The evolution of the word "Gay".

[megalithic]

No, A strawman is when you pretend your opponent is taking a different position than they actually are in order to knock it down so as to give the impression that they have defeated the entire argument.

 

What I did was to pose a hypothetical question (plainly so, I even explicitly labelled it hypothetical) that compared the acceptance of people using the word gay to mean 'bad' to the previously acceptable practise of using the word 'jew' to mean 'greedy'.At no point did I attempt to make out that Megalithic's actual position was that using the word Jew as an insult is ok. You have misused the term, that's not what I was doing at all.

 

You can disagree and argue that my analogy was incorrect, as you have done, but that does not make my argument a strawman.

 

If you want a good example of a strawman argument look to this post by aliceBB from this thread. In it she presents a version of the opposing argument that is easy to knock down, ie. that the word gay in this context should be banned and that banning words leads to all sorts of contradictions. In actuality not a single person here has advocated banning any words, so she was arguing against a strawman that she herself put up.

 

I think the lines are quite clear when using the word "Jew", it's solely descriptive, and any other use of it would be quite quickly recognised as such. As i've already said, as young uns we quite freely used it without being berated, but on growing older we quickly realised it's negative and offensive connotations, which has seen it's use as anything other than a descriptive quietly fade into obscurity, bar in ultra right wing circles.

 

One of us is missing the point by a wide margin, it could quite possibly be me i admit, if this reply doesn't clear it up.

[flamingjimmy]

I think the lines are quite clear when using the word "Jew", it's solely descriptive, and any other use of it would be quite quickly recognised as such. As i've already said, as young uns we quite freely used it without being berated, but on growing older we quickly realised it's negative and offensive connotations, which has seen it's use as anything other than a descriptive quietly fade into obscurity, bar in ultra right wing circles.

 

And wouldn't it be nice if it were the same with the word 'gay'.

 

Young kids growing up gay would no longer be presented with a word that uses a word that describes a defining part of their character as a synonym for crap.

[tinfoilhat]

Point well made.

 

I'm wondering if the gay community ever hear it in this context, realise how often it is used, and understand that this new incarnation doesn't reflect on them in any negative way by the user ?

Purely out of politeness i wouldn't use it in the presence of random gay people, as it most likely would be taken the wrong way and reflect wrongly on myself. Of course i may unknowingly have done so in the past.

 

Context is the key word here i believe.

 

Can gay be used in good way? If I have a friend who is well groomed, fantastically muscular and wears tight white t shirts can I say he looks gay, but in a good way? Is that even a good way or just pushing sterotypes? If someone said I dressed like a gay part of me might feel flattered. I don't btw, I look like a homeless person most of the time.

 

---------- Post added 03-06-2014 at 00:26 ----------

 

So it's not playing on stereotypes when the kid gets called gay for say for example liking the wrong kind of films and TV programs (ones that are considered 'girly' for example), or even something as innocuous as not liking sports?

 

I've never known anyone to be called gay for not liking sports.

[amberleaf808]

The original stage version of Maria's song "I Feel Pretty" included the lyrics "I feel pretty and witty and bright / And I pity / Any girl who isn't me tonight." In the film this night scene was changed to the daytime, and presumably for this reason, the rhyming words "bright" and "tonight" were changed to "gay" and "today."

 

Why? What did they mean by Gay??

[megalithic]

And wouldn't it be nice if it were the same with the word 'gay'.

 

Young kids growing up gay would no longer be presented with a word that uses a word that describes a defining part of their character as a synonym for crap.

 

I do agree with you, but there hasn't been a campaign to reclaim the word, it's just evolved. You can't re-bottle it.

 

---------- Post added 03-06-2014 at 00:34 ----------

 

 

I've never known anyone to be called gay for not liking sports.

 

I have.

 

"You playing footy mate?"

"Nah i can't be arsed"

"You gay" (literally "spoilsport")

 

In that context it has no anti gay connotations, imo. Edit: Even though it's used in a negative way.

[Mister M]

I do agree with you, but there hasn't been a campaign to reclaim the word, it's just evolved. You can't re-bottle it.

 

But you can engage with people who use it. As you have said language evolves all the time, but we should not be passive in this process.

 

---------- Post added 03-06-2014 at 00:38 ----------

 

Can gay be used in good way? If I have a friend who is well groomed, fantastically muscular and wears tight white t shirts can I say he looks gay, but in a good way? Is that even a good way or just pushing sterotypes? If someone said I dressed like a gay part of me might feel flattered. I don't btw, I look like a homeless person most of the time.

