It's OK to call things "gay"
Scroll to see replies
Original post by DylanJ96
It depends on how one defines a "homophobe". Calling something gay means that one is promoting a culture where gay and bad are synonyms no matter how unintentional this is and I define this as wrong. It may not be direct at a person but it certainly effects gay people nonetheless.
You don't seem to understand that this individual word contradicts your stated intention that we should be "aiming for tolerance of all minority groups" when, in fact, it promotes intolerance.
You don't seem to understand that this individual word contradicts your stated intention that we should be "aiming for tolerance of all minority groups" when, in fact, it promotes intolerance.
Not necessarily. Gay also means happy. Language changes. And what about gay people who use the expression? Are they homophobes?
Funny how nobody complains when someone says, "you're so camp".
This is why people who go out of their way to be offended do not edit the English dictionary. Because if they did, only two and three letter words would be left.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Asexual Demigod
If you're poor maybe...
???
Yes it's offensive, by using the word to describe something negative you are thus saying the sexuality is negative
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Iridann
Mite w0nna tip ur f3dorino m9
But seriously, in all honesty turning this into a class argument is pretty petty and unfounded.
State school =/= Lower Class
Private school =/= Pedigreed Upper Class
Correlation is not causation etc. Just trends.
And along the lines of this discussion around people in my area which is not the greatest the people that I hear using 'gay' the most as a synonym for negative connotations are ironically my transgender and homosexual friends so I don't really have any scope of the issue in other places.
I get that in very working class backgrounds you do see people that are more vocal about it but you also get plenty of upper middle class and upper class that actually are just as, if not, more abusive regarding this. They just do it behind peoples backs more often.
But seriously, in all honesty turning this into a class argument is pretty petty and unfounded.
State school =/= Lower Class
Private school =/= Pedigreed Upper Class
Correlation is not causation etc. Just trends.
And along the lines of this discussion around people in my area which is not the greatest the people that I hear using 'gay' the most as a synonym for negative connotations are ironically my transgender and homosexual friends so I don't really have any scope of the issue in other places.
I get that in very working class backgrounds you do see people that are more vocal about it but you also get plenty of upper middle class and upper class that actually are just as, if not, more abusive regarding this. They just do it behind peoples backs more often.
Probably because they are more intelligent and therefore don't display their ignorance for everyone to witness and judge them on.
Original post by Asexual Demigod
Most do. Don't live in ignorance.
"Most do"... Hmm, you're now generalising a whole group of people based upon the limitations of your experience. Wow, that smacks of the same prejudice that propagates racism and sexism.
Original post by colourtheory
That is so beyond the point!!! "gay' is 100% equated with homosexuality, and anyone who says "that's so gay' is being homophobic. Don't be so blind to the extent of passive homophobia, denial just propagates the issue.
It's only 'beyond the point' because you refuse to recognize anything that doesn't fall into your limited world view. The point is that gay is used as a label for homosexuals AND an insult, but not necessarily exclusively to do with the former definition, or are you suggesting homosexuals were originally called 'gay' SOLELY AND FOR THE EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE of their being happy? Also, don't accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being homophobic, it doesn't help your point.
Original post by DylanJ96
Whether is does or not, gay has come to be a universally recognised term for homosexuals. So what you're saying is that I'm expected to have my lifestyle equated to something bad and a culture of homophobia, no matter how unintentional, promoted all so that you can have another word for bad under the justification that language changes?
Stop using such emotive language. Stop saying 'you' do this and 'I' do that. I don't use gay as another word for bad, I don't particularly use it at all. I'm also saying you are clinging to the word gay too much. It developed another meaning, so what, move on. To use another example, the 'n' word evolved from a derogatory slur to a general term used by black people, meaning any black person, without any connotations of derision or aggression. Why? Because they accept the term has evolved, and don't try to cling to and 'equate' past meanings.
Original post by Asexual Demigod
It certainly isn't. It just perpetuates covert homophobia by treating "gay" as a synonym for "bad" or "lame".
No wonder it was a Bristol student who wrote this article; he sounds like a complete moron. Just because he doesn't find the word offensive doesn't mean it isn't.
No wonder it was a Bristol student who wrote this article; he sounds like a complete moron. Just because he doesn't find the word offensive doesn't mean it isn't.
Bristol is ranked as the 7th best uni in the country
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=
OT: This is such a stupid thread and you're all melodramatic. For any characteristic (ie class, race, sexuality) to become social norm, it has to become trivial. If somebody calls me short (as I'm only 5'7) then there is no great social outcry because he called me short. Why should there be one when something is called gay? There shouldn't, end of story. Using the word gay in this context isn't "covert homophobia" and doesn't make you a homophobe. Threads like this, however, make people think that the word "gay" has power when it doesn't and leads to it being used in the wrong context in which it is homophobic.
