I frequently have a certain conversation with people, over what words are acceptable and what words are not, as regards the LGBT community. My contention has always been that intent is everything, and that it’s probably not useful to get one’s knickers in a twist every time somebody says a word we don’t personally like. Because really, we’re not all monolithic on the subject! For instance, I don’t like the word “queer.” I don’t know why, it just bugs me. You’ll never see me sign onto anything called “queer this” or “queer that,” but that’s just my personal preference. If you like that word, if you’ve embraced it, or if you use it in a positive manner, that’s fine by me.
Some people don’t like the word “homosexual.” That is also okay. Personally, my relationship with that word is 100% about the intent of the user. My Wonkette column is called “THE HOMOSEXUALS!” Why? Because I think it’s funny. Others do too. But I understand that, when used by the Religious Right, it’s a dogwhistle meant to engender hatred and revulsion. They emphasize the “sex” syllable, just like hard right Republicans pigheadedly refuse to call the Democratic party by its correct name, instead calling it the “Democrat Party,” emphasis on the “rat.”
The reason I bring this up is that one of THE BEST progressive outfits out there, The Young Turks, hosted by Cenk Uygur, is taking a lot of heat right now because one of them, Ana Kasparian, used the word “homosexual” instead of “gay” in some column. The Young Turks are, hands down, some of the most outspoken, smart, funny, consistently supportive opinion makers out there when it comes to the LGBT community. I know this because I’ve been listening for years. Back when Air America existed, I used to get up every single morning, and instead of flipping on the television while I got ready, I would turn on the radio to listen to The Young Turks. I even used to call in! If you’re not familiar with them, enjoy their YouTube page for yourself.
As to the specific situation at hand, here’s Cenk and Ana discussing what happened, so watch that, and I’ll meet you on the other side, because a writer at a large gay blog is not happy, and I want to respond to it:
The blog that had a problem was AfterElton. Here’s a bit of what Dennis Ayers had to say at that site:
Turns out these folks consider themselves liberal progressives! And that makes this video far more disappointing than if you’d seen something like it on FOX News. And you easily could.
[...]
Watching Kasparian walk through the objective data showing that the choice of using “homosexual” instead of “gay” is actually detrimental to the GLBT community, and then having Cenk Uygur actually dismiss that as gays… sorry, homosexuals… being overly sensitive and unreasonable is truly infuriating.
Last time I checked the “gay community” (is there really such a monolithic thing?) wasn’t calling for a ban on the word “homosexual.” But given the determined use of that term by Christian conservatives it really does seem like someone who is generally pro-gay, once aware of the negative connotation, would make the choice to not use it.
Why exactly does Uygur feel the need to draw a line in the sand and continue making the choice to refer to gays as homosexuals?
Well, more power to him if that’s what he wants to do. I can’t speak for the “gay community,” but I at least won’t be tuning in.
First of all, if you’re not tuning in, you’re missing something, because, as I said, The Young Turks are fabulous. What the writer found “pugnacious” is that Cenk Uygur has a biting, sarcastic, dry wit about him, and he’s willing to say what he thinks. This is not, inherently, a problem.
What I notice about that clip is that both Cenk AND Ana had really good points to make! Ana wasn’t aware that there was a problem with people’s perceptions of the word “homosexual,” and she learned about it. Cenk, quite rightly (!), points out that wingnuts will do this to ANY word that non-wingnuts use to describe ourselves. This has happened with the word “feminist,” to the point that freaking Lilith Fair participants all the way up to Ms. Sarah McLachlan were waffling around about whether they were or were not feminists, in the year 2010! We all know that wingnuts have done this to the word “liberal.” Sometimes, the correct response is to rebrand, but sometimes it’s much better to embrace the word and say “Yes, I am a liberal homosexual man [who happens to also be a feminist], and what exactly is your problem with that, please?”
My point, as I said above, is that it’s all about intent. Cenk Uygur is not anti-gay! He is extremely, vociferously pro-gay. I think we have to be careful, as LGBT people, not to approach every conversation about language like we’re teaching our own impromptu course in Cultural Sensitivity 101, because again, we all have differing opinions about this. Here’s another one of mine: I think we get mired down when we keep adding letters to “LGBT.” Partially, it’s because I’m simply not willing to spend the time learning them, but partially, it’s also because I think it confuses people. But if you like them, good! Use them!
