That's Gay.

[Cheesus333]

-What would you substitute in terms of: "That's so Raven!"?

I BET someone beat me to that, but I don't even care.

I usually go with 'retarded', but that's even worse. I'll try and start using the word 'pork' from now on.

"What a load of pork!"

"Don't be so bloody pork!"

"Go pork yourself!"

That last one kind of sounds right, in a way.

 

[zeldagirl]

Words don't matter, meaning and context do.
If you're not a homophobe then you're not a homophobe, so it doesn't matter.

Words always matter. Your person feelings on gay people don't matter, if you're saying "that's gay", you're not only associating being gay with whatever the bad thing you're describing it as, you're also saying to everyone else that it's ok to describe this group of people negatively, and that it's ok to use language like that.

You've said this better than I ever could, so I'm just going to quote this. I think we as a culture should move away from using gay to be synonymous with stupid - if something is stupid or frustrating, use those words. We have such an awesome vocabulary, why sully it with using words improperly (and potentially being hurtful to those individuals who are gay and don't like their identity being associated with something that is negative)?

Its hard for me to accept that kind of reasoning. The term "Cracker" doesn't offend me and its used negatively. I think its just something that everyone needs to let roll off their shoulders because all this bickering over someones personal vocabulary is ridiculous.

That said, I try to avoid the term "gay" or other potentially sensitive words around people that might be offended by it. No promises, but I don't owe anything to a bunch of strangers with my language anyway.

To my main point though, saying that a term I use is a blanket term used for hate and any other use of the term is pretty ignorant. Language is nothing if not constantly evolving. Its someone else presuming what is in my heart and mind by the terms I use.

With all due respect, I think cracker is significantly different because it's not used to describe a *minority* group that traditionally faces oppression or intense hatred - it's a term coined by an oppressed group to describe the group in power derogatorily. Still not necessarily right to use, but it does not carry the significance of other terms, because culturally, white individuals have always had more power.

While language is constantly evolving, that doesn't mean that traditionally oppressed groups don't, or should not, still feel the sting of words created to demean their identities. Just because language has the potential to evolve doesn't mean it always does. I've seen that many people here who identify as being gay are okay with the use of the term, and that's great, but I know that many people DO feel very hurt by the use of the term '******' and making "gay" equivalent to stupid.

"Intent versus Impact." You may not mean anything by the term, but often, a member of the oppressed group that the term is associated with has encountered the derogatory use of the word, and therefore though you are well-meaning, the negative impact is very real. All too often, I think people forget, or simply do not understand other individuals extreme experiences with prejudice. I know it's easy for people to accuse others of being 'oversensitive,' but honestly, it's the idea of the 'pile on principle' - when you are constantly demeaned or degraded for your identity, it's easy for little things to set you off.

I think we need to move away from accusing others of being 'oversensitive' or not understanding that 'language evolves' and try to understand more personal experiences with prejudice. Of course, it's not the same for everyone, but the sting is there for enough people that a lot of individuals who use certain words need to be *more sensitive* about their potential impacts. Maybe you don't think you 'owe' it to strangers, but I like to think that a great thing about human kind is our ability to be empathetic, but also want to treat others the way we would want to be treated. What's wrong with trying to treat others exceptionally well, even if there is no payoff for you? Of course we won't be perfect all the time, but I think it says a lot about a person's character to make the effort.

 

[zeldagirl]

I just say it.

If other people get offended, they're trying to be, and I'm not changing myself because they have insecurity issues.

Try taking intent into account.

"Intent versus Impact." It's easy to say "try to understand my intent!" but perhaps you should take into account something called the 'pile on principle' - when day in and day out, your identity is insulted, it's easy to feel constantly attacked. And that's a reality - people are constantly demeaned for their identity, so what may seem like a small word to you has a greater impact on them because it's just one more person insulting *who they are*.

In the end, impact always has greater weight than intent. Dismissing other people for being offended isn't empathetic, doesn't take their life experiences and trials into account. It's a bit callous. And honestly, it is SO easy to be kind to others - why take pride in doing the opposite?

 

[zeldagirl]

Obviously, the first people to describe something as being 'gay', in that sense, did not just stumble upon the word per chance; it was a negative association with homosexuality that led to the use of the word as an insult. And I'm not saying that everyone who uses the word in that context is an outright homophobe. It's just that I don't think that ignorance to the emotional responses of others is an excuse to continue using a word that others find offensive. Surely, if someone asked you to stop saying something, good manners alone should dictate that you should stop.

