So yesterday, or some other such day, I found myself reading this column in the Guardian, which asserted that people should stop using the word "homosexual" to refer to The Gays. The columnist's argument is that homosexual sounds too much like a medical term, and will always sound as though it is being used to refer to a crazy person. He points out that homosexual is the stubborn word of choice for stuffy, rightist publications like the Torygraph, and has no place in papers like the Guardian.
He sort of has a point. Not a point I agree with, but a point nonetheless.
As he pointed out, the word "homosexual" was coined by a German doctor examining same-sex attraction as a symptom of mental illness. It often has a bitingly clinical tone to it, which many prominent gay writers have objected to. The word gay, does, overall, just sound more embracing.
But then, the origins of the use of "gay" to mean homosexual are hardly more innocent. As we all know, gay initially meant to be carefree and happy. The semantic shift started when its meaning of carefreeness became more narrowed, laden with implications of immorality and hedonism. In the seventeenth century, "gay woman" meant prostitute, "gay man" meant womanizer, and a "gay house" was a brothel. It is from here that it became a sneering, judgmental term to refer to men who engaged in unholy shenanigans with other men. "Queer", another term now fully embraced by the LGBT community, also began as a derogatory term for effeminate men in the kitchens and schoolyards of traditionalist England.
So if we can bring the words "gay", "queer", and in some cases, even "fag" into acceptable use, why on earth not "homosexual"?
If we got rid of every word to refer to those of a non-heterosexual disposition which had been used in a derogatory way at some point, then we would have no words left. We'd have to create new ones, like "foojillybob". Then fairly soon, once that was used as an insult by some compensating teenager, we'd have to ban that too and coin another word. It would all get very confusing. Or alternatively, we would have to simply not have a word, and everyone would have refer to people like us as "oh, you know, those people who sleep with people with the same genitalia as them". (Actually, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but it probably wouldn't work in today's culture.)
On a more serious note, censoring, as a rule, has worked less well for the gay rights movement than embracement. We will never be able to stop everyone using words we dislike, but if we accept them and attempt to embolden them with more positive connotations (like has been done with queer), then we will go much further in achieving acceptance (or at least tolerance) for LGBTers everywhere.
Personally, I don't believe that a single word can hold much power, unless we let it. All that matters is context. If the S*n prints a headline saying "ZOMG Guys Look What The Gays Have Done Now!!!!" (or something), then that will be a lot more flinch-inducing then reading the word "homosexual" in our belovedly left-wing Guardian.
Let's not fall into the trap of siding with the Political Correctness Squad. Rather, let's let the gay rights movement be seen as a banner for inclusion and tolerance by everyone.
He sort of has a point. Not a point I agree with, but a point nonetheless.
As he pointed out, the word "homosexual" was coined by a German doctor examining same-sex attraction as a symptom of mental illness. It often has a bitingly clinical tone to it, which many prominent gay writers have objected to. The word gay, does, overall, just sound more embracing.
But then, the origins of the use of "gay" to mean homosexual are hardly more innocent. As we all know, gay initially meant to be carefree and happy. The semantic shift started when its meaning of carefreeness became more narrowed, laden with implications of immorality and hedonism. In the seventeenth century, "gay woman" meant prostitute, "gay man" meant womanizer, and a "gay house" was a brothel. It is from here that it became a sneering, judgmental term to refer to men who engaged in unholy shenanigans with other men. "Queer", another term now fully embraced by the LGBT community, also began as a derogatory term for effeminate men in the kitchens and schoolyards of traditionalist England.
So if we can bring the words "gay", "queer", and in some cases, even "fag" into acceptable use, why on earth not "homosexual"?
If we got rid of every word to refer to those of a non-heterosexual disposition which had been used in a derogatory way at some point, then we would have no words left. We'd have to create new ones, like "foojillybob". Then fairly soon, once that was used as an insult by some compensating teenager, we'd have to ban that too and coin another word. It would all get very confusing. Or alternatively, we would have to simply not have a word, and everyone would have refer to people like us as "oh, you know, those people who sleep with people with the same genitalia as them". (Actually, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but it probably wouldn't work in today's culture.)
On a more serious note, censoring, as a rule, has worked less well for the gay rights movement than embracement. We will never be able to stop everyone using words we dislike, but if we accept them and attempt to embolden them with more positive connotations (like has been done with queer), then we will go much further in achieving acceptance (or at least tolerance) for LGBTers everywhere.
Personally, I don't believe that a single word can hold much power, unless we let it. All that matters is context. If the S*n prints a headline saying "ZOMG Guys Look What The Gays Have Done Now!!!!" (or something), then that will be a lot more flinch-inducing then reading the word "homosexual" in our belovedly left-wing Guardian.
Let's not fall into the trap of siding with the Political Correctness Squad. Rather, let's let the gay rights movement be seen as a banner for inclusion and tolerance by everyone.
I'd argue that the word 'gay' is even more tarnished. It is used to denote something being 'lame', 'fay', or 'dull'. I believe this underlines a deep seated societal non-acceptance. So much for a left leaning, Guardian reading society.
ReplyDelete