And there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Cenk here, or Ana. That’s fine. And you don’t have to listen to them, if their style isn’t to your liking. But I don’t think it’s a good excuse to make a mountain out of what is, in my opinion, nothing more than a teachable moment embedded in an intelligent discussion between two people who are, decidedly, on our side.
If you weren’t familiar with Cenk before, here he is on MSNBC defending marriage equality, in his trademark way:
Sidenote: I can almost smell the wingnuts trying to draw a parallel between this and the right-wing “How come they can say ‘nigger’ and we can’t?” argument. This is not the same thing. This is not about a term that is, and always has been, a pejorative. For one thing, I’d be hard pressed to find a white person who simultaneously: 1. Truly loves black people, and 2. Has a deep, resentful desire to use the word “nigger.” We’re talking here about a term that is actually, all the way back to its Latin roots, the correct term. The fact that certain people have turned it into a pejorative is undeniable. But it doesn’t have the immediate, cruel implications of words that have only been used as tools of hatred and demonization.
I agree that the intent is most important in determining whether a word is appropriate or not. The issue with the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” is they been used by the extreme right fringe so much as a way to denigrate LGBTQ folk that the term has adopted a negative aura (at least in my mind) that its not surprising people ahve developed a knee-jerk negative reaction to it. Just google “Homosexual” and compare the first several hits to googling “Gay”.
When I hear homosexual used, I have to stop and discern the context and intent. I don’t find the word itself offensive, certainly not like the “F—-t” word, which in my experience is never used in any other way than as an insult.
Oh, wingnuts have definitely left their mark with that word. I know this from my Google Alerts that I use when looking for things to write about. I have one for “gay” and one for “homosexual” and I know that, for the most part, supportive things come from one, and wingnuts come from the other.
I have chosen to embrace them all — gay, homosexual, LGBTQIA, queer, friend of Dorothy… I agree with Evan — It’s about intent. “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
just one more example of how out of touch so called straight “allies” are when it comes to our community. They have no idea what it means to be second class citizens and routinely downplay our demands for equality (especially in defending the homophobe in chief). So yeah, Kasparian can go to hell. Get back to me when she decides to tackle some real issues for our community (like the increasingly bigoted tone coming from the white house) instead of just paying lip service. And Cenk, it isn’t the bible you should be talking about in regards to marriage, it is the Constitution.
Really? I’m guessing you haven’t listened to The Young Turks much.
And this is what I meant, as well, when I said that we have to be careful about treating these conversations like we’re talking down to our straight allies. I don’t feel, as a gay man, that their conversation was “out of touch” at all, and not one second of it was offensive to me.
That’s my point about how we’re not monolithic, but it’s also about how intent is everything. I’ve been listening to/watching them for YEARS and they’ve done some of the best reporting on gay issues out there for a long time.
The guy is right, no matter the word used those that are haters will find a way to make it sound like an insult.
However I will take some exception to the last part of your post: “For one thing, I’d be hard pressed to find a white person who simultaneously: 1. Truly loves black people, and 2. Has a deep, resentful desire to use the word “n****r.” ”
The origins of the word were from a scottish variant on the french word “nègre” which in turn was a word for people of the black race.
Eventually in the 1960′s and 70′s it became a taboo word. You would be hard pressed to find anyone black or white in the 50′s or before who ACTIVELY thought n****r was a bad word.
As with any term that describes another race, religion or characteristic some people used it as a pejorative but that was not the meaning.
I am not defending the word ‘n****r’, in fact I wish all of us would just forget it exits.
The problem I have with your post is that your statements depend on where you live and the make up of your community.
here in New Orleans, dozens of my black friends use the word n****r all the time, and laugh at me because i don’t. it’s kindo of a group joke on me because the “old white guy” hates the word.
