will hear that "[x] is homosexual," hence the same meaning is there it's just subconscious now when used in normal speech, however this does not negate the meaning, and it still makes homosexuals feel alienated, and out of sync with the "norm," thus causing more division, and less acceptance, and deserved normality.

Black Dagger

22nd January 2007, 06:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:50 am
Anyone one read anything interesting on the use of words - and oppressions?
There's a whole bunch of threads on this topic in the discrimination forum topic index (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60895) :D

Language & Social Prejudice

Ageism
Childish Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52128)

Heterosexism
Homophobia & language: BBC says derogatory use of GAY is OK! Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50807)
Usage of the terms 'homosexual', 'the homosexuals' Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46215)
Can 'faggot' be reclaimed to mean fascist on fire? Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53170)
The word "straight" is it homophobic? Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54418)
Is the use of 'gay' as an adjective homophobic? Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61361)

Race & ethnicity
Discussion of the word 'cracker' Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57358)
The Word 'Yankee' and 'yank' Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54603)

Sexism
Language is sexist Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46263)
Slut; what's wrong with it? Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50504)
The words 'slut' Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46880)

:P

The Feral Underclass

22nd January 2007, 10:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:49 am
The reason I don't think it is usually homophobic is that among younger people the word "gay" takes a different meaning.
Myself and Reuben have both addressed this point in some depth in this thread, if you'd read it.

seraphim

22nd January 2007, 12:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:49 am
Yes.

The reason I don't think it is usually homophobic is that among younger people the word "gay" takes a different meaning.
So does the word 'Nigger' but that doesn't make it any less racist does it! The use of the word 'Gay' bears homophobic conotations when used in a derogatory way. It would be the same if spoken by a Gay person or a straight person.

The Grey Blur

22nd January 2007, 14:05

It is homophobic in that it implies that "gay" is a negative thing.

If you are a leftist you cannot be a homophobe - leftism is about creating an egalitarian society. Also, leftists should simply not give a damn about people's private lives, including their sexuality.

Casual homophia like this entirely contradicts leftist beliefs. Yes it is common among young people today, I used to use the word in a negative way myself, but the only way to change that is to begin setting an example in refusing to use gay as a negative word. If you don't have the guts to take that tiny step then I think you should seriously reconsider whether leftism, specifically that of the revolutionary kind, is for you.

On a final note, I do disagree with the overreaction on this board towards 'gay' being used in a negative sense. I learnt my lesson from reading a few well thought-out posts rather than the knee-jerk warning-points I recieved.

The Feral Underclass

22nd January 2007, 14:26

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 22, 2007 03:05 pm
On a final note, I do disagree with the overreaction on this board towards 'gay' being used in a negative sense.
Why?

I learnt my lesson from reading a few well thought-out posts rather than the knee-jerk warning-points I recieved.

People who say homophobic things should be warned for it.

Cyanide Suicide

22nd January 2007, 21:08

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 22, 2007 10:57 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 22, 2007 10:57 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 01:49 am
The reason I don't think it is usually homophobic is that among younger people the word "gay" takes a different meaning.
Myself and Reuben have both addressed this point in some depth in this thread, if you'd read it. [/b]
I read it, I just disagree. But some of the arrogant minds here just can't handle that.

@CS: Fair enough, like I said it's nothing that I ever say, I just don't believe that most people who say it are homophobic...as in, they don't think lesser of gays. That's from my experience and the people I know, I'm sure motives/attitudes differ among people.

The Feral Underclass

22nd January 2007, 21:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:08 pm
I read it, I just disagree.
But your disagreement extends to repeating the argument that has already been addressed by me and Reuben. If you disagree with what we have said you need to expand on your reasoning, not just repeat yourself.

But some of the arrogant minds here just can't handle that.

Well, you repeated an argument that has already been addressed, it's no wonder people think, quite rightly, that you haven't read what has been said - otherwise surely you'd have something further to say.

Apparently not.

I just don't believe that most people who say it are homophobic

Why not?

That's from my experience and the people I know, I'm sure motives/attitudes differ among people.

Again, this has already been addressed. Perhaps you can re-read the arguments and attempt to refute them instead of repeating what has already been said.

Otherwise it's very boring.

