You have every reason to feel the way you feel, Bro. I respect your opinion equally in reciprocation. I think for me it has to do with the way I look at dictionaries. For me, they are not instructional, but only historical. Countless dead words litter the dictionaries of today. Are those words and their associated meanings really a part of our language if they exist only in the onionskin pages of a dictionary, or are they just part of the ever accumulating history of the language?
That's my quote >.> And I didn't mean you. I meant when one of my gay friends QQs about hearing the word gay said, I feel like hitting them. They make everything about themselves instead of accepting their is a dual use for the word. They see a hate crime where they want to and make a big deal out of it.
Oh, that's deeply weird. And I wasn't even working with any quotes from you at that moment. My apologies; fixed now.
You do realize that the "dual use" *comes* from the use of the word as a slur, right? It's not two completely separate coincidental uses of the same syllable. If you had an enemy that went around badmouthing you, and then that enemy started using "A.M.P." as an insult, and other people picked up its use as an insult, and you told them, hey, that was originally done to insult *me*...should they hit you for making it about yourself?
That'd be different. It'd be personal. Gay is just a word, not a name. Unless you include last names. What about it meaning happy?
No, it's not just a word. It's an identifier for a group of people. OK, let's say that you're Irish. Let's say that you identify with that culture, you love it, it's a big part of who you are. And your enemy starts using "Irish" as an insult. "That's so Irish." "I pulled an Irish today." And your friends start using the word in the same way. And if you complain, they're angry about you making it "about you." That would be just fine?
It's only an identifier if I feel like "Hey, this is my friend AMP. He's gay." would be acceptable. My gayness does not define me. It only means that I enjoy men who play hanky panky with me. I'm also a ginger, foreign, and quite pale. Heard loads of insults on that front. Also heard them used in ways that had nothing to do with me but sounded alike. As in, if someone was throwing a party and wanted it to make it very... girly, I'd say "Gay it up!" I would mean "Let's have tasteful colors, lots of pink, unicorns, a few phallic objects, and some sweet colored drinks." and not "Let's make it about ME!" I might be gay but I do not describe myself as gay. Lots of better adjectives to throw around. Maybe the real issue is other gays assigning their gayness too highly on their personal identification list. As if their sexual satisfaction somehow becomes them. As far as I know, being gay only involves who I enjoy fornicating with. Even then it's not the best word to describe my sexuality.
@minstrel My point on this post is, while using gay as a term to describe something as stupid shouldn't be used by anyone, the fact remains that it is used as slang in the English language in that way, therefore that definition should be included and tagged as such e.g. vulgar, etc... I mean, I'm 1/2 Chinese but I don't freak out when someone says there's a "chink in the armor" or some such because I know there are several definitions for the word chink. One is usage of the word as it was intended, the other is a slur and personally I don't mind if both are present in the dictionary because that's the job of said book - to showcase the language with all definitions for all words. Take queer for example. Miriam-Webster includes all standard definitions plus 2. D. "Homosexual." appropriately tagged as "offensive/disparaging." Along with the first documented use of the word in that way. That's how I think this should be handled.
For me at least, being gay goes far beyond "sexual satisfaction." It's not just about "who I enjoy fornicating with." I could have dealt with that in the closet. What I couldn't deal with in the closet is everything else being gay means. And it's everything else people insult when they use "gay" in a derogatory sense. I never bothered with this when I was in my twenties. I was strong, even though I was closeted, and I could handle any shit anyone dumped on me. But as I grew older, I got angry that I had to handle it - I got pissed off that people were dumping shit on me even though I was strong enough to take it. It's okay for five years or ten years or however long you're willing to put up with it. But there comes a point in your life when you say enough is enough. It doesn't mean you're weak, it just means you're sick and tired of being kicked around and shat on. I'm gay. I am not "stupid" and I am not "foolish." I don't appreciate people labeling me as such. It's horrible when they say, "Oh, sorry, when I said 'gay' I only meant stupid and foolish. I didn't mean you." When people have to explain why the language they're using isn't offensive, maybe they should think about using different language.
Honestly, I'd use the word chink but I never even thought that it's racist. I mean, when you mentioned it, I remembered it was derogative but on my daily life I only meant and thought of it as meaning "imperfection/damage". If it wasn't for you mentioning the racist part, I would of never even thought of it if asked directly what it meant. What else is there to being gay than it being just about sex? As far as I understand, being gay means having sex with men. It doesn't affect anything else.
Well, speaking for myself, I use the words "white" and "bourgeois" in a derogatory sense all the time. Like, that's such a bourgeois (common, close minded, materialistic) way of thinking. Or, man, you are so white (soft,stiff, uncultured, naive). If I call a guy a "girl" it is absolutely derogatory. If I call a girl a "dude" it is also absolutely derogatory. Whether I call someone's boyfriend a "good guy," or an "ass", it is derogatory. If you call someone a mother (unless she is a mother, but even then not always (think used, old, out of shape) ), it's derogatory. In fact, almost anything in the right context can be derogatory, with the exception of "beast," which, when applied to male or female has different connotations, both of them always good.
I swear like a sailor IRL and I would never use "gay" as an insult. I just wouldn't. I have no family or even people I'm that close to who are gay, but I still wouldn't. And I drop the f-bomb on a fairly regular basis.
That's the difference between being vulgar and being hurtful. I was raised in a home where a big-daddy F-bomb dropped for a stubbed toe or the realization that you're a day late on your payment was perfectly acceptable, but an F you, directed at someone was not on at all. There's a big difference between the two.
