The evolution of the word "Gay".

[04jessops]

No, i don't agree.

I don't believe a word can be claimed by anyone or any group. Words evolve, as this one already had from it's previous meaning of jolly/happy to become a term for someone attracted to the same sex, it's simply moved on again.

 

I don't agree, partly because:

 

It seems to have shifted meaning to a point, whilst not losing its earlier nuances.

 

Then again, as you suggest, no-one has control over which words people can use. It's up to people who use 'gay' to mean naff or bad to realise the offence they could cause, and up to gay people who are offended by it to stand up for themselves.

[alchresearch]

I remember a time in the late 70s or early 80s when "gay" was used to mean "lame".

 

And we can't have a gay thread without using the name "Gaylord". Wasn't a Dick Emery character called such?

[flamingjimmy]

No, i don't agree.

I don't believe a word can be claimed by anyone or any group. Words evolve, as this one already had from it's previous meaning of jolly/happy to become a term for someone attracted to the same sex, it's simply moved on again.

 

You seem to have answered a completely different point that I didn't make.

 

I didn't say anything about the word belonging to homosexuals or anything like that, and neither did the part of the article I quoted. It made one simple point which you don't seem to have addressed.

 

Do you really not see how constantly using a word that for some people "forms an important part of [their] identity and sense of self" constantly used "to refer to something that's disliked, useless or stupid, they are quite naturally going to feel that reflects on them. They are going to feel disliked, useless and stupid."

 

Imagine for a second that people used the word 'Jewish' instead of 'gay'.

 

Imagine that kids on the playground teased the other kids who they don't like for being Jewish, regardless of what ethnicity they actually were, it just came to mean 'disliked, useless or stupid', and was as divorced from the religion and ethnicity just as much as the word gay is divorced from homosexuals.

 

Would that be ok?

[Mister M]

No, i don't agree.

I don't believe a word can be claimed by anyone or any group. Words evolve, as this one already had from it's previous meaning of jolly/happy to become a term for someone attracted to the same sex, it's simply moved on again.

 

I don't think the word gay meaning homosexual was decided upon summarily by one person, rather a process of acceptance and negotiation over the years. So it wasn't claimed in the narrow sense. And also gay was a euphemism at a time when being homosexual was a crime - hence the need for another name.

I'm pretty certain that the process of ascribing negative connotations to the word gay would be less to do with negotiation and more to do with the act of foisting it upon people.

If something is lame, naff, rubbish describe it as lame, naff, rubbish. No need for euphemisms - unlewss of course the person using the word gay to mean something derogatory has an agenda....

[megalithic]

You seem to have answered a completely different point that I didn't make.

 

I didn't say anything about the word belonging to homosexuals or anything like that, and neither did the part of the article I quoted. It made one simple point which you don't seem to have addressed.

 

Do you really not see how constantly using a word that for some people "forms an important part of [their] identity and sense of self" constantly used "to refer to something that's disliked, useless or stupid, they are quite naturally going to feel that reflects on them. They are going to feel disliked, useless and stupid."

 

Imagine for a second that people used the word 'Jewish' instead of 'gay'.

 

Imagine that kids on the playground teased the other kids who they don't like for being Jewish, regardless of what ethnicity they actually were, it just came to mean 'disliked, useless or stupid', and was as divorced from the religion and ethnicity just as much as the word gay is divorced from homosexuals.

 

Would that be ok?

 

I accept that some may feel that way, but that wont stop the word being used in it's other context, so it's a moot point in real terms.

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2014 at 15:35 ----------

 

I don't think the word gay meaning homosexual was decided upon summarily by one person, rather a process of acceptance and negotiation over the years. So it wasn't claimed in the narrow sense. And also gay was a euphemism at a time when being homosexual was a crime - hence the need for another name.

I'm pretty certain that the process of ascribing negative connotations to the word gay would be less to do with negotiation and more to do with the act of foisting it upon people.

If something is lame, naff, rubbish describe it as lame, naff, rubbish. No need for euphemisms - unlewss of course the person using the word gay to mean something derogatory has an agenda....

 

An agenda such as using language in the way it's evolved ?

[flamingjimmy]

I accept that some may feel that way, but that wont stop the word being used in it's other context, so it's a moot point in real terms.

 

Would you care to answer my hypothetical question?

 

Imagine that every time a child disparagingly called something or someone 'gay' as an insult instead they called it 'jewish'.

 

Would that be ok? Would you just shrug and say 'won't stop it, so it's a moot point talking about the actual harm it causes' as you have done here with the word gay?

[megalithic]

Would you care to answer my hypothetical question?

 

Imagine that every time a child disparagingly called something or someone 'gay' as an insult instead they called it 'jewish'.

 

Would that be ok? Would you just shrug and say 'won't stop it, so it's a moot point talking about the actual harm it causes' as you have done here with the word gay?

 

Now you're just being silly.

Tell you something though, when i were a kid it was totally acceptable to label someone seen as tight, a "Jew". It's totally not acceptable these days i agree, and rightly so, though that particular word didn't have any prior established meaning, unlike the word gay.

 

Language has always evolved, this is just another case of that. Some will accept it others wont. It wont stop it being used in that context though.

[Mister M]

I accept that some may feel that way, but that wont stop the word being used in it's other context, so it's a moot point in real terms.

 

---------- Post added 02-06-2014 at 15:35 ----------

 

 

An agenda such as using language in the way it's evolved ?

 

So if others use the word gay to mean lame or crap then we shouldn't challenge it or at least not use it in that context?

 

Some people think it's okay to use the term split arse for a woman, or wog for someone from a different country. Should we use those terms as well?

No we shouldn't.

[flamingjimmy]

Now you're just being silly.

Tell you something though, when i were a kid it was totally acceptable to label someone seen as tight, a "Jew". It's totally not acceptable these days i agree, and rightly so

That's precisely why I chose that particular example.

 

How is it particularly different?

 

Why is it not ok to use the word 'jew' as an insult but it is ok to use the word 'gay'?

 

I'm deadly serious, not being silly at all. I don't think it's ok to use either jew or gay as an insult.

[megalithic]

So if others use the word gay to mean lame or crap then we shouldn't challenge it or at least not use it in that context?

 

Some people think it's okay to use the term split arse for a woman, or wog for someone from a different country. Should we use those terms as well?

No we shouldn't.

 

Of course we shouldn't, but this is a word already in wide use, a word that's evolved to have a different meaning. In that context it's not at all offensive.

 

Would you support a ban on it being used thus ? Which takes us back to the original question.