And I can clearly see where you're coming from: if no-one took offense to certain words, then all words could be used without the fear of causing affront. However, that is not the case. For whatever reason, people today still look upon homosexuality with disapproval, and the origin of the phrase 'that's so gay' was as an offense. People use certain words to describe situations, and if someone uses a word that obviously doesn't have negative connotations to describe a situation that is neagative, then people will take offense. That is just the truth of the matter. I am not trying to say that you are being outrightly homophobic when you use the word 'gay' incorrectly, I just saying that you are being a bit rude when not taking into account how other people respond to your actions.

Please, do not feel that I am trying to be condescending. I am just writing the way I always have done when talking about my opinion. Sorry again if I seem to be excessively prudent. I don't look upon your opinions as being less valuable in any way than mine.

Thank you, you've said this very well (I tried getting that point across in my other posts, but I think you do it better here). Nicely done.

 

[zeldagirl]

when day in and day out, your identity is insulted, it's easy to feel constantly attacked. And that's a reality - people are constantly demeaned for their identity, so what may seem like a small word to you has a greater impact on them because it's just one more person insulting *who they are*.

In the end, impact always has greater weight than intent. Dismissing other people for being offended isn't empathetic, doesn't take their life experiences and trials into account. It's a bit callous. And honestly, it is SO easy to be kind to others - why take pride in doing the opposite?

Right, except, it isn't. You are taking responsibility to thinking this has anything to do with you or your "identity". The fact that you're using sexuality to define yourself is bad enough to me, and if you are honestly so full of yourself to think I even give enough of a shit about your sexuality to think I'm insulting "who you are" when I'm not even talking about you, why should I care?

Then I assume in order to not be a hypocrite you also call people niggers.

Because a word that started out with a meaning and then turned into a generic, non-specific insult is totally directly comparable with a word that was always a very specific insult to a single group of people. /sarcasm.

Sexual orientation is a huge part of identity - along with many other factors. If you've honestly never been insulted because of one of the ways you've defined yourself, well, you're very fortunate, and I would assumed privileged as well. Not everyone is as lucky. But, I already mentioned in my post why I would hope you care. As you obviously don't, well, I'm sorry, but that will make you a pretty unpleasant person to be around.


As other people have already stated - that's gay is VERY offensive to some people. You are equating a sexual orientation with something that is stupid, demeaning, or 'less than.' It would be nice if it were JUST a generic insult. The point that many people have made is, it's not.


And with that, I'm done, since you have clearly stated you don't care what other people think, and will offend others at will. Good luck with that.

 

[zeldagirl]

snip

Actually, I have just one thing I want to ask you. Do you object to the use of the words "lame", for it would insult cripples, "dumb", for it insults those who cannot speak, "sick", for it insults those with illnesses, or "stupid" because it insults those who have lower IQs?

You see, when I hear someone call something "gay", I don't think of a gay person. When someone calls someone else a "******", I don't think of a gay person. The words are losing their connotations. This is a good thing, they were deregatory to begin with, but this is how language works.

One of the heads of my graduate department is a permanent wheelchair user. She and I have actually discussed that lame is still considered a derogatory term by herself and many others. This was something I hadn't known, and many people frankly don't - but that culture does in fact consider it 'ableist' so to speak. So yes, I try to avoid using that term.

As far as dumb, I know that the deaf culture is quite extensive and beautiful - to my knowledge, they don't consider it a slur. Should I learn otherwise someday, I will happily limit my use of the term, because I believe that everyone, even if they are strangers or unknown to me, deserves the right to not feel demeaned or lesser due to part of their identity. That's something I value.

You are absolutely right - many of those words have evolved from their original meanings. But '******' and 'gay' are still overwhelmingly associated with homosexuals. You can try to say otherwise, but I guarantee, these words are still predominantly used to insult gay people. They have not evolved away to the extent that 'stupid' has. ****** is still considered by many individuals to be a slur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29 Unfortunately, while you think that they have lost their connotations, they simply haven't.

I understand your usage isn't to be malicious (and often, most people don't intend that at all) - but my point is, your intent won't matter if most people don't understand you aren't being malicious, what will matter is you are saying something hurtful. You may think them oversensitive, but the reality is, most people don't think the word has evolved *enough* to not be negative towards gay individuals.


I hope that's clear. I'm still recovering from a concussion I suffered a week ago, and I'm writing this under the influence of percocet (which is...interesting), so please, let me know if that makes sense.


EDIT: from what research I've done (not much), it would seem the combination of "deaf and dumb" in conjunction is offensive to deaf individuals. I don't know about just the word "dumb." I'll keep looking though.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

When something reaaally bad happens, my friends just say "Dicks in my mouth." I guess that really is gay though.

 

[[.redacted]]

I think Zeldagirl is correct, I must say.

It's very difficult to remove all negative connotations from the word gay, as they are so thoroughly ingrained within our slang - but that does not mean that it is fully meaningless.