I think this just goes down to what someone finds offensive. Personally, if I was gay, I wouldn't care at all if the word gay was used to describe something stupid or foolish. I would probably use it that way too. But that could just be me because I don't find many things insulting, unless they were directly meant at me. As for the actual topic, I think they shouldn't have changed the definition. Its how a lot of people use the word, trying to "hide" the often meaning of it accomplishes nothing.
Being called 'gay' is to me not an insult at all. I actually find it a total mystery how anyone over the age of 11 could think it is. I always like what the late Christopher Hitchens said, that homosexuality is not just a sexual orientation, it is a form of love. I have a number of real life gay friends, I don't treat them any differently than I treat my heterosexual friends, because there really isn't any need to. I've had my gay friends fancy me, and I've been offered more than just that, I have always taken it as a compliment. Homosexuality is not an issue - and in fact I have a lesbian friend I met very recently who I really enjoy talking to because I can talk to her about women. Guys everywhere! Find a lesbian friend! It's amazing! I use F-bombs all the time. To be honest, I think 'fuck' is a wonderful word.
I agree with @Wreybies that the dictionary is meant to document language. That includes offensive language, or offensive uses of words that have other meanings as well. The fact that it is considered offensive to some could be included with the definition, but removing it doesn't make much sense when you think of the purpose of a dictionary.
I know at least two gay people who use the word this way. They're both young. Maybe it fails to be perceived as an insult to them simply because of how common the usage it, so it is just clear in their mind that they are really two different words. Think about 'bat' as a piece of sports equipment and 'bat' as an animal. The two words are spelled exactly the same, but they're really two different words in that they're directed to fundamentally different things depending on usage. Maybe young people who use the term don't, in general, consider it offensive because they really think of the two uses of 'gay' as having nothing to do with one another.
@Steerpike and remember, there's the derogatory usage as well e.g. calling a female an "old bat" etc...
Of course it's not. Nobody has said that the use of 'gay' to mean homosexual is an insult. It's no more an insult than, for example, being called Irish to mean "from or descented from the area known as Ireland" is an insult. If the term Irish is also used to mean foolish and shiftless, and it's perfectly clear that that use branched off from the "area known as Ireland" use, then that's an insult, and it's a double insult, because it takes a group's identity and transforms that identity into an insult. The same for this use of the word 'gay'. I'm curious--is there anyone who is fine with the use of "gay" in this context, who objects to the use of "retard" or "retarded" as a general insult to someone's intelligence? Or are the people who are fine with one, fine with the other? If you're British, I suspect that the terms "spastic" and "spaz" would also be in this category. (Which is not to say that those terms aren't offensive when Americans unknowingly use them, but Americans are moderately likely to be completely unknowing when they use them, so I would give them a break until the instant that someone tells them--and not one instant longer. As I understand it, Joss Whedon didn't realize the implications until Buffy started to be shown in the UK.)
Sigh. Things do change. I'm 64 years old and grew up in the USA. When I was young, describing somebody as 'retarded' was not considered a slur, but merely a description of their condition. Like calling somebody with diabetes a 'diabetic.' (Calling somebody a 'Retard' was indeed an insult, though.) I do accept that this usage has changed, although I'm not sure what to replace it with. Mentally Challenged seems highly sarcastic to me. If one has to refer to somebody whose mental abilities will never grow beyond childhood, what words are PC to use these days? Very interesting too, that many modern Native Americans actually refer to themselves as "Indian." Sherman Alexie, the Indian writer is an example. I had a friend from the Blackfeet tribe who always referred to himself as Indian, rather than Native American. He thought "Native American" was a patronising label. He didn't have a problem with calling his tribe a First Nations tribe, though. My husband objects to the change in the word 'gay.' It used to mean somebody who was cheerful and animated. Now if you use the word in that context, you get a snigger. (Being a folksinger these days is hard, hard...) So there you go...
I have no problem with being called gay. I am gay; it's fine to call me gay. I object when people observe something stupid, ridiculous, weak, or incompetent and say "That's so gay." People who do that are equating a sexual orientation with a set of negative concepts. Make no mistake: the use of "gay" to mean homosexual on the one hand, and "gay" to mean these negatives on the other did not come about coincidentally. People who despise homosexuals and homosexuality started and popularized the derogatory use of the term. Maybe young people today who use gay in the negative sense do not mean to offend gay people, but nonetheless they're perpetuating, and not correcting, an injustice.
But, again, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about using the term for the people for whom the term was invented--for example, using the word 'retarded' for people who have a diagnosis of mental retardation. I'm talking about people who use the word 'retarded' for government policies and bad art and bad television programs and anything else that the speaker regards as unintelligent. I'm not talking about the legitimate, original use of these words. I'm talking about their redefinition to have other, insulting, meanings. Am I explaining this badly? Does anyone, anyone at all, understand the distinction I'm making here? (Edited to add: OK, obviously Minstrel does because he just put it much better than I did, and I'm sure that others do, but I'm frustrated that apparently I'm utterly unable to consistently communicate it.)
@ChickenFreak - Actually I think you said it very well. My spiel wasn't directed at your bits at all; it was just a general observation on the way things change. However, I was recently pulled up (on this forum) for using the word 'retarded' to mean a person with a diagnosis of mental retardation, so I'm conscious now that the usage has changed. I totally agree with you that calling a government policy 'retarded' is insulting ...not to the government, but to people who are actually 'retarded' in a clinical sense. Strangely enough, in the part of Scotland where I live, I HAVE heard "Irish" used as an insult - usually in connection with something the speaker thinks makes only a convoluted kind of sense. "That's so Irish." Bizarre...
Interesting. I just heard the word 'gay' used as a derogatory term for something else this past weekend, for the first time. I was quite startled. I didn't know this was happening. I lead a sheltered life.