Coggeh

22nd January 2007, 21:28

Well in all fairness , i apolesgised for my remark it was a common slip of toungue or in this case finger i don't know , its common slang where i live , i didnt mean it as a homophoebic remark and yet i still have that warning of 20% (O_o)

Cyanide Suicide

22nd January 2007, 21:31

But your disagreement extends to repeating the argument that has already been addressed by me and Reuben.

Yes, I'm aware that my argument was "addressed" by you two previously. The thing is, I disagree with what you addressed.

Well, you repeated an argument that has already been addressed, it's no wonder people think, quite rightly, that you haven't read what has been said - otherwise surely you'd have something further to say.

This is a forum. Do you know what people do on forums? This discuss there opinions. You seem to be saying that since someone else has the same view/argument as me, I just shouldn't input my opinion?

Why not?

Well apparently since you've already addressed my argument, you should know why not, correct?

Why not? Because homophobia is defined as "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. / Behavior based on such a feeling." and the people I know who use the word gay in its evolved form don't have fear or contempt for gays. They don't dislike gays or think lesser of them. For whatever reason (probably just to sound cool), they say it. And that's why I said the I believe the majority of people who say it aren't homophobic.

Again, this has already been addressed. Perhaps you can re-read the arguments and attempt to refute them instead of repeating what has already been said.

No one (despite what you may think), is right or wrong on this issue. We have different opinions, and I can't 'refute' your opinion.

Now, I have a feeling you'll probably just quote my opinion and ask questions like "Why?" and "This has already been said, say something futher" instead of directly addressing my point of view, but I guess there's nothing I can do.

Pirate Utopian

22nd January 2007, 21:32

i agree on Anarchist Tension and Reuben.
the term orginally means gay and using it to describe negative things as if homosexuality is negative is homophobic.
it doesnt matter much if they dont know properly what it means, that's bullshit, i never seen people who are anti-homophobic calling things gay as in a negative context.

chimx

22nd January 2007, 22:08

But your disagreement extends to repeating the argument that has already been addressed by me and Reuben. If you disagree with what we have said you need to expand on your reasoning, not just repeat yourself.

That's what I was about to say. ^^

Fawkes

22nd January 2007, 22:24

I apologise for not differentiating the two statements more clearly for your very limited American brain.
TAT, I agree with everything you have said except for that. That's an extremely stupid thing to say, and even more so considering that it is in the "Discrimination" section. Change "American" with any other nationality and the response would be far from the same.

Anyway, to the orginal topic. No other argument is needed other than the fact that the use of the word "gay" as a pejorative term alienates gay people in the same manner that the use of the word "Jewed" as a verb to describe someone getting something for a cheaper price alienates Jewish people.

chimx

22nd January 2007, 23:12

I think you are missing the point. I am saying that it is perfectly possible to not use the expression pejoratively. Obviously using it as a pejorative, that is, in a derogatory manner, is bad.

Fawkes

22nd January 2007, 23:25

How could you not use it pejoratively?

Black Dagger

23rd January 2007, 03:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:28 am
Well in all fairness , i apolesgised for my remark it was a common slip of toungue or in this case finger i don't know , its common slang where i live , i didnt mean it as a homophoebic remark and yet i still have that warning of 20% (O_o)
Check the thread you started in the members forum!!!

Kropotkin Has a Posse

23rd January 2007, 04:20

I don't like it when people use it as an insult, to me it's as absurd as calling someone a "vegetarian." It's a way of life, nothing to be ashamed of. People used to mistakenly call me "gay" until I stared them down and told them they were wrong. That's all you have to do, really. Hopefully they outgrow it.

The Feral Underclass

23rd January 2007, 11:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:31 pm

But your disagreement extends to repeating the argument that has already been addressed by me and Reuben.

Yes, I'm aware that my argument was "addressed" by you two previously. The thing is, I disagree with what you addressed.
Apparently repetition is all you're capable of.

As already said by me, I'm aware that you disagree, I'm asking you to explain why - and that means by expanding on what has already been said rather than repeating an argument that's already been refuted.

For the record, I'm not going to carry on arguing about your inability to structure arguments. Either do it or don't, but if you carry on repeating yourself then you'll carry on looking like a fool.

This discuss there opinions. You seem to be saying that since someone else has the same view/argument as me, I just shouldn't input my opinion?

Well, yes it's pointless repeating an opinion already voiced. The better thing to do would be to expand on what has already been said.

If people just repeat the same argument and then someone refutes that and all they get in reply is the same argument then how does debate happen?

