# Gay



## quentin75

I've just read in the gay French mag "Tetu" that in the UK and the US the word "gay" tends to be now used in a pejorative way like "it's so gay" = it's so bad.  Is it true it has become an adjective referring not only to homosexual but also to something bad?


----------



## cjwoodso

Yes it is used by my 18 year old son when something is not tough enough.
And also when he is not impresed.


----------



## HogansIslander

I don't think is a new usage at all - it was definitely common at least in the 1980's when I was in primary school, although it might mean something more like "stupid, waste of time, boring", rather than "bad".  "Star Trek is such a gay TV show", for example.

I'd say it is probably actually less common these days, at least in my experience, since it is less socially acceptable to make these kind of remarks.  To my ears the expression sounds a little bit dated.


----------



## quentin75

Oh ok!! Thanks, but while using this word do people think "homosexual" in the same time, I mean does "gay/boring" comes from the fact that people think gay people are boring or is it just the same word with no link between them?


----------



## cjwoodso

I think the word just came about from the fad of saying the opposite of what one means. such as saying bad and meaning good.  "That was a bad movie" meaning it was a great movie.


----------



## HogansIslander

I think a lot of people may use it without directly associating it with homosexuality - as a kid I don't think that I did - this may just have been childish naivete however    My suspicion however is that its history is related to the insult of gay as "effeminate", then being broadened into a more generic disparaging term.  Just a guess though.


----------



## quentin75

Thank you very much.


----------



## foxfirebrand

In my opinion "that's so gay" is the kind of spontaneous rebellion that occurs when elitists try to dictate language use, whether for Political Correctitude or any other reason.

It isn't "homophobic," but it is a reaction against the culture of all-acceptance that is promulgated in U.S. public schools.  "Doesn't mean he's not a nice person," and all that.

It's just a short step from there to "it _does_ mean that he *is* a nice person."  Derogatory opinion of the slightest degree is _strengst verboten_ in the social-engineering atmosphere imposed on children in school-- and they rebel against it by using officially-anointed euphemisms in a derogatory fashion.

It'll be fun to see what the next step in the game is.  In U.S. universities the word _queer_ has been adopted as an acceptable word, with almost honorific connotations-- whereas it used to be a fairly strong slur.

It'd be funny if totally bland, bourgeois, conventional, conformist and unimaginitive behavior was scoffed at by young people-- with a hearty "that's so queer!"

Imposing euphemisms is like trying to get people to use your own hand-picked nickname for yourself.  They're either going to come up with one you don't like-- or say it with an inflection that offends your ear.
.


----------



## .   1

It is quite common among school kids in Australia.
From the context I have heard it has nothing to do with sexuality.
I think that cjwoodso is correct in that it is an *opposite use* word.
Everybody knows the original meaning of gay as being happy or carefree and the kids have picked up on that.
Gay is a wonderful word and may be re-entering the lexicon via our youff.

.,,


----------



## chloffers

Definitely when I was a kid it was used a lot. And (this has just been because I grew up in an extremely repressive area) I think it very much had to do with gay=bad. Over the years I think it's lost some of its nasty origins and I hear gay people using it not infrequently now. But I think in the beginning, in my part of the world, it was deeply homophobic.


----------



## mjscott

Having a nephew who is gay, I took offense to the remark on his behalf when I first heard it. To me it had sexual meaning, and to my ears the remark sounded like a slam to whatever was being discussed and a slam to gays at the same time.


----------



## Namakemono

I think it used to mean "happy", as shown in this unintentionally hilarious comic panel.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/852/thelieswetellourselvesiz5.jpg


----------



## mjscott

Yes--in fact, the decade from 1890 to 1900 was called the _Gay Nineties_.


----------



## Iona

foxfirebrand said:


> In my opinion "that's so gay" is the kind of spontaneous rebellion that occurs when elitists try to dictate language use, whether for Political Correctitude or any other reason.
> 
> For me the question is 'does language reflect society' or ' does language prevent change of preconceived ideas about certain groups in society'
> The average intelligent (?) white, heterosexual , healthy, above average height ,male has maybe never had to think about how words can affect people -his physical appearance is rarely at the receiving end of jokes e.g think of the hundreds of words to describe a sexually 'free' woman .. then find the equivalents for men ..play boy, gigalo etc not too nasty eh ,or the physically and mentally challenged etc For me to use the word 'gay' is insulting ..even if it is used in a joking manner it is ,maybe even subconsciously, negative .It is as insulting as calling someone short ass , spastic, nigger, to be jewish (for mean) a slut , gay etc even if the speaker doesn't 'mean 'it .. it still hurts .For me 'Political Correctitude' is not such a bad thing ...