To have part of your identity used as an insult on a regular basis, even if not in the same way, must have some form of subconscious effect at the least.

It also cannot help the climate that people who are homosexual have to deal with should they wish to admit it: I have a friend who is gay, but is terrified of saying it aloud due to the sheer hostility that appears to await gay people in many environments as a result of this.

I've found that people tend to have two completely different takes on it:

1) The context of a friendly conversation, ion which being gay is denied, and all homosexual tendencies are mocked.

2) The context of a serious conversation, in which almost everyone I know is accepting of (if not bothered at all by) someone being gay.

The rareness of the second situation in comparison to the first must make it seem like a far more hostile environment than it is, and the use of the word gay as slang for irritating/annoying/stupid cannot help that - hence this thread.

Ah well, that was a bit of a rant, to be honest, sorry about that.
And for reference, I am not gay myself.

 

[SuperNova221]

Language evolves. Only what, 60 years ago, Vera Lynn was singing "I'll be seeing you in every lovely summer's day. In everything that's light and gay." Even well before that the word gay was used almost exclusivley to indicate happiness. How often do you hear somebody use the word gay, in a non pretentious manner, with that meaning? Black is quite ambiguous, so I'll address the "That's really chinese!". I see that differently. Saying Chinese is a direct link to that group of people, there is no ambiguity in the word and it has, at least to my knowledge, always had the same meaning.

However, while the intent of the phrase "That's really chinese!" may be bad, if it was used regularly and adopted in a mainstream way, in much the say way "That's gay." has been, the word would take on it's own meaning. The origins of the phrase may have been negative. But it would have adopted it's own meaning to the point where people use it and activley acknowledge that it could be interpreted as offensive, but know that the intent they use it with isn't. I couldn't see this, or anything similar, being widely adopted like "That's gay." however due to the far less ambiguous background of the word.

In response to your second paragraph. No. I'm don't, on any level, assume that homosexuality is a negative thing. I've also made a post earlier expresisng my personal stance on the use of the word.

I've never really gotten into the habit of it, which is odd given the area of Scotland I was brought up in. I do however intentionally use it from time to time to time just to confuse people as it's so out of character with my usual manner of speaking. As for actually saying "That's gay." I've never had a problem with it. It does seem to be dieing out though.

It irks me that there are people who assume that those who do regularly use the phrase "That's gay" are sub conciously homophobic to some level. There, unfortunately, will be people who use the phrase who are homophobic to some extent, but the vast majority (I hope) do acknowldge the intent and the evolution of the word and it's meaning. so that you could only really get offended by it if you make yourself the victim.

It also irks me that you needed to make the second and third paragraph at all. A simple "Saying "That's gay!" means that you, on some level, assume that being gay is negative." Would have been sufficient without all of the trying too hard to not be offensive fluff. It seemed rather condescending. Although I really shouldn't have a right to complain about that, given how hypocritical I am on the matter.

I'll also apologise if I've badly explained anything here, English is my native language but I'm not good at coordinating long posts to effectivley convey what I'm trying to say.

You're right about me using fluffy language. Sorry, I just use that kind of language on longer posts, as I think it helps to convey deeper meaning than just a few sentences. And I am sorry for what must appear to be a wall of text. I don't mean to be condescending, it's just the way I write.

I absolutely agree that language does evolve, and that the word 'gay' shares its meanings with a word to describe a sense of happiness (although I prefer to use the word 'homosexual'). However, it is the recent use of 'gay' that is offensive. It is not offensive because it just happens to be the same as the word as the one that describe homosexuals; it is offensive because its origins are as an affront to homosexuals.

Obviously, the first people to describe something as being 'gay', in that sense, did not just stumble upon the word per chance; it was a negative association with homosexuality that led to the use of the word as an insult. And I'm not saying that everyone who uses the word in that context is an outright homophobe. It's just that I don't think that ignorance to the emotional responses of others is an excuse to continue using a word that others find offensive. Surely, if someone asked you to stop saying something, good manners alone should dictate that you should stop.

And I can clearly see where you're coming from: if no-one took offense to certain words, then all words could be used without the fear of causing affront. However, that is not the case. For whatever reason, people today still look upon homosexuality with disapproval, and the origin of the phrase 'that's so gay' was as an offense. People use certain words to describe situations, and if someone uses a word that obviously doesn't have negative connotations to describe a situation that is neagative, then people will take offense. That is just the truth of the matter. I am not trying to say that you are being outrightly homophobic when you use the word 'gay' incorrectly, I just saying that you are being a bit rude when not taking into account how other people respond to your actions.

Please, do not feel that I am trying to be condescending. I am just writing the way I always have done when talking about my opinion. Sorry again if I seem to be excessively prudent. I don't look upon your opinions as being less valuable in any way than mine.

