Banning The “H-Word”?
The gays go by many names: gay, of course, pansy, fruit, shirt lifter, the ever-controversial “faggot” and, yes, homosexual. Intentionally the most clinical of the queer colloquial, “homosexual” went out of style in the 1990′s, replaced by the more neutral – and neutered – gay. “Homosexual” became the buzz word of the anti-gay conservatives set, spoken of as if it’s still 1950 and gays still “have” mental illnesses.
“Homosexuals”, however, have recently popped up in two giant newspapers: The New York Times and Washington Post. And GLAAD’s Sean Lund wants to see the archaic reference erased. Permanently.
In a piece over at Huffington Post, Lund takes on The Times and WaPo and describes the root of his particular problem thus:
Earlier this month, two leading national newspapers published editorials that, besides being smart, incisive and adding substance to issues often mired down in inane stereotypes, left a number of people, myself included, feeling a bit queasy. And in both cases, the queasiness was because of a word.
…
The editorials made strong cases for respect and inclusion, and for rejecting the outdated prejudices that continue to plague the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. But at the same time, they evoked an outdated stereotype. Both editorials referred to gay people as “homosexuals,” usage that was all the more surprising for being out of step with each paper’s style guidelines.
Both The Times and WaPo clearly define gay as the preferred, most politically-friendly term for the, well, gays. As GLAAD points out, The Times shifted terminological gears in 2005, while WaPo joined up in 2006.
In a July 10th, 2007 editorial dissecting “once-homophobic” Dr. James Hollsinger‘s anti-gay past, The Times wrote:
The Senate Health Committee will have to dig beneath the surface on Thursday to consider the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger to be surgeon general. Dr. Holsinger has high-level experience as a health administrator, but there are disturbing indications that he is prejudiced against homosexuals.
Such language, says Lund, sounds more appropriate for Jim Naugle than The Times.
…Anti-gay activists tenaciously cling to the archaic term “homosexual” and endorse the ludicrous, and harmful, malpractice of trying to turn gay people straight — all part of a desperate effort to convince the public that happy, fulfilled gay people and their loving, committed relationships do not and ought not exist.You can see it in the public statements of people like Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle, who, in a revealing moment, recently was quoted in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel as saying, “I don’t use the word ‘gay.’ I use the word ‘homosexual.’ Most of them aren’t gay. They’re unhappy.”
Lund concludes that, like “faggot”, the term “homosexual” must be tossed in the bin:
The word “homosexual” belongs to a bygone era, much like the “F-word” whose high-profile usage by Ann Coulter, Isaiah Washington and others was decisively condemned earlier this year. Both words send a message that gay people are less than you. Less than human. Just plain less than. And in so doing, they erode the mutual respect we all hunger for and the dignity we all deserve.
Yeah, homosexual’s definitely an impotent, antiquated term, but what would life be like if we could only use the word “gay”? Do you know how boring that would make our jobs, Mary?
Do we forbid “heterosexual” as well, as an antiquated term? Both terms have very clear and meaningful definitions and, for me, have no inherently negative connotation. Being the “word police” for perceived political incorrectness is too much for me.
So … um … he’s making a mountain out of a mole hill?
Ugh!
I have other things to worry about.
I like the word “homo”, can we keep that? Please?
I’m more worried about “faggot” than I am “homosexual.”
oy! this debate about semantics is getting out of hand. and i find it hard to take any of this crap seriously. of all the things we need to be concerned about this is way down the list.
I can not believe with all we have to fight for, this is the battle that was chosen. It comes across as petty and demeans all the legitimate efforts being made.
I have spent my life as a practicing homosexual and now that I have become professional at it, they are taking the name away.
Jack Jett
I like the word homosexual, there’s nothing ambiguous about it. Gay is also a nice word, used to make straights feel a little less threatened by us and frankly, it feels a bit nice to say it out loud. However, I often describe myself as a homosexual, because there is nothing to hash out about the word; it means what it means. And I agree with cjc, there are many more words we need to weed out besides homosexual.