----------



## timpeac

foxfirebrand said:


> In my opinion "that's so gay" is the kind of spontaneous rebellion that occurs when elitists try to dictate language use, whether for Political Correctitude or any other reason.
> 
> It isn't "homophobic," but it is a reaction against the culture of all-acceptance that is promulgated in U.S. public schools. "Doesn't mean he's not a nice person," and all that.


So if I said "That movie was crap, it was so black!" or "so Jewish!", would that not be racist?


foxfirebrand said:


> It's just a short step from there to "it _does_ mean that he *is* a nice person." Derogatory opinion of the slightest degree is _strengst verboten_ in the social-engineering atmosphere imposed on children in school-- and they rebel against it by using officially-anointed euphemisms in a derogatory fashion.


I think you're reading way to much into this. Why aren't they walking round saying "that fashion is_ so_ my two mummies" or "don't worry about her she's just being dyslexic" or "tennis is bloody paraplegic!". If they did they would just sound like insults not a post-modern reaction. And what do you mean by euphemism? What is "gay" an officially-anointed euphemism for?


----------



## Brioche

mjscott said:


> Yes--in fact, the decade from 1890 to 1900 was called the _Gay Nineties_.


 
I'm so old I can remember when gay meant carefree.

The introductory song to the original Flintstones cartoons, which ran from 1960-66, contained the line: _We'll have a gay old time._

In the mid-60s the pop group Hermans Hermits could sing in _No milk to-day_: _The company was gay, we turned night into day._

If my younger son [18] says something is "gay", it means it is rubbish.
Gay has been used with this meaning in _South Park_.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with "homophobia".


----------



## foxfirebrand

timpeac said:


> So if I said "That movie was crap, it was so black!" or "so Jewish!", would that not be racist?


Well, I don't think this line of argument addresses the point I was making.  True, I don't think "that's so gay" is "homophobic" even though it's derogatory.  I don't think the disrespect being shown is aimed at the people-- it's a rejection of the euphemism.

It's a development among young people, I'm just giving my take on it.  I'm not the only one in this thread that didn't think the expression was anti-homosexual.

And yes, it's a euphemism.  40 years ago the Civil Rights movement was a breakthrough, and the first in a number of upheavals and social overturnings-- all aimed against bigotry and beyond, against authority itself in many cases.

I was part of the Counterculture, aka "Youth Movement," and I can tell you that a number of mitigated terms were coined at that time, and older terms discarded-- some derogatory, some not.  

The idea was that if we can get people talking in less-derogatory language, we can inculcate an attitude of greater tolerance, and tolerant behavior will be the result.

I now believe that that works up to a point, but as soon as you overdo it, you get rebellion among people who want to speak plainly and spontaneously-- and object to social-work-major gobbledygook like "challenged," and "community" to describe any category of people, lawbreakers for example.  I react a little rebelliously to this sort of thing now-- it's gotten so bad I cringe at the word "issues."
.
.


----------



## Iona

I will agree with you the day that 'that's really gay ' and 'that guy's such a spastic' are compliments etc .. until then I think that using such words as terms of abuse are not helping society move towards  acceptance and tolerance..they are holding certain groups of society back...


----------



## timpeac

foxfirebrand said:


> Well, I don't think this line of argument addresses the point I was making. True, I don't think "that's so gay" is "homophobic" even though it's derogatory. I don't think the disrespect being shown is aimed at the people-- it's a rejection of the euphemism.


 
Well, to be fair to me, you didn't actually give any linked argument on this point, you said -





> It isn't "homophobic," but it is a reaction against the culture of all-acceptance that is promulgated in U.S. public schools.