It's not something to worry about, it's just something that I often complain about for various reasons.

On topic though, from reading through this post and previous ones, and it seems like we're starting to re-iterate each others points. So I think we both understand the istuation, but due the the subjective nature of the topic, come to different conclusions from it. From my own, sparce useage of it, and from asking others who do use the word often, I found that nearly everybody I asked at some point acknowledged exactly what they were saying, understood their intent behind it and decided to keep using it on the basis that they didn't see anything wrong with homosexuality and accepted that the intent with what they are saying wasn't directed against them.

While it may be slightly optimistic, I'd like to think that the vast majority of people who use the phrase do understand it like the people I have asked. To the extent where the phrase has transcended from initially being a slur towards homosexuals to just being a general phrase towards bad situations. In the exact same way "That's retarded." has. although there are certain differences, such as the mentally disabled being treated almost universially with respect, and homosexuality being more contraversial. So I could see why some people may take offence. I just don't see it as a justified reason to take offence.

I'm pretty sure I understand your position also. And it is a reasonable conclusion. But I can't really think of anything else to say (while still being on topic), I'm not good at debating subjective matters and they generally don't have a "right" answer. Just a "better". But I will read any responses and reply if they invoke any more thought on the topic. This message in particular was made with some haste, so I'll apologise for length and any incogruity.

 

[Unhappy Crow]

I would rather say "That's so lame." because the only I get out of adding gay to my sentence, I would feel guilty. I don't say it around people, I only say it when I'm playing a video game.

 

[Aureliano]

It depends. When I watch a Tony Curtis movie, hear about two ladies having lunch down at the 'Y' or find seventeen men having sex with each other, I tend to say, "That's so gay!"

When something actually bad happens, I tend to say, "That's balls." Because everybody hates testicles.

 

[Latinidiot]

No, I don't, actually. But I'm dutch. I say a lot of things that you don'like. Like 'pot isn't THAT special'.

 

[zeldagirl]

You know what, I take back what I implied before. I do respect you. I mean, I'm pretty sure we just disagree on fundamental things, but it's nice to see someone who holds a holistic worldview and isn't just putting up a bullshit argument for the victims of society du jour.

But I suppose that fundamemtal thing is whether we should stop saying anything that may offend someone, or whether we should encourage people to simply get thicker skin and let the wonders of language take care of it. As we discussed earlier about the whole "when people insult a fundamental part of your identity" thing, yeah, I'm Catholic, I'm quite aware of it. But when someone says "Hurdur, you like molesting kids" in response to that, I don't get all pissed off and upset about being offended, I usually just laugh at them with pity at their pathetically small perception of life.

What I'm saying is, I think the word IS moving away from being connected straight to gays. I actually think this is a good thing. Regardless of origin, where I live and have been, it IS losing it's connotation. Of course there's still a link, but even at this point it's so flimsy I can't help but think it's stupid to be offended by it.

But we clearly disagree on that. It was nice to have a rational discussion though, and it was thrown into sharp relief when... well, you know. Got a taste of the sort of person I could have been talking to. It's been good talking to you, instead

I thank you for your kind reply. I suppose, in discussions like these, only time will tell which path is the better course of action. I give both of us the benefit of the doubt that we are trying the best we can to navigate the world as we perceive it.

And I'm Catholic too, and perhaps it is a cultural thing. I don't necessarily get upset when people make those types of comments, but I do get upset when they are made constantly - it's the idea of the "pile on principle." Some days, even the most patient people lose it when they are constantly attacked and on the defense.

Thank you for the civil discussion.

 

[zeldagirl]

I think Zeldagirl is correct, I must say.

It's very difficult to remove all negative connotations from the word gay, as they are so thoroughly ingrained within our slang - but that does not mean that it is fully meaningless.

To have part of your identity used as an insult on a regular basis, even if not in the same way, must have some form of subconscious effect at the least.

It also cannot help the climate that people who are homosexual have to deal with should they wish to admit it: I have a friend who is gay, but is terrified of saying it aloud due to the sheer hostility that appears to await gay people in many environments as a result of this.

I've found that people tend to have two completely different takes on it:

1) The context of a friendly conversation, ion which being gay is denied, and all homosexual tendencies are mocked.

2) The context of a serious conversation, in which almost everyone I know is accepting of (if not bothered at all by) someone being gay.

The rareness of the second situation in comparison to the first must make it seem like a far more hostile environment than it is, and the use of the word gay as slang for irritating/annoying/stupid cannot help that - hence this thread.

Ah well, that was a bit of a rant, to be honest, sorry about that.
And for reference, I am not gay myself.

Thank you very much. I think you bring up a good point as well.