EDIT: Just realised that the people on here that are saying that using gay is homophobic are also the most intolerant. lulz.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Arkasia
What meaning did 'Indian' and 'Chinese' have before being used to describe a group of people? None? Don't use completely different examples to try to push a point. Also, 'gay' was developed into a label for the homosexual community, AND THEN developed into an insult used by pre-pubescent schoolboys, words evolve, get over it.
What so it had to have a 'meaning' beforehand for it to be allowed to develop into another meaning? Where do you pull that from?
How is it a completely different example. I am using a word that describes a group of people and then developing it to be derogatory. Hardly a 'completely different example'.
And even if it were to have developed naturally into another word, that is fine. But that is not the case. It originally was used as a homophobic insult before it caught on abd people now claim it to be a 'habit'.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by colourtheory
"Most do"... Hmm, you're now generalising a whole group of people based upon the limitations of your experience. Wow, that smacks of the same prejudice that propagates racism and sexism.
I'm not racist, sexist or homophobic for good reason. Generalising a group of neanderthals as ignorant is hardly surprising. And of course there are exceptions.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Arkasia
What meaning did 'Indian' and 'Chinese' have before being used to describe a group of people? None? Don't use completely different examples to try to push a point. Also, 'gay' was developed into a label for the homosexual community, AND THEN developed into an insult used by pre-pubescent schoolboys, words evolve, get over it.
It might have developed into an insult used by pre-pubescent schoolboys, but that insult connotes anti-homosexual sentiment. Words do develop meaning, but in this case 'gay' retains the homophobic message. Gay has referred to the homosexual community for decades now, and you would only be deluding yourself to say that calling things gay has no link to anti-homosexual or anti-effeminate sentiment.
Original post by tomtjl
Bristol is ranked as the 7th best uni in the country
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=
That hardly means anything. It's not exactly Cambridge now, is it?
Original post by 2710
What so it had to have a 'meaning' beforehand for it to be allowed to develop into another meaning? Where do you pull that from?
How is it a completely different example. I am using a word that describes a group of people and then developing it to be derogatory. Hardly a 'completely different example'.
And even if it were to have developed naturally into another word, that is fine. But that is not the case. It originally was used as a homophobic insult before it caught on abd people now claim it to be a 'habit'.
Posted from TSR Mobile
How is it a completely different example. I am using a word that describes a group of people and then developing it to be derogatory. Hardly a 'completely different example'.
And even if it were to have developed naturally into another word, that is fine. But that is not the case. It originally was used as a homophobic insult before it caught on abd people now claim it to be a 'habit'.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I am confused, are you denying the word 'gay' had a meaning before it was used as a label for homosexuals? Indian and Chinese are different because they are factual statements born from the fact that the people are 'from India' and 'from China', and do not require previous meanings. Trying to compare it to the word 'gay' is just idiotic. Homosexuals are not from the country 'gay', and as much as they would like it to be otherwise, they neither invented nor coined the term 'gay'.
Original post by 2710
What? That's the whole point, it was developed. 'That's so gay' also started somewhere, before that you could also say 'When have you heard anyone say that?!'
And when you say that people refer it to objects does not justify the impact it causes
Posted from TSR Mobile
And when you say that people refer it to objects does not justify the impact it causes
Posted from TSR Mobile
It doesn't matter where it came from. The words mentioned had no relation to "gay" because calling an inanimate object African or Paki (as was suggested) would make no sense NOW. If they were used in a similar way, then the comparison would make sense. Even if they were, "Paki," is already considered offensive and as such would not be comparable, and neither of the two refer to a minority group.
So you cannot pretend that African/Paki are used in the same context as gay and then try to make an argument, because nobody has used those words in that context and no history exists to look at.
If you cannot understand this, then you are beyond reason.
PS I never agreed nor disagreed either, so chill out.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Reluire
It might have developed into an insult used by pre-pubescent schoolboys, but that insult connotes anti-homosexual sentiment. Words do develop meaning, but in this case 'gay' retains the homophobic message. Gay has referred to the homosexual community for decades now, and you would only be deluding yourself to say that calling things gay has no link to anti-homosexual or anti-effeminate sentiment.
I am not saying it has no link, that would be lunacy, but I am saying very, very, very few people use it as a slur based on a former meaning. People don't see a car and say 'oh that car is gay because it reminds me of homosexuals and homosexuals are bad', they go straight from 'that car is gay' to 'that car is bad', without mentioning or meaning the sexuality bit, and thus the term has adapted to leave out the homophobic connotations.
Original post by addylad
Not necessarily. Gay also means happy. Language changes. And what about gay people who use the expression? Are they homophobes?
Funny how nobody complains when someone says, "you're so camp".