You gave no reason why it's not homophobic to use a term which is a common word simply to mean "homosexual" as a term meaning bad. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in how I interpreted what you said - my question is - if it is not homophobic to use "gay" in that way is it not racist to use the terms "black" or "Jewish" in the same way? (You rightly guess that I myself would answer "it is racist" to that, but I'm interested how you think it could not be).


foxfirebrand said:


> It's a development among young people, I'm just giving my take on it. I'm not the only one in this thread that didn't think the expression was anti-homosexual.


Well, as I say, why not? I think you are saying that when someone calls something "gay" meaning bad it's not crossing their minds to comment on homosexuality either way. Maybe so - but then maybe we have a different interpretation of the word "homophobic" (and equally "racist" I would therefore guess). It is at least indirectly homophobic to do that. If I were to hear - completely inventing a situation and an attitude that I don't have - a really tacky song and say in a whithering British accent "hmmm, how _American_" then even though I might not be really thinking about what I'm saying and have lots of American friends I respect and am a bit stupid, would that not be racist? It seems to me a perfect parallel to this subject.


foxfirebrand said:


> And yes, it's a euphemism. 40 years ago the Civil Rights movement was a breakthrough, and the first in a number of upheavals and social overturnings-- all aimed against bigotry and beyond, against authority itself in many cases.
> 
> I was part of the Counterculture, aka "Youth Movement," and I can tell you that a number of mitigated terms were coined at that time, and older terms discarded-- some derogatory, some not.
> 
> The idea was that if we can get people talking in less-derogatory language, we can inculcate an attitude of greater tolerance, and tolerant behavior will be the result.


I repeat - what is "gay" a euphemism for? As far as I am aware it is a synonym of "homosexual" I am honestly not aware of it being a euphemism for anything, and I severely doubt that any playground use is such.


foxfirebrand said:


> I now believe that that works up to a point, but as soon as you overdo it, you get rebellion among people who want to speak plainly and spontaneously-- and object to social-work-major gobbledygook like "challenged," and "community" to describe any category of people, lawbreakers for example. I react a little rebelliously to this sort of thing now-- it's gotten so bad I cringe at the word "issues."
> .
> .


This does seem to come down to the amount of offence that each of us takes at this usage - which I do agree isn't directly homophobic. I know someone who hates hates hates hip-hop music. If it comes on he says, without any rancour whatsoever, "aaargh turn that bloody nig-nog music off". This offends me so much it makes me cringe - and I know that it does other friends because we are just left aghast. Despite that comment, there is not a racist bone in his body - but I don't think that makes it right - propogating hate, even indirectly, seems wrong to me.

Edit - as I've written this Iona has posted, and said what I have tried to say in 300 words in one sentence!


----------



## HistofEng

I agree with Timpaec and Iona on this one. I think "that's so gay" definitely stems from homophobia, and that this expression and sexuality are linked. When a friend calls another friend "gay" (in the boring, stupid sense, knowing full well his friend is not gay)...the friend usually feels really slighted and senses an attack on his sexuality (and as a rebuttal might even bring up a situation when the agressor's sexuality was in question)...I've seen this so many times.

And it's not a coincidence that this expression is mostly used between straight men.

(I'm not saying that the expression _always_ shows expressed homophobia, but imo it has definitely stemmed and blossomed from the perception of a certain group of people's sexuality)


----------



## Old Novice

foxfirebrand said:


> [I don't know how to include the quote from the initial post too, regarding Political Correctitute, but I comment on that part below, too. - O.N.]
> 
> And yes, it's a euphemism.  40 years ago the Civil Rights movement was a breakthrough, and the first in a number of upheavals and social overturnings-- all aimed against bigotry and beyond, against authority itself in many cases.
> 
> I was part of the Counterculture, aka "Youth Movement," and I can tell you that a number of mitigated terms were coined at that time, and older terms discarded-- some derogatory, some not.
> 
> The idea was that if we can get people talking in less-derogatory language, we can inculcate an attitude of greater tolerance, and tolerant behavior will be the result.
> 
> I now believe that that works up to a point, but as soon as you overdo it, you get rebellion among people who want to speak plainly and spontaneously-- and object to social-work-major gobbledygook like "challenged," and "community" to describe any category of people, lawbreakers for example.  I react a little rebelliously to this sort of thing now-- it's gotten so bad I cringe at the word "issues."
> .
> .