I see nothing negative about the word homosexual. It’s just rather clinical. In a way, homosexual is more useful in the aforementioned editorials because homosexual can refer to both gays and lesbians, but if you just say “gay” some people will think that only refers to gay men and not lesbians.
This is crap. Getting rid of a legitimate word because some nasty people used it? There is nothing positive nor negative about the word homosexual. It is not a slur.
Plus, “homosexual” can be used to cover both gay men AND lesbians, since “gay” has seemed to morph and only refer to men.
These PC idiots need to get a life.
i agree that there’s nothing offensive about the word homosexual. it should probably be only used in a clinical sense – i.e. whenever it would be appropriate to use the world heterosexual, were we to be talking about straight folk.
by the way, does it occur to anyone that the word “straight” is somewhat offensive? what do we mean by straight? to me it gives the impression of boring, or correct, as in “walking the straight and narrow”. doesn’t seem like most hetero lives are so clean-cut anymore. thoughts anyone?
“does it occur to anyone that the word “straight†is somewhat offensive”
Oddly enough, logan767, straight used to be our word. It used to mean LGBTQ’s who were openly queer in private, but “normal” in public, or “straight” in public. Maybe it came from the use of those who were sober, like Whoopi Goldberg’s HBO program, “Why Am I Straight?” as in why am I sober. Either way, straight stopped meaning not openly gay in public and came to mean heterosexual.
I rather like the fundies using the clinical term homosexual, because the minute I see it (used outside a scientific journal,) I am immediately tipped off, what is written is created by our ENEMIES.
I think the guy’s right. Homosexual, as a term, is a really off-putting word. And not because I’m being particular — it does have connotative implications that we shouldn’t stand for. Thanks for that Paul, I didn’t know that’s where the word “straight” came from.
“Thanks for that Paul, I didn’t know that’s where the word ‘straight’ came from.”
No prob, RyRy. I’m trying to find a website that I saw years ago that basically explained that straight meant queers who were open in private and closeted in public; it was taken by the hippies to mean the “suits”, or non-hippy people; then came to mean sober and now means heterosexual. Except the writer of the webpage explained it a lot more eloquently and interesting that me 8^)
Some early L and G activists coined the term “homophile” to illustrate that their identity wasn’t solely about sex, but about love.
I don’t think “homosexual” is a dirty word, but I do feel kind of like a lab experiment when I hear it referred to me. I mean, hell, I love getting it on with other men, but it’s not like that’s all I want to do with them, you know? And, of course, the radical wrong has also taken up “homosexual” as their pet word for us. When I hear it, it makes me think of the fifties, really. You know, when being attracted to someone who wouldn’t guarantee you a spot in a “normal” family unit was a mental illness.
Anyway, I also see how “gay” tends to exclude lesbians and become male-centric (as so much of the mainstream media’s view of queers does anyway). I tend to say “queer” because it’s more inclusive, but I know plenty of people have their own issues with it.
hey paul: I had no idea that straight was historically used in that context. thanks for the info. it makes me even less inclined to like the term… as it seems to imply that, like alcoholics, those who have gone or stayed “straight” have give up their harmful habits. also, if we look at the way the hippies used the term straight (to imply “the suits” etc), i think the current usage disparages heteros by suggesting that their sex is somehow “square” or boring. queer is somewhat similar for me. while i think there’s still something revolutionary and challenging for our culture about non-reproductive sex, i think we should suggest its more about embracing what feels natural and right than doing something strange and unusual. that was the revelation for me what i first had gay sex: it felt so completely obvious and normal.
Well, I think it all depends on who uses the word “homosexual” and how its intended to sound, you know, whether or not its intended harshly and insultingly or if its just used in a clinical sense. Ideally there’s nothing wrong with the word. It’s used to describe something as “heterosexual” is. Although I don’t hear anybody ever saying “He’s a Heterosexual”. -_- I guess its a two way street.
I don’t know if I’m the only one that feels like this but what about the word Bisexual? It erks me when I am referred as that even though I technically am. I much prefer the term “I like people”.