Why not? Because homophobia is defined as "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. / Behavior based on such a feeling." and the people I know who use the word gay in its evolved form don't have fear or contempt for gays.

Language is not based on what you think it is.

You have totally oversimplified language and oppression. There are reasons why the word "gay" is used to refer to things in a negative way. Language evolves, meaning evolves but it does so from a basis of history with a bit of empiricism thrown in with it.

Our attitudes and understandings of the world are totally nuanced and dictated to by our social conditioning.

Humans create oppression through their actions - it's not some mystical entity that can be destroyed or ignored simply because an individual decides on a particular context for a particular word - which you have totally voided of any historical meaning.

The question of latent oppression is a very complex one and requires an almost spiritual regression of the "self" (:rolleyes:) in order to finally understand it and ultimately rid oneself of these nuances.

Using the word gay to mean something negative, regardless of what you think you are or how you think you are using it is imbedded in a vast history of oppression - it perpetuates a view of homosexuality, whether you mean it to or not and, I'm afraid, whether you think it does or not.

Nuanced it may be, but oppression it is nevertheless.

No one (despite what you may think), is right or wrong on this issue.

I think you're probably right, but the fact is that using the word "gay" as a pejorative reinforces oppression again gay people.

You are, of course, totally free to think whether that is "right" or "wrong".

We have different opinions, and I can't 'refute' your opinion.

Of course you can't refute what I'm saying - You don't know how.

The Feral Underclass

23rd January 2007, 11:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:20 am
People used to mistakenly call me "gay" until I stared them down and told them they were wrong. That's all you have to do, really. Hopefully they outgrow it.
Well, unless you're actually gay and then you have a whole set of other problems to deal with.

Fawkes

23rd January 2007, 21:26

^^ That's when you say, "you're damn right I'm gay and I could still kick your fuckin' ass".

Guerrilla22

24th January 2007, 00:12

It seems that once again a fairly simple concept has been over analyzed considerably. In refering to something as being "gay" for example "that's so gay" the word gay is being used in a negative context and equals homophobia. 'Nuff said.

Invader Zim

24th January 2007, 00:22

I can see the argument with the word, after all other 'cuss' words have many meanings; piss for example, bollocks being another good one and of course bastard.

However, the homophobic element in the term 'gay' makes it one I avoid and also if you want to insult a person, object or ideal then i think that you can be a little more orgional.

Black Dagger

24th January 2007, 05:25

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 24, 2007 10:22 am
I can see the argument with the word, after all other 'cuss' words have many meanings; piss for example, bollocks being another good one and of course bastard.

Well except that none of the words you mentioned (piss, bollocks etc.) designate social groups in any context.

apathy maybe

24th January 2007, 17:12

Sorry black rose (why did you change your name, oh why?), but I disagree.

Bastard does denote a social group, children who's parents were not married when they were born. I don't see anything wrong with that (my nephew is a bastard). However, it is clear that because it is still used pejoratively that the original meaning is still viewed negatively. Along with the word "gay", even if people don't attach the original meaning to the word when using it as an insult, it still re-enforces more generally (societally) that not having married parents is a bad thing.

Otherwise I agree though.

(For another discussion of insults and swearing, see this thread http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49168 which unfortunately was moved to Shit Chat (I'm sorry for the crack at Leninists by the way).)

ahab

25th January 2007, 09:20

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 25, 2007 12:34 am
Everytime this kid gets a warning point or some action taken against him, he brings it up in the members forum, where he tries to fight it out as if we were in some bourgeois court. Honestly, I think he enjoys it.. typical trollish behavior.
When in reality its more of an oligarchy where the 'commie club' decides the rules and regulations of the site in which the rest of us must abide by, I think its stupid when people, including myself, get busted on here for saying things like 'thats gay' or 'you're retarded' because its not always meant as slanderous towards the individuals who fall into those catagories. For example I have lots of gay friends and am not homphobic at the least, but I say 'you're gay' or 'thats gay' all the time, not because I think less of gays but its more or less just an expression of degradation towrds another person or other (gay ass chair) I dont mean in at least as making fun of homosexuals, cuz that would just be stupid.

In the instance of chimx, he appears to have meant it in its original meaning, not to degrade the mentally challenged, his knowledge of vocabulary gives him an advantage or the means to avoid cussing by using words that shouldnt be considered offensive and therefore should be allowed to say.

I know that what I say doesnt mean shit, because 'who the fuck am I' right? But it really is sad to see so much censorship on a supposed 'leftist' site.

ok im done :)

Hate Is Art

25th January 2007, 12:49

Ahab, using the adjective 'gay' as 'an expression of degradation towrds another person or other (gay ass chair) I dont mean in at least as making fun of homosexuals, cuz that would just be stupid.'

Is clearly offensive to homosexuals. Why would you even use it to describe a chair for fucks sake? Using the term 'gay' to describe something that is bad isn't on. So don't do it.

i still think the board rules are way tooooo sensitive..

Maybe you're just too insensitive?

ahab

25th January 2007, 18:14

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 25, 2007 12:49 pm
Ahab, using the adjective 'gay' as 'an expression of degradation towrds another person or other (gay ass chair) I dont mean in at least as making fun of homosexuals, cuz that would just be stupid.'

Is clearly offensive to homosexuals. Why would you even use it to describe a chair for fucks sake? Using the term 'gay' to describe something that is bad isn't on. So don't do it.

i still think the board rules are way tooooo sensitive..

Maybe you're just too insensitive?
I guess its just where I grew up, I grew up around homosexuals, I've known people who were gay all my life and I have nothing against them, theyre just fucking people and gay is just a term I use I dunno, cuz I dont even refer to homosexuals as gay, I call them jolly ranchers, to me gay is just a word. Now I have realized that there are people on this board that are offended by using it in a demeaning way so I dont because I dont want to offend anyone especially when I dont mean it in a bad way, I was just saying I think its stupid howpeople get in trouble on here for saying things like that and get 'warning points', I mean wtf is that? I understand theres rules and shit on the board but does it have to be so fucking strict? If its racist or sexist or something like that then I understand, but only if someone means it, that was, in chimx's case, why I brought it up, saying the 'cuban government is retarded' isnt derogatory towards the mentally challenged, he meant it in its literal form 'to move slowly, to progress slowly'

Hate Is Art

26th January 2007, 02:40

Ok, but you can understand how the word gay can be offensive to someone? It's a branch of homophobia and something that should be discouraged.

ahab

27th January 2007, 08:21

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 26, 2007 02:40 am
Ok, but you can understand how the word gay can be offensive to someone? It's a branch of homophobia and something that should be discouraged.
yes I understand how SOME people mught take it offensively and im not just saying some to refer to homosexuals, but only some, not all, homosexuals take offense to it. Homosexuals are just regular people as you know and arent any more sensitive than anyone else.

For example, I was raised in the LDS (mormon) church, a church that is heavily persecuted even by other christians, I myself am not a mormon but since I was raised mormon I know a lot about the church. When people say derogatory things about mormons, its usually out of ignorance, but I dont take it offensively and neither do most other mormons. Of course this is subjectively different because the word 'mormon' isnt used as often to describe something as is the word 'gay', but my point is that saying the word gay in a demeaning way or not isnt necessarily a bad thingthat all homosexuals are offended by.

After reading through most of this thread I more fully understand that a lot more homosexuals take it offensively than I would have otherwise thought but still, it depends on the context is being used in and the enviroment it is being used in. In a more dominant 'straight' community it is more often used in a way to describe frustration or to, as brought up earlier, mean something else like sad or silly. While in a dominant homosexual community (on another subject I think its rediculous how some homosexuals are practically forced to leave a community because of their sexual orientation) using the word in a demeaning way is taken more offensively, and if its meant to demean homosexuals it is wrong to say, but also like stated before its more slang now than meaningful word when used in an everyday situation.

Now I said it before, I can get that, especially with most people who associate themselves as 'leftists', take this word more sensitively than perhaps necessary and therefore I do try to not use the word, one because there are other words and two because you never know who mught take it offensively. Saying that use of the word gay is homophobic isnt necessarily wrong, because it some instances people do mean it that way, but especially in the world we all live in today it is more and more just another word used by everyone to describe something bad OR good and therefore people who do use it shouldnt be jumped on or critisized. Now you could say it was the government or maybe just ignorance, but most kids (in the US, and im assuming the rest of the world) are brought up around and using that word, not always in a homophobic sense though.

Yes, the use of the word "gay" you moron! I apologise for not differentiating the two statements more clearly for your very limited American brain.

TAT is it really necessary to resort to name calling? Also what do you mean by limited american brain, are you generalizing all americans to be stupid? That assumption in itself is rather ignorant.