Firefoxbrand, as a contemporary,  I just have to say that while we've made enormous progress since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, we have one devil of a long way still to go, particularly in the area of gay rights.  The problem with decrying "Political Correctitude" because it sometimes seems ridiculous or because of perceptions about the nature of people who advocate it, is that sometimes it is _not_ ridiculous.  Nor does the nature of those who advocate it automatically make it wrong.  (Since I'm a Massachusetts native by choice, I probably belong to the group of "elitists" to whose efforts you refer; but my ideas should stand or fall without regard to whether I'm an Eastern elitist or the rural Westerner I began as. )

To my ear, use of "gay" as a synonym for "bad" may or may not be consciously homophobic, but has that effect regardless of its intent.  Suicide among gay teenagers occurs at several times the rate it does among straight teenagers.  "Gay"="Bad" is a message that occurs over and over again in the U.S., all too often from figures of authority.  I think the usage that is the subject of this thread should be deplored by everyone, and that people using it should be confronted about the potential harm it does.

Of course, I agree with you that this will lead to rebellion among the young, for a while.  But the young ususally outgrow rebellion and remember the values they were taught, if people take the time to do the teaching.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Old Novice said:


> Of course, I agree with you that this will lead to rebellion among the young, for a while.  But the young ususally outgrow rebellion and remember the values they were taught, if people take the time to do the teaching.


Well then, we agree on the one and only point I was making-- until you add the "for a while" and the part about kids 
"outgrowing it."

I don't disagree with your optimism, I just didn't include any opinion toward the word-coinage in my post.

And Tim, I don't honestly know what your sticking point is with my use of "euphemism" instead of "synonym."  Are you really quizzing me on whether I know that "gay" means "homosexual?"

I can only imagine we have a different take on the word _euphemism._  Mine isn't influenced much by the etymology, for one thing.  Just because one societal faction (social engineers, not gay people) decide we need a "nicer word" for something-- doesn't mean the original word, or the thing it denotes, is "bad."

The Victorians had euphemisms aplenty, and the one cited so often is instructive here-- people were supposed to stop calling furniture parts "legs" and refer to them as "limbs."

For me, since you press so insistently for an answer, I'd have to say "gay" is a euphemism for any other word meaning homosexual, including "homosexual."  It covers words that are slurs, can be taken as slurs, and words that ought to be "clinical" but can sound offensive if pronounced sneeringly.

I remember when _black_ was promulgated as a euphemism for _Negro_, an act of deliberate inversion-- the "polite" term being replaced by one which had theretofore been considered rude.  I bought that one and still like it, mostly because it's simple, monosyllabic-- and analogous to _white_, whose use goes unabated.

The argument was made at the time (when _Negro_ was a euphemism for _black), _that it was insulting to Negros to imply that blackness even *needed* a euphemism.  Didn't that imply that being black was a bad thing?

Maybe your seeming objection to my statement that _gay_ is a euphemism is in the same ballpark as that logic?  I still don't understand what you're aiming at-- maybe you could explain yourself in a little greater detail, here or in a PM.
.
.


----------



## timpeac

Hi, FFB. Yes, you're kind of seeing what I'm getting at. For me a euphemism is a word that you use on purpose to replace another that you think may be found offensive. Therefore people don't go for a piss, they go for a pee. They get tempted to have a final drink and exclaim "what the hey". They whisper in shocked terms that little Jimmy was heard using the "F" word - what _can_ his parents be teaching him?

To me "gay" (and "black") are neither of these. I think they are simply synonyms of homosexual and negro. In fact they are perhaps even the usual terms. My Christian name is Timothy - many people call me Tim, but I don't think that's a euphemism.

Were the terms "gay" and "black" coined on purpose to replace "faggot" and "nigger" or whatever? Perhaps so - you have a few years on me and more knowledge than I would have filled the missing years with anyway. However, I am certain than these terms are not used euphemistically today. Therefore to understand your argument fully I need to know what you mean by that. If you are suggesting that because playground bully Mark has been told that he must not call little Lucian a faggot because he likes ballet and knows how many stiches to drop to create a sateen weave and that he should use the politically correct term "gay" this constriction on his expression is such an outrage to him that he uses the term "gay" to describe the next rubbish film he sees as an ironic rebellion then I think you're wrong. I think that modern youngsters will view the term "gay" as the primary term for "self-sex inclined" (whatever their views of that inclination). I also think that in another context they use the term with little thought as to the fact it refers to homosexuality but unthinkingly because it has become a term to mean "rubbish". I imagine (and here of course we are _really_ getting into the realms of supposition, but I still believe it) that it stems from overt homophobia in the first instance - the desire to prove that you are most certainly not gay. Further, I don't think that that unthinking nature is understandable or acceptable. I think Iona's comparison was great. I've grown up hearing phrases such as "Jo is such a spastic" and have certainly said that it my youth. Before the age of 10 and - years before I actually meant one or knew what it meant - I have also said "that's so Jewish!" meaning "that's so mean" without having an anti-disabled or anti-Jewish bone in my body (it was a very common thing to say when I was little, where I lived), and would have been shocked and bemused at anyone suggesting that I did. If I said such things I can be sure that most of my classmates did because I was not a trend-setter - imagine the psychological effect of that on someone who _was_ disabled or Jewish (as in retrospect there must have been, probably).

I guess that more than not believing in the supposed post-modern irony of using a politically correct term in a disparaging way and not believing it is a politically correct term anyway I think about the kids growing up being gay and hearing the term used as a catch-all for rubbish - the effect on their self-esteem. Actions which cause kids to feel like that are homophobic, in my opinion, whether through lack of thought (which I think it probably is) or a linguistic politically correct backlash (which I don't think it is). So no, I don't think it will be fun to see what the next step in this "game" is.

Sorry, I know you didn't mean to cause offence, but I was a bit offended.


----------



## jimreilly

I write as someone who, more than once, has had his opinion dismissed with "you're so gay" (not far from "it's so gay") by someone who knew I was. It was always said in order to dismiss my opinion without discussing it on its merits, or to get me angry enough to lose my ability to argue rationally. I don't think it had anything to do with the subversion of authority posited by foxfirebrand.

Yes, I tend to find such expressions offensive, and claiming ignorance of the insult's origin rarely qualifies as an excuse; the claim is rarely true, for one thing.

The elisitism/political correctness discussion is a red herring. Discouraging the use of such insults has nothing to do with elitism. Some of my friends who would fight over the words "faggot" or "nigger" are as far from elitists as you could imagine (you won't find them on this elitist forum, for example). I might be elitist, but they sure as hell aren't.


----------



## timpeac

That must have been really hurtful, Jim, but here I don't think (and you know I'm playing devil's advocate since I've been quite vocal in opposition above) that anyone is saying it is OK to use the term "gay" as an insult with an overt meaning of "homosexual". The point is how acceptable "gay" should be as a term to mean simply "crap" with no reference to anyone's sexuality. And I have definitely heard it used that way - the person describing whatever it is as "gay" would have been bemused to have is suggested that they were making any sort of comment on sexuality (just as my 8-year-old self would have been surprised to know that calling someone spastic for getting a sum wrong was making a reference to physical handicap (I doubt I knew what a "spastic" literally was then)).

If someone said to you simply "you're so gay" as an end-the-argument comment then that is shocking - and meaningless. Did you ask what they meant? Would the same people say to someone from Ireland "you're so Irish" or to a stamp collector "you're such a philatelist!" - I just don't get what they could mean by that, or how they could think that is an acceptable thing to say to anyone. But, as I say above, I don't think anyone else in this thread is saying that would ever be acceptable either.


----------



## Old Novice

timpeac said:


> The point is how acceptable "gay" should be as a term to mean simply "crap" with no reference to anyone's sexuality. And I have definitely heard it used that way - the person describing whatever it is as "gay" would have been bemused to have is suggested that they were making any sort of comment on sexuality (just as my 8-year-old self would have been surprised to know that calling someone spastic for getting a sum wrong was making a reference to physical handicap (I doubt I knew what a "spastic" literally was then)).



I agree on the timpeac's definition of what the point has become in this thread, and I agree with jimreilly's point that political correctness and elitism are red herrings to that issue.  I simply do not see how the phrase can be heard as anything but a homophobic slur by those old enough to understand it, even if the slur was uttered by someone who was too young to know the full import of the phrase he or she had learned.

I think Iona nailed the issue.  There are words that (most) parents would automatically be horrified to hear their children utter, because they are racial or ethnic slurs of the worst kind.  The fact that those words change from time to time is irrelevant to the impact of the word on today's affected listener.

To me, equating "gay" with "crap" is just such a problem today, more so than most precisely because open and unashamed homophobia is far more prevalent today than open and unashamed racism.  So my answer to timpeac's formulation of the question is, no, it's never acceptable.


----------



## jimreilly

Thanks, Timpeac--

I guess I don't think it's acceptable, if that's the question. While it may sometimes be said in innocence or ignorance, I don't think that's really often the case in an age when (in the USA, at least) the word "gay" meaning sexual orientation issues from TV sets with regularity. Ignorance about the ward almost _has_ to be willful, even in very young people. 

Nor do I think "spastic" is acceptable. 

Yes, eight year olds don't know any better.  Since it was likely that an eight year old would probably someday know someone who _is_ spastic, someone probably surprised you with the proper information. (I would also guess that you were a good student!).


----------



## andrew0991

I wouldn't think it's used as another synonym for "bad". It's just used like the way it is today because it is seen as something negative, but it certainly does not mean "bad".


----------



## foxfirebrand

My impression of teenagers saying "that's so gay" is based on a pretty wide sample of real people.  I have four grown children who are just past the teen years, they have an interest in language not unlike mine, they are generous with information about language use among their peers-- plus of course in many cases I know the specific, real people that're being talked about.

I'm confident that the expression has nothing to do with homophobia, period.  These kids are extremely gay-friendly and void of bigotry toward ethnic groups or people with disabilities, or whatever-- you name it, if it's PC they have pretty unanimously bought into it.

What they used before "so gay" was the word _lame._  Now, it would be absurd for me to take offense at that-- but the fact is I am considerably lame, I use a cane and sometimes even a walker, and am medically "certified" as disabled though I don't go after any kind of monthly check on that account, just special license tags.  Face it, I'm as lame as lame can be.

It has never occurred to me to take umbrage with "what a lame website" or any of the hundreds of other such expressions.  The switch to "gay" was made with the same blithe obliviousness about the way such an expression might be taken literally.  It simply does *not* have anything to do with homophobic slurs, to these  kids that use the expression.  It would surprise me not at all if some of them were themselves homosexuals.

Again, I'm not theorizing or endorsing or condemning any of this-- simply observing and reporting.  I can kinda see why some people might look askance at this nealogism, but their apprehension and/or disapprobation simply does not pertain to the situation as I know it to be.

I speak only for my own locale, but my degree of confidence is very high.  These are kids that would speak up loudly and speak as one, if they heard any kind of  bigoted attitude expressed.
.
.


----------



## cuchuflete

Iona said:


> I will agree with you the day that 'that's really gay ' and 'that guy's such a spastic' are compliments etc .. until then I think that using such words as terms of abuse are not helping society move towards  acceptance and tolerance..they are holding certain groups of society back...



I'm not persuaded by anything I've read in this thread, or by overhearing the way kids speak, that these expressions are used with any intent of abuse.  Abuse may occur, despite the lack of intent.  That depends more on the listener than on the speaker at times.   If the expressions can cause hurt feelings, we should educate our children about that.

As to whether or not colloquial speech helps "...society move towards....."...that's the sort of PC stuff that hurts MY feelings, and makes me want to gag at times.  The point of language is, first and foremost, clear communication.  Some ideas are offensive and hurtful.   Censorship and sugar coating are not the answer.  

I've heard people criticize a poet because he didn't use his poetry to promote fashionable social causes, and societal improvements.  Ditto for works of abstract art.  The attempts to demand that language be put to use as a means to accomplish social change are sadly reminiscent of Stalanist music criticism.  

I don't like the expression we have been talking about.  It's apt to offend some of my friends.  I've never used it, and would discourage those I know from using it for precisely that reason.  But that is because it is imprecise and ambiguous, and will evoke different reactions than those intended by the speaker. 

I remain unaccepting and intolerant of mushy language that tries to promote social change by wrapping direct thoughts and statements in gauze and euphemisms.  That is what a lot of PC-speak does.


----------



## Dimcl

cuchuflete said:


> I'm not persuaded by anything I've read in this thread, or by overhