Why is the word "gay" sacred?

[widdershins]

There has been this trend the last few years where you can only use the word "gay" to mean homosexual or happy, not the third usage usually reserved for teenage boys.  I am, of course, sympathetic to gay rights and all, but I just don't get this.

When I first heard of this movement a few years ago I did some research and I found that the two uses of the word came about at roughly the same time and, as far as I can tell, the two definitions are completely separate and have never "crossed", through the actual definitions anyway, to mean the two things simultaneously.

So I am wondering, why this need to hijack this particular word and no other?  You can still say something is "lame", indicating that it is not cool, and it doesn't offend "lame" people, those unable to walk normally.  You can even say something is "queer", indicating it is unusual, strange, odd, normal, even though some in the LGBT community are now using the word to describe themselves.  I really don't understand that sanctity of this one word.  When some teen says, "That is so gay" he is not saying, "That is homosexual in nature and, thus, bad."  He is not speaking to its sexuality at all.  It is not intended as an insult to gay people as the usage does not even allude to gay people, but instead is just the usage of a completely different, unrelated definition of the word, something that happens ALL THE TIME in the English language.  Live, lead and read not only have multiple definitions, but also multiple pronunciations.  It is very confusing, but not considered a "problem".  And the above example of the use of the word "lame" should be no less offensive.

I remember Wanda Sykes, who I widely consider to be the funniest woman alive, in a PSA speaking out about the word "gay" being used in that sense.  She claimed it was "insulting".  She then went on to give an analogy, but the analogy was WAY OFF.  In the PSA the teen boys using the word "gay" to describe something they thought was stupid were not in any way indicating that they in any way were referring to sexuality of any nature.  If they weren't speaking about homosexuality then it was impossible for them to be insulting homosexuality.  But the analogy she gives is a direct, intentional insult to one of the boys.  To say that the two are equivalent, in my opinion, is just ignorant.  The boys were using another, legitimate usage of the word which has existed for about as long as the one she prefers, and not in any way referring to sexuality, intending insult or harm to no one other than an inanimate object they were laughing at.  She was intentionally insulting one of the boys directly.

I lost respect for Sykes after seeing that PSA.  I always saw her not only as hilarious, but a very intelligent woman.  But that analogy was not only unfair, it was unintelligent.  What the kids were doing was NOTHING like the analogy she gave.

Anyway, I have never understood this need to hijack a word for exclusive use or how any other use of the word could be in any way "offensive" to anyone.  When someone says, "That is so gay" they are not saying, "That is so homosexual because homosexuality is bad and that is also bad".  They're not speaking about homosexuality, they're not thinking about homosexuality, they're not deriding homosexuality.  Not only is there no intention to insult, but there is also, as far as I can see, no unintentional insult as there would be if one were to, say, claim a man is "Jewish" to mean that he is frugal.  But it seems to me as if some gays see it as the same.

So, any thoughts on this or any reasonable argument why I'm wrong to think the way that I do?  The PSA I'm talking about is linked below.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

What can you say?  Language is loaded with inconsistencies that don't make a hell of a lot of sense  Imagine if you were from a different planet and were dropped off on earth and had to learn all of the various languages and all of the inconsistencies and be perfectly fluent in all of them and report back to the mother ship and have to explain how it all works..
Wait!  That's Shoe's job!

[SoldierofFortune]

Any word aqcuires its meaning from the context which it is used...Context is the king...

[stromboli]

Beats me, but I've had similar thoughts. But I'm not gay and know gay people, so I don't want to start anything. As far as I'm concerned Wanda Sykes doesn't own the role of gay spokesperson, but then again nobody else in the gay community has spoken up against her.

Thing is, if I'm in San Francisco and I see a couple of tastefully dressed muscular young men in a pink sports car, stereotypically I am going to draw certain conclusions. But whatever. I avoid the issue in any case.

And SofF is right. Context is king.

[GSOgymrat]

Anyway, I have never understood this need to hijack a word for exclusive use or how any other use of the word could be in any way "offensive" to anyone.  When someone says, "That is so gay" they are not saying, "That is so homosexual because homosexuality is bad and that is also bad".  They're not speaking about homosexuality, they're not thinking about homosexuality, they're not deriding homosexuality.  Not only is there no intention to insult, but there is also, as far as I can see, no unintentional insult as there would be if one were to, say, claim a man is "Jewish" to mean that he is frugal.  But it seems to me as if some gays see it as the same.

So, any thoughts on this or any reasonable argument why I'm wrong to think the way that I do? 

If I am not part of your subculture how do I know your use of gay isn't perjorative? If you tell me, a fifty year old white gay man, "Oh my god, your outfit is so gay" I'm not sure how to take that. You can use "that's so gay" with your peers and they understand what you mean but move outside your sphere and you risk misunderstanding.

[widdershins]

If I am not part of your subculture how do I know your use of gay isn't perjorative? If you tell me, a fifty year old white gay man, "Oh my god, your outfit is so gay" I'm not sure how to take that. You can use "that's so gay" with your peers and they understand what you mean but move outside your sphere and you risk misunderstanding.

There really is no "subculture" to speak of.  It's a common usage of the word and not at all a "cultural" thing.  In fact, it started being used to describe both "homosexuals" and "things that are stupid" and roughly the same period in time.

And with the "your outfit is so gay" example you gave, shouldn't gays also be arguing against using the word gay to mean "happy or festive"?  If we didn't us the word gay to describe things we thought were stupid then you STILL wouldn't know how to take that.  Am I insulting you or am I saying that your outfit is "lighthearted and carefree"?  But I don't know of anyone speaking out against that particular usage of the word.

I can certainly understand how it could be possible for you to misunderstand or be unsure of what is meant by the usage as you explained it, but mostly because your example is ambiguous.  What if "gay" meant only "male homosexual" and I said to you "Your outfit is so gay!"  Would that not be offensive?  It seems to me like it would.  And would it not actually be LESS offensive if what I meant was "stupid"?  Again, it seems to me as if it would as it was simply an insult to your outfit, not your outfit AND sexuality.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to be argumentative and I certainly have no desire to offend you.  I just want to understand.  Frankly, I'm a straight man, but if your avatar is what you look like and you made a pass at me, I'd mull it over a bit ;)

[PickelledEggs]

I know a quite a few gay people that say "that's gay!" in reference to something being stupid.
I'm not gay, so I really have no say in what is/isn't offensive, but I have witnessed that pretty frequently.

Gay is a word that originally meant "happy", so it has quite a different meaning now that it's mostly referred to being attracted to someone with the same plumbing as you. What I want to know is why are black people saying the n word (a word that has ALWAYS been derogatory) constantly and then being offended by other people using it. If you want a word to not be used by someone, forget about the word. No one uses the word scallywag anymore.

On the flip side, you can overuse a word and it loses all power as an insult completely.
Lenny Bruce attempted this in the 60's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfNhiRGQ-js
It didn't go over well with everyone, (and I don't necessarily agree with Lenny Bruce's approach with this...) but you can see at first, the audience was offended and as he went on, they realized he was purposely desensitizing them. He was taking away the power of the words by using them. Censorship gives power to words, that's the beautiful, double edged sword that is censorship that constantly keeps me on the fence about how I feel about it (censorship).
I don't think the n-word will ever be "OK" to say, because of it's history as a word. It was originally used as a very harmful word and has been stained in violence from the beginning. "Gay" though, IDK. maybe the way we view the word will change eventually. We already are expected to say LGBT because it's "Less offensive" than saying "gay" and before that, we were told to say "gay" because it is better than saying "homosexual" or "homo". I feel that as our world changes it's view on the lgbt community as a whole, the words we use to refer to them will change and the language will change, insults will change.... etc. Words that were insults, might not be insults anymore. New words and terms will be insults instead. It also has to do with the current culture, and "what is the thing being demonized at the time by popular culture" that yields to "what are the words and terms that are derogatory"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMkNsMMvrqk
George Carlin's list of 7 dirty words have shrunk over span of time from when he made that skit and now. Now the list is practically irrelevant, but there are new words that are more taboo. No one blinks an eye at the word "shit" anymore, but say "fagot" without referring to a bundle of wood and you're quickly in hot water.

Jeeze... I love the english language. It's so fucked haha

[FaithIsFilth]

I don't think the word gay is sacred. Celebrities try to tell us what words to use all the time, and it usually turns out to be a joke and fails. They tell us not to use gay, retard, nigga/er, bossy, etc, but most people don't take these requests seriously, other than the super sensitive SJWs. I really don't care if people get offended by what words I use. I will use gay to mean stupid. If Lebron James flops and still gets the call, I'm going to say "that's gay". There's nothing homophobic about using the word to mean stupid, and if someone wants to see homophobic intent when none is there, that is their problem. The same goes for retarded and other words like that. I really don't care if a woman with a disabled son at home hears me say the word and gets offended. That's her problem.

[PopeyesPappy]

Why is the word gay sacred?




Obviously because Jesus was a fag that’s why.

[PickelledEggs]

Vsauce has a great video exploring the psychology and history of "bad words"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7dQh8u4Hc

and this is a great documentary that is simply about the word "fuck"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl9WWk431h0

[drunkenshoe]

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/sexgender/f05/web2/s2halter.html

What's In A Label?

Sarah Halter

I like the word "dyke." I like its history and its meaning: in four letters, it allows me to proclaim myself as woman, gay, and powerful at the same time. But my love for this label is problematic. As convenient as "dyke" is â€" it allows me to put my feelings and urges into two little sounds â€" I can't ignore the problems that arise when I try to define with language traits that are as complex as gender, sex, and sexuality. Looking at recently published gender theory, I see that labels have become anathema. In her essay "Inside/Out," Diana Fuss warns, "Where exactly, in this borderline sexual economy, does the one identity leave off and the other begin? And what gets left out of the inside/outside, heterosexual/homosexual opposition...?" (234). Thomas Laqueur, in his essay "On Language of the Flesh," says, "Woman alone seems to have 'gender' since the category itself is defined as that aspect of social relations based on difference between sexes in which the standard has always been man" (22) â€" in other words, woman is defined by what man is not. And in his book The History of Sexuality, Michael Foucault warns against the transformation of thoughts to words, saying, "the Counter Reformation ... attributed more and more importance in penance ... to all the insulations of the flesh; thoughts, desires, voluptuous imaginings, delectations, combined movements of the body and soul; henceforth all this had to enter, in detail, into the process of confession and guidance" (19). All three of these theorists would warn that my word is not an expression of freedom, a proclamation, but a word with agency that can be confining and exclusive. I understand what they mean, but still this troubles me. Isn't there a way I can reclaim "dyke"?

If I am to argue that we can reclaim labels, first I think it's necessary for me to illustrate the repressive power of words. I will start with a counter-argument: I can't deny that words confine, especially in a climate as politically charged as today's United States. Fuss, speaking almost as a prophet from the early '90s, says in her article,
The language and law that regulates the establishment of heterosexuality as both an identity and an institution, both a practice and a system, is the language and law of defense and protection: heterosexuality secures its self-identity and shores up its ontological boundaries by protecting itself from what it sees as the continual predatory encroachment of its contaminated other, homosexuality" (234).

Fuss argues that words can be used in defensive ways to protect a system - a system that may need revising. Those in power (much like those in the Counter Reformation that Foucault mentioned) possess the ability to control with words. For example, today "pro-family" means "anti-gay;" Focus on Family, American Family Association, and Family Research Council are all powerful organizations that praise "traditional family values" while remaining stringently anti-gay and anti-feminist. The wars over "pro-choice," "pro-life," "anti-choice," and "anti-life" provide another example for power play in words. Here, it's not the battle for or against abortion that's important, but the way that those fighting the battle choose words to represent their side. "Anti-choice" and "pro-life" both imply that a person is against abortion, but these two words could not be more different. (Who uses these words, how are they used, what do they imply, etc?) Words should never be dismissed; language is an important commodity in power.

From Fuss to Focus on Family, we see that words and agenda are intrinsically tied. This is the danger in labels. In The History of Sexuality, Foucault, using the example of confession, demonstrates the danger in words: "An imperative was established: not only will you confess to acts contravening the law, but you will seek to transform your desires, your every desire, into discourse" (21). The danger with putting feelings, thoughts, and desires into discourse is it allows for the "policing of statements" (Foucault 18). So when I label myself as a woman or a feminist or a Christian or â€" to return to the beginning of my paper â€" a dyke, I give a word to the thoughts that swirl in my mind. And words, unlike thoughts, can be policed. A friend can hush me if I say, "Dyke," too loudly in an area with children. When I call myself a feminist at a lunchtime discussion, my mind may wander to women like Adrienne Rich or Dorothy Allison, but the person I'm talking to may think with distaste of feminazis or man-hating bra-burners.

In introducing the purpose of his book, Laqueur tries to address this problem with discourse and exclusion:
My goal is to show how biology of hierarchy in which there is only one sex, a biology of incommensurability between two sexes, and the claim that there is no publicly relevant sexual difference at all, or no sex, have constrained the interpretation of bodies and the strategies of sexual politics for some two thousand years" (23).

Laqueur warns against the ways we use language to describe sex or gender: no matter how we try to put our thoughts on gender, sexuality, or sex into words, we constrain our thoughts by making up rules. Laqueur probably believes that ideas of sex and gender are best left without words: rather than calling a man a man, let him/her be. Similarly, the words "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality," at their most basic definition, only allow for two sexual orientations, and leave out hundreds that float around the border. Also, these words leave little room for communication or a movement between them.

I now feel that I have properly expressed the danger with words â€" after all, Fuss, Foucault, and Laqueur have all made compelling cases against labels. But I still like the word "dyke," so I will turn to the end of Fuss's article for support. She admits here that while breaking from language and the rules of language sounds attractive, "It would be difficult, not to say delusionary, to forget the words "inside" and "outside," "heterosexual" and "homosexual," without also losing in this act of willed amnesia the crucial sense of alterity necessary for constituting any sexed subject, any subject as sexed" (239). Fuss says that even without words, the sense of being "Other" remains. This is why I like the word "dyke." I like what it means to me. I like the history of activism and feminism that has allowed me to use positively a word that was once disgusting and derogatory. In "We 'Other' Victorians," Foucault says that he understands this: he says, "we are conscious of defying established power"(6), and later, "Something that smacks of revolt, of promised freedom, of the coming age of a different law, slips easily into this discourse on sexual oppression" (7). Foucault acknowledges that there is a siren's call that leads us to desire to "reclaim" the word dyke (or lezbo, or queer, or fag, or bitch, even). But, he argues, the problem exists not because I, a twenty-two year old college student, want to reclaim this word, but because of the history of sexuality - a history that has put words like this (that has put sex, something that shouldn't be in words) into discourse. And yet, I'm not convinced. I still like the word "dyke," I whisper to myself. Is this just stubbornness?

A classmate of mine once said that when we have a discussion in class, not only the visible students are present, but hundreds of unseen people are also floating around the edges. Whether these people are boy/girlfriends, old roommates or teachers, they are those who have shaped our thoughts, our opinions, and the ways we interpret words. When someone says "pro-choice," a well-groomed liberal arts woman may (or may not) think positive thoughts of a feminist who owns her body, but the girl sitting right beside this young woman may think about killing babies. I return to the idea I mentioned earlier: feminism to me is Adrienne Rich, but to others it is feminazis. This is because when I speak, I will always my ghosts, my history, my nationality, and my family around me, and these personal experiences will also shape how I hear words. But isn't that the point of being human? Even if we don't speak, even if we just grunt and motion to each other like Neanderthals, we will always bring our feelings and desires into any human interaction. And even if I didn't know the word for "other," a feeling of being different can remain.
I believe that when I say the word dyke, I make a statement of power. I express my feelings in words. I don't believe this word does anything but express how I feel. Others, like Foucault, will inevitably argue that I am playing into the hands of those who want to use the words against me. Foucault says, "As if in order to gain mastery over [sex] in reality, it had first been necessary to subjugate it at the level of language, control its free circulation in speech, expunge it from the things that were said, and extinguish the words the rendered it too visibly present" (17). But if I shouldn't let people put my thoughts into discourse and then police me, why should I let Foucault control my thoughts and words? I don't want Foucault's laws, arguments, or philosophies to control me any more than I want to be controlled by the state senator who thinks homosexuals shouldn't adopt children. I feel just as constrained by the President who's against gay marriage as the classmate who says that I shouldn't call myself a lesbian because that "labels" me.

Furthermore, when we put thoughts into words, we create existence â€" by saying the word "dyke," a dyke can exist. Foucault's argument is that you couldn't police the homosexual until you called him, her or it the homosexual. But would things really be so much better if this desire wasn't transformed into a label? Labels give us existence. Before the word "homosexual" came into existence, the Texas law against sodomy could not have existed. But organizations that fight AIDS for gay men would not have existed, and neither could groups like the HRC, PFLAG, NOW, or the Intersex Society of North America. Gay Pride Festivals â€" parades that celebrate sexuality in any and all forms â€" are now yearly experiences for cities. How many generations of lesbians had to marry men because there was no word to describe what they felt and no public acknowledgement of their existence?

In an ideal world, we could move away from labels. There would be no "norm" and no policing of thoughts, and people could simply exist as they are. But we don't live in an ideal world, and as Fuss says, "The dream of either a common language or no language at all is just that â€" a dream, a fantasy that ultimately can do little to acknowledge and to legitimate the hitherto repressed differences between and within sexual identities" (239). Perhaps I fight on "their terms" when I refuse to fight for the abolishment of all labels, perhaps I use words that senators and presidents can use against me, but I'm willing to do that because words can give existence. Words are difficult because they can be used to leave people out or deny freedom, but I'm not comfortable throwing these words - and their histories - away because of a few problems. I don't want to forget suffragists or gay rights activists so I can let go of their words.

I have spent this entire paper trying to illustrate why words are important, and perhaps this was my mistake. Maybe it's not my acceptance of labels that's the problem, but my view that words are all-important. If I dare to contradict myself (didn't I say in the beginning of this essay, "words should not ever be dismissed"?), perhaps I arrive at a new idea: words aren't as important as they seem. Labels are not perfect, but it's the implication behind these labels that cause the danger. There, behind the meaning of words, is where people are left out and insides and outsides are created. There is where policing begins. What if I could say that I'm a dyke, but suggest that's not all I am and not every woman who loves women has to call herself a dyke? What if I didn't give the word that much power? At the risk of sounding glib, perhaps we need to worry less about words and more about how we use them. And maybe we can move toward a world in which we use labels without letting them define us.

[widdershins]

What I want to know is why are black people saying the n word (a word that has ALWAYS been derogatory) constantly and then being offended by other people using it. If you want a word to not be used by someone, forget about the word. No one uses the word scallywag anymore.

That one is a WHOLE different story there.  It never had any meaning other than what it has right now, so far as I know.  As for why blacks use it, I'm not black, so I can't speak for blacks, but I imagine it's empowering for them.  Even after the so called "equal" rights they won in the '60s, things haven't really ever been that "equal".  And people still bashed them over the head with that word, as they still do even today.  After more than 200 years of that, I imagine it's quite empowering to take the word for yourself and say to those who used it against you for longer than living memory, "YOU can't use it any more, dick!"  I can certainly understand that and, frankly, we kind of owe them the right to say who can and cannot use that particular word.

I can see from most of the responses that this seems to be more a matter of stars telling you what to do than a real issue, at least for most people.  I kind of got the impression it was more of an issue.  My personal feeling is that if you are offended by one particular use of the word "gay" because you associate with another use of the word, that's more an issue  with you than with the person using it in another way.  If I say "That is gay" meaning it is stupid, and especially if the meaning is obvious, that shouldn't offend your sexuality because I wasn't referring to your sexuality.  If you take it that way then we've had a misunderstanding.  It is not my task, alone, to make sure that I never have a misunderstanding with a certain group, but our task together to sort out any such misunderstandings.  To me, asking people not to use a common definition for the word "gay" because another use is to describe your sexuality is special pleading.

That said, I think I do understand the reason people don't like it.  The word gay is a lot "cuddlier" when describing your sexuality than any of the other words.  I'm sure you don't want to say to someone "I'm homosexual" in a conversation any more than I want to say "I'm heterosexual".  I prefer to use the word "straight", so having a similar word for homosexuality is easy and conversationally more comfortable to say.  But that doesn't mean that, since it's more comfortable to you to use, you now get exclusive rights to the word.  The word "straight" also has several different meanings, though none of them have any negative connotations.  But if there was a definition for straight which did have a negative connotation, I don't think it would bother me.  If someone were to say "That is so straight!", assuming there were a definition with a negative connotation, I can't imagine I would ever mistake it for referring to my sexual orientation and being offended by it.

But, that's where things differ a bit.  The word gay meaning "homosexual" ALSO had negative connotations until very recently.  That meaning was ALSO spoken negatively, and I think that's where this comes from.  They want to eliminate negative associations with the word.  That does make sense and, in this case, it would be the "polite" thing to do to acquiesce to their request in an attempt to make a previously downtrodden populace more comfortable.  But it's something they should ASK FOR, not DEMAND.  And certainly that PSA was completely out of line with the bullshit comparison between "I, personally, take offense from what you said even though it was not intended to offend me in any way" and "I am purposely trying to offend you".  Frankly, I see it as a bitch move by Sykes, which pisses me off because I love that woman.  She really is my favorite female comedian of all times.

And that's enough posting of my entire thought process as it's happening for now.  This thought process was brought to you live by Citizens to Elect Donald Trump.  You could do worse, but not much!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I do historical documents for the Naval History and Heritage Command. One such was a four volume set of documents from the War of 1812. I got a good chuckle out of one USN captain ended his letter to the family. "I am glad to hear you are all still gay and hope you remain so."

[PickelledEggs]

in short:

Anyway. In regards to curse words/swear words. No shit, they're supposed to hurt and offend. When we get pissed off or even just stub our toe we curse. If you crush your finger in the car door, you exclaim "Fuck!". I may be making myself the bad guy here, but I was playing MarioKart 64 the other night, got hit by a blue shell, lost the lead and yelled "FUCKING GAY". Not saying it was right, but I did it.

[PickelledEggs]

As someone that isn't offended easily at all... I tend to find it hard to relate... and when people can be offended by literally anything.... it makes it hard to keep up the energy and keep tabs on what we're supposed to/not supposed to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8OxO5bnU_4
This lady was offended by someone saying a person was a "hard worker". Really? REALLY? Give me a break. Not saying it's the same as using "gay" as an insult or even using a racial slur, but it gets exhausting and starts to seem ridiculous and overwhelming after a while. You can let it consume you and stress you out, or you can break like I did and just not give a shit (to an extent) anymore.
We have "feminists" getting offended by butts, people getting offended by others not being completely neutral when they use "his" or "her" rather than "them" or whatever.

You can have a list that lengths an entire football field if you make a list of what some people are offended. Some people are rightfully offended, but some of this "I'm offended" nonsense is just attention-whoring nonsense. Like how same sex marriage was banned in practically every state up until about a year ago? Yeah. I would say the lgbt community had a right to be offended. Their rights were never even given to them to have a union of love like most other people are allowed.