This is why people who go out of their way to be offended do not edit the English dictionary. Because if they did, only two and three letter words would be left.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Funny how nobody complains when someone says, "you're so camp".
This is why people who go out of their way to be offended do not edit the English dictionary. Because if they did, only two and three letter words would be left.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm not necessarily saying that this usage of gay deems one a homophobe, although that is debatable, but rather that it promotes a culture of homophobia. Language does change but that's no justification because most people, I would think, don't agree with this usage so the definition of this word has by no means changed. I'm saying its usage needs to be challenged.
Nobody complains because that isn't a word (or phrase) that promotes a culture of homophobia, it simply asserts that someone is camp which may be the case. Pretty bad argument, I must say.
Original post by treejoe4
especially when the majority of the time there is no homophobic context to it's use.
The last clause is what confuses me. People are saying that calling something gay is aimed at gays. But gay is being used an a synonym for bad, not for homosexual. And nobody draws the comparison when people use gay in the happy sense.
I also note several people who take issue with the term have claimed not to be gay. So it would be genuinely eye-opening to hear from a few more homosexuals and what their views are.
PS As I keep having to state because people assume I use/endorse this term: I have not shared an opinion either way on whether or not I agree with the term in this context. I am simply debating. I personally do not use the term in this context.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Arkasia
It's only 'beyond the point' because you refuse to recognize anything that doesn't fall into your limited world view. The point is that gay is used as a label for homosexuals AND an insult, but not necessarily exclusively to do with the former definition, or are you suggesting homosexuals were originally called 'gay' SOLELY AND FOR THE EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE of their being happy? Also, don't accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being homophobic, it doesn't help your point.
Stop using such emotive language. Stop saying 'you' do this and 'I' do that. I don't use gay as another word for bad, I don't particularly use it at all. I'm also saying you are clinging to the word gay too much. It developed another meaning, so what, move on. To use another example, the 'n' word evolved from a derogatory slur to a general term used by black people, meaning any black person, without any connotations of derision or aggression. Why? Because they accept the term has evolved, and don't try to cling to and 'equate' past meanings.
Stop using such emotive language. Stop saying 'you' do this and 'I' do that. I don't use gay as another word for bad, I don't particularly use it at all. I'm also saying you are clinging to the word gay too much. It developed another meaning, so what, move on. To use another example, the 'n' word evolved from a derogatory slur to a general term used by black people, meaning any black person, without any connotations of derision or aggression. Why? Because they accept the term has evolved, and don't try to cling to and 'equate' past meanings.
I'm using emotive language because this is an emotive issue so no, I won't stop. If you don't personally subscribe to this usage of "gay" than that's quite besides the point, you're defending it. You're simply missing the fact that this usage of the word has negative connotations which directly refers to gay people. This isn't about the evolution of language, it's about equality.
Original post by Arkasia
I am not saying it has no link, that would be lunacy, but I am saying very, very, very few people use it as a slur based on a former meaning. People don't see a car and say 'oh that car is gay because it reminds me of homosexuals and homosexuals are bad', they go straight from 'that car is gay' to 'that car is bad', without mentioning or meaning the sexuality bit, and thus the term has adapted to leave out the homophobic connotations.
I think it's wishful thinking to say that the word has adapted to leave out homophobic connotation. The word can connote 'bad' as you say, but how did it pejorate in meaning? By making an association with perceptions of homosexuality; e.g. That car is gay likely refers to something like a pink or yellow car, which makes an association with the homosexual lifestyle stereotype. It is also derogatory, therefore bad.
Case in point with the Inbetweeners actually (even if it is quite amusing
):(Skip to 0:23)
Original post by DylanJ96
I'm using emotive language because this is an emotive issue so no, I won't stop. If you don't personally subscribe to this usage of "gay" than that's quite besides the point, you're defending it. You're simply missing the fact that this usage of the word has negative connotations which directly refers to gay people. This isn't about the evolution of language, it's about equality.
And I am saying it does not directly refer to gay people. We are at an impasse, and I will not stoop to your level by childishly insulting you.
Good day to you.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I'm not gay but sometimes I get off to gay porn?
- Post Your Favourite Inspirational Quotes :)
- ~ Aston/Plymouth Optometry Interview ~
- New Thread Experience Testing Thread
- English Lit GCSE Revision help
- Car insurance new drivers
- Surviving Year 12?
- Looking for friends to talk to and make relationships
- Gay and Muslim
- Y10 mocks
- Inspector calls predictions?/ tips 2023
- I struggle writing essays for english
- GCSEs
- English literature how to revise
- How many quotes? Eng Lit GCSE
- I am a private English tutor AMA
- Year 10 barrister work experience
- GCSE English literature paper 1 help
- September 2024
- How many quotes do you need in your essay to receive an A* in English lit?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