Their white (or spanish/asian/black) spouses or significant others use of the word is the same as the rest of the group. If the black person uses it a lot they do to.
for me it is a toss up between disliking censorship and disliking that word.
one example of this is the recent problem with pseudo-dr. laura and the 12 times she shouted n****r on the air.
ALL of my black friends think that she was NOT being racist saying it, stupid yes, racist no.
none of them like her, but they have all heard the recordings and just don’t think she was being racist just because she said n****r. They do acknowledge that she might be racist in other ways, but not because of using that word in that way at that time.
We need to be careful in what we claim as fact when talking about the deceitful way the haters twist facts.
The same goes for the word Faggot, Queer, Homosexual, Gay, etc.
the usage is the key and being “sensitive” to some clowns use of “homo” or “faggot”. Do we really GIVE them the power to take control of our language? Is your life or self diminished because some idiot shouts that word?
mine isn’t, but of course I will tell the idiot what I think of them too.
“queer” is my favorite because i think my entire being is queer, and not just in the gay way.
I disagree, by the way, that “n****r” is a “correct” term. Rather, I learned that it was a slang derivation of the word “Negro,” which IS in fact considered a “correct” word, as evidenced by terms such as “Negroid” (which is used when discussing the facial bony structure of a specific sect of people from a specific area in the world). Until the ’80′s “Negro” was considered a proper term for Blacks. Today it has fallen out of fashion and is considered demeaning, though not nearly as much as “the N word.” “Negro” does indeed come from Latin roots, as it is Spanish for “black” and the Latin word is “Nigrum” or “Niger.”
Language continues to change. The word “nice” used to be a synonym for “foolish/ignorant.”
I’m so glad you wrote this post. I sometimes feel like I’m walking on eggshells whenever I post a reply on a blog because I’m afraid of getting blasted for saying something that other gay people have suddenly determined to be offensive.
I got lazy once and referred to the religious right as being against “our lifestyle” and barely heard the end of it. Of course I know that it’s not a lifestyle, it’s our life but I gave others the benefit of the doubt that they realized I already knew this. They didn’t, and I received several lectures about how I was propogating the religious right’s myths about us. It’s so incredibly sad that we’ve gotten so used to being attacked that we now think everyone is doing it, whether it be our allies our ourselves.
That’s true, Emily, about the derivation coming from Negro. My point was that, as a pejorative, the slang corruption into “n****r” has a history that’s pretty solidly negative. Of course, “Negro” used to be THE acceptable term. So yeah…
It’s an interesting thing…another example is the fact that among younger adults and teenagers, “gay” is a very common term used to mean “lame” and it has NOTHING to do with the sexuality. Meanwhile, that’s a generation that’s SOLIDLY gay-supportive!
I’m glad this post is engendering discussion [I'm glad I have time to write posts like this again...], because it seems to be one of those things where too often people have their favorite terms, and then the ones they don’t like, and they take offense, and I’m always like “WAIT a minute, but that person is on our side.”
After listening to Cenk I certainly won’t be tuning in to the young turks. He’s willfully stupid and selfish. Presented with a poll that shows its indisputable that “homosexual” has negative connotations he fatuously declares it does not. His attitude is that it pains him to have to change his ways so he’s going to continue insulting thousands upon thousands of gays. Cenk may be gay-supportive but he’s also an a**hole.
I agree with Cenk 100%. I think one of the worse things we could do is cower at the word “homosexual”. No matter how 16% of people react we have to educate rather than run away or get upset when the word is used. And to get all uptight at supportive people like TYT is just silly.
“10.After listening to Cenk I certainly won’t be tuning in to the young turks”
Then it will be your loss Priya. I listen to them fairly regularly and in addition to being completely supportive of the GLBT community TYT is pretty entertaining.
I’m pretty much with you. This is where political correctness falls down for me, because it becomes all about the words and not about the meaning. And meaning comes down to context; not what words are used but how they are used.
I kinda like homoaffectional, because it’s not just about sex; especially after you’ve been with the same partner for a * l o n g* time. Trust me.