 

---------- Post added 03-06-2014 at 00:26 ----------

 

 

I've never known anyone to be called gay for not liking sports.

 

Though when I was growing up girls who were suspected of being gay were described in polite circles as 'sporty', and boys who were suspected of being gay were 'theatrical' or 'sensitive'.

[tinfoilhat]

But you can engage with people who use it. As you have said language evolves all the time, but we should not be passive in this process.

 

Ok, time warp 30 (or more it's an arbitrary number;)) years ago and you've just introduced yourself to an older person and said you're gay. Should they have tried to reclaim it and say, "no young man you are a homosexual, gay for my generation means light hearted and carefree or brightly coloured* and I'm challenging your use of it. I won't be passive about it either. Use a different word!"

 

It's why you can't go wrong with lesbians, 99.9% of the time.**

 

*Both are Oxford English Dictionary definitions.

** unless you are talking about people who come the Greek Island of lesbos. Gay or straight you most go there - lovely place.

 

---------- Post added 03-06-2014 at 00:50 ----------

 

But you can engage with people who use it. As you have said language evolves all the time, but we should not be passive in this process.

 

---------- Post added 03-06-2014 at 00:38 ----------

 

 

Though when I was growing up girls who were suspected of being gay were described in polite circles as 'sporty', and boys who were suspected of being gay were 'theatrical' or 'sensitive'.

 

That's a fair comment a few years ago but with more sports women being pin ups (like the sainted Jessica of ennis) and tv shows showing street dance in a more inclusive (manly? I'm struggling here!) light those days might be over.

[megalithic]

But you can engage with people who use it.

 

I wouldn't get anywhere though.

It would be like asking you to break it to the gay population that they needed to find a new word to describe their sexuality. It's not gonna happen.

 

Let's not forget, to them they are doing nothing wrong, nor are they harming anyone, bar a mate, for a few fleeting seconds, in an affectionate way. They would never call a random person a gay, unless looking at a face rearrangement session.

[Halibut]

Let's not forget, to them they are doing nothing wrong, nor are they harming anyone, bar a mate, for a few fleeting seconds, in an affectionate way. They would never call a random person a gay, unless looking at a face rearrangement session.

 

They are if they're using to term thoughtlessly - and in earshot of a gay person. Imagine that you're a primary school or teenage boy and you're gay and that every time your mates say the word it's for something that's lame or crap or rubbish. I'm sure you can see that that would be a pretty unpleasant situation to be in.

[aliceBB]

If you want a good example of a strawman argument look to this post by aliceBB from this thread. In it she presents a version of the opposing argument that is easy to knock down, ie. that the word gay in this context should be banned and that banning words leads to all sorts of contradictions. In actuality not a single person here has advocated banning any words, so she was arguing against a strawman that she herself put up.

 

Just hold on, please, before rushing to tell me (wrongly) what I was arguing or advocating!

 

At the start of that post (#47) I made it clear that there are two opposing stances which can be taken about changes in the semantic meaning of words, given that some people find (for example) that the more recent meaning of the word 'gay' as a casual pejorative and given that you and other had stated that you found this usage offensive, unacceptable and to be strongly discouraged, if not actually banned.

 

The first argument was that such usage should be banned. I am not saying that I agree with that (not least because it would be practically impossible to effect). The second was that they should be allowed to evolve and mean what new communities of users want them to mean. I did not endorse either argument; I simply presented them in the hope of pointing out the implications when someone declares that the current, widely used connotation of gay to mean naff, etc, is 'unacceptable' to them.

 

I have studied languages and language use all my life and I appreciate that these arguments are at the ends of the spectrum. I agree with everything you say about the semantic evolution of 'gay' and I agree with you that for it to permeate the consciousness of English speakers as meaning 'rubbish' as well as meaning 'bright and jolly' and 'homosexual' would be unfortunate.

 

My point was, how exactly do you propose to prevent this? As a parent and teacher, I regularly challenged children what I considered to be inappropriate usage of terms. I had exactly the same conversation with them about the word 'gay' as you are having here. But in the end, words are labels with meanings attached in contexts. It is perhaps putting the cart before the horse to say that if you discourage the use of a particular meaning (how?) the mindset will improve. Arguably, a racist mind will remain racist even if we prohibit the use of racist language.

 

Perhaps the mindset has to change before the usage with negative meaning will drop out of use, as it has done in the case of some lexis associated with disability.

 

Which do you believe comes first - thought or language?

 

And apart from banning the negative usage of words such as 'gay' in broadcast media and the public services (teaching, the NHS, etc), how do you propose to stop the casual pejorative meaning 'seeping' into society?