MissLeftistRevolutionary

3rd February 2007, 19:40

I try not to call homosexuals gay. i dont like the word, personally. i am not homosexual but i know people who are and i try to respect them for who they are.

4th February 2007, 01:48

Let me tell you, from my experience using the word gay as an adjative is very homophobic. Every day when i went to school i was bothered by bigots calling me a "dirty faggot" or a "queer boy". Any sort of emotion towards another man, any close relation, was considered "gay". I heard that word come out of those vile human beings mouths everyday "thats gay" "this is gay" "this is pure fagness". It was like the salem witch trials for gayness. And when an awarness counsler came in to talk about what happened to Matthew Shepard, they laughed, according to them "that fag got what he deserved". Right in the middle of her presentation, as a joke, someone shouted "this is sooo gay!! hahaha".

Some people may say the word "gay" has lost it's context, but from my experience the people who use it have a concious prejudice to gay people.

Black Dagger

4th February 2007, 03:59

Originally posted by MissLeftistRevolutionary+February 04, 2007 05:40 am--> (MissLeftistRevolutionary @ February 04, 2007 05:40 am) I try not to call homosexuals gay. i dont like the word, personally. i am not homosexual but i know people who are and i try to respect them for who they are. [/b]
Then you should call them 'gay' (or lesbian if they are female) not homosexual.

Surely if 'know' gay people you know that essentially no one identifies as 'homosexual'? There's no such thing as a 'homosexual bar', or a 'homosexual pride parade', the 'homosexual-straight alliance' doest exist, for that matter there are millions of GAY organisations, and well... i cant think of any pro-gay organisations that actually use the word 'homosexual' in their name.

The fact is 'homosexual' is the language preferred by mostly heteros, by regular heteros as well as the homophobic ones and groups, however it's NOT a term used regularly by gay men or lesbians to describe themselves or other queer people; so use a term that gay people themselves eschew? That makes no sense at all.

There's a discussion of this very issue, the use of gay/lesbian vs. homosexual
here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46215)

Comrade Floyd
Let me tell you, from my experience using the word gay as an adjative is very homophobic.

Only when its used to describe non-gay people etc.

4th February 2007, 04:05

Only when its used to describe non-gay people etc.

Whoopsie doodle :mellow: I meant as a negative adjative or an insult.

MissLeftistRevolutionary

4th February 2007, 18:47

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 01:48 am
Let me tell you, from my experience using the word gay as an adjative is very homophobic. Every day when i went to school i was bothered by bigots calling me a "dirty faggot" or a "queer boy". Any sort of emotion towards another man, any close relation, was considered "gay". I heard that word come out of those vile human beings mouths everyday "thats gay" "this is gay" "this is pure fagness". It was like the salem witch trials for gayness. And when an awarness counsler came in to talk about what happened to Matthew Shepard, they laughed, according to them "that fag got what he deserved". Right in the middle of her presentation, as a joke, someone shouted "this is sooo gay!! hahaha".

Some people may say the word "gay" has lost it's context, but from my experience the people who use it have a concious prejudice to gay people.
Definately. It implies LOADS of disrespect. The people who use this word need to learn to have respect for those who are different than them in terms of sexual preference.

Then you should call them 'gay' (or lesbian if they are female) not homosexual.
But the word "gay" implies disrespect. Homosexual is a scientific name. :huh:

Black Dagger

4th February 2007, 18:58

Originally posted by MissLeftistRevolutionary+--> (MissLeftistRevolutionary)Definately. It implies LOADS of disrespect. The people who use this word need to learn to have respect for those who are different than them in terms of sexual preference.[/b]

So the millions of gay people worldwide who identify as gay are disrepecting themselves?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by [email protected]

But the word "gay" implies disrespect.

Perhaps in your mind? Maybe you could justify your opinion? Why does the word 'gay' implie disrespect.

Better yet, maybe you could account for the millions of gay people world-wide who SELF-IDENTIFY as gay, the millions of gay organisations with the word 'gay' in the title etc. etc etc?

None of the gay people in the world understand that they are disrespecting themselves right? :rolleyes:

MissLeftistRevolutionary

Homosexual is a scientific name.

And?

You should call people what they want to be called, not what YOU think sounds 'scientific' (the origins of the word homosexual arent in science btw), or what YOU want, anything less is disrespectful.