The real issue here is that a straight man is reinforcing stereotypes about gays by calling their objections to his use of “homosexual” as oversensitive and unreasonable. Gays have long been portrayed as hysterical, over the top, and melodramatic. Think of the dandified fop who screams and faints at the drop of the hat. It is offensive and bigoted. I don’t care if he claims to be an ally of our community, his homophobic, dismissive attitude is unacceptable. What if he said that black men who complain about racism are just too angry all the time? Does that make things any clearer? Our community has been so traumatized that we don’t even see bigotry when its happening. We are so frightened that we are willing to tolerate abuse from allies rather than offend them and perhaps drive them away. Until we face that fear, and call out these people on their bigotry, we won’t get anywhere.
“Our community has been so traumatized that we don’t even see bigotry when its happening.”
See, I’m coming at this from another angle. I think the gay community has been so traumatized that often people have a kneejerk reaction and see bigotry where there is none.
Are you suggesting that he was NOT relying on stereotypes to dismiss objections to his use of “homosexual”? And if not, how is my reaction “knee jerk”? If anything his reaction was, and he fell back on tired stereotypes to justify it. I find it hard to believe that any activist would accuse a member of their own oppressed community, which is legally relegated to second class citizenship, as having a “knee jerk” reaction to stereotyping and homophobia. By doing so, you are falling into the same trap as Uygur. You are dismissing my objections by accusing me of being oversensitive (knee jerk). And like him you are relying on a well worn gay stereotype to do it.
Daniel said “Then it will be your loss Priya. I listen to them fairly regularly and in addition to being completely supportive of the GLBT community TYT is pretty entertaining.”.
No loss to me whatsoever. I have no desire to listen to an ignorant, selfish, and willfully stupid person.
Again, perhaps it’s different because I’ve been listening to Cenk Uygur for a LONG time, but I feel that you’re reading a lot into it that’s simply not there. He even AGREED that it is a problem that people have a different perception of the word “homosexual” than they do of “gay,” but he said he thinks it’s stupid and that you should fight the fight from the opposite direction.
I’m not dismissing your objections, but I’m restating the entire point of the piece. I DO believe it’s knee-jerk to go apeshit on someone who has such a solid record of being on our side, and moreover, “getting it” on a fundamental level that many pundits don’t.
And unless there’s a stereotype about jerking knees that gays have been saddled with since time immemorial, I’m not sure how I’m relying on stereotypes.
Evan said “He even AGREED that it is a problem that people have a different perception of the word “homosexual” than they do of “gay…”.
I must have missed that part. What I remember is when he fatuously claimed the word does not have a negative connotation – the opposite of the statement you quoted. Anyone who thinks like that is a very long way from “getting it” on a fundamental level.
He started out saying “b******t,” but after Ana cited the poll statistics, he did indeed agree that it’s a problem that people see the words differently. As I said, his contention is that it’s stupid, and I’m inclined to agree with him, for the reasons I stated above, i.e. what wingnuts do to ALL words. All the people running around calling themselves “progressive” right now are only doing so because wingnuts turned “liberal” into a dirty word and so they ran to a new one. This, in part, is why we have so few “liberals” in this country.
Have you all ever noticed, like, on people’s Facebook pages, in their political views, that there are LOTS of people, who you know DAMN WELL are liberals, who yet call themselves “moderates”? It drives me up a wall, and I think that was Cenk’s point. We’re not talking about a word that started out as a slur. We’re talking about a word that is technically correct, and that wingnuts have been co-opting as a slur.
So. There are certain arenas where I wouldn’t choose to use the word…for instance, in a political campaign, because then you’re dealing with the facts on the ground as they are, not as you’d like them to be.
But I do agree with Cenk that the word “homosexual” itself is fine, and that there’s no reason to run away from it.
“All the people running around calling themselves “progressive” right now are only doing so because wingnuts turned “liberal” into a dirty word and so they ran to a new one.”
I sort of agree, excpet that it wasn’t wingnuts who banished the word, it was recent Democratic converts like Markos Moulitsas and Arianna Huffington who left the Republican party and tried to hijack the liberal movement (with great success) for their own personal gain and political agendas.
Uh, Rush Limbaugh helped.
I think one of the most stupid things we could do is allow “homosexual” to be turned into a slur. However people use it we can’t cower at the word. It’s better to make it not a dirty word than to get all offended about it. The F word is enough, we don’t need to get upset over words like this.
Daniel, you’re too late, the word has already been turned into a slur. Evan, sometime after he heard about the poll he said adamantly “it doesn’t have a negative connotation”. He may have been temporarily amenable to the truth but after a short time he went back to his blindered “reality is what I want it to be” attitude.
Perhaps he was saying that, to normal, gay supportive people, it doesn’t have a bad connotation. Perhaps, he was saying that, to him, it doesn’t have a bad connotation.
I remain uncomfortable with the idea of us running away from the correct terminology in order to hide from the Religious Right.
He didn’t qualify it. He didn’t restrict it to those groups, he said “It doesn’t have a negative connotation” period, end of sentence. That was selfish and willfully stupid. If I someone’s a guest in my house and they refer to gays as homosexuals I’m going to through them out immediately. Its an insult and you’ll have no more luck changing that then you will trying to put a positive spin on the “n” word.
Perhaps he didn’t feel the need to qualify it because he’s been in the public eye as a media figure who supports homosexuals, fervently, for years?
The only really valid objection to the word “homosexual” is a philological one, namely that it is a hybrid formation using words from two different languages, Greek and Latin. But on those grounds one would have to object equally to the word “television”. The word does not itself imply any kind of value judgment, positive or negative, and I agree with Evan that we should not allow ourselves to be intimidated by its use as a simple, scientific, descriptive term.
What I DO object to is the stupid word “homosexualist”, which has been invented purely for the purpose of denigration.
Priya, you’re a reactionary. Whether it’s used as a slur has nothing to do with how we react to it. If we react with offense as though it stings to hear it then they’ve won. If, on the other hand, we stop and say–yeah, I’m homosexual, so what? Then we’ve taken the power back and we don’t have be all victimy.
I see from this that they’ve already won. If they can get us arguing amongst ourselves and our supporters about what words are okay and what words aren’t they’ve already distracted us and we won’t get anything done.
Even the argument over whether it’s okay to say “n****r” is a distraction and it’s possibly the biggest failure of the civil rights movement. To make a word tabu is to give it power–and if we go apeshit on someone who’s a supporter of our rights we’ve lost again.
Long time reader, first time commenter.
I understand the point you are trying to make, and yes intent is often more important then word choice. and yes whatever word we use will be twisted.
However, the word ‘homosexual’ is not the ‘correct’ term. At least not in the sense I think you mean. ‘homosexual’ is a medicalized term that was use to, and came into existence, classify gay people has having a mental disorder. It has never been benign; this is one reasons why homophile exists.
But who ever says “homophile”? It’s not a term that’s every likely to fall into usage, and “homosexual” is the natural counterpart to “heterosexual,” and I don’t see that falling out of usage. Also, why is “bisexual” not offensive, while “homosexual” is?
Kelly, we will NEVER get people to use “homophile” and whatever the origin of the word “homosexual” we shouldn’t allow it to become a weapon against us. I’m not sure your history is completely acurate but in any case the word “homosexual” was not used as a slur until recently and we still have the chance to defuse it.
Homophile sounds too close to pedophile. I don’t think people will be able to separate them far enough in their heads.
Besides, trying to get people ok with homosexual, gay and lesbian has already been hard enough. We probably shouldn’t change those terms any time soon, could undo efforts to make the public more ok with using them.
I wasn’t advocating that people use homophile. I was pointing out that a certain term, ‘homophile’ came into existence because ‘homosexual’ was always problematic. I was railing against the idea that it is the ‘correct’ term. All the terms we use to classify sexual orientation, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual ONLY came into existence in the context have saying gay people have a mental disorder. it is the medicalization and assigning of a pathology that is inherently problematic. and the word ‘homosexual’ will always have this baggage.
that the religious right has built a slur out of ‘homosexual’ as well is a secondary concern.
I don’t find the the use of ‘homosexual’ inherently offensive, again intent, but the term isn’t benign nor correct.
[...] Charlie Crist is trying to be gay for gay rights now. We had a long discussion about whether “homosexual” is a good word or a bad word. John McCain is a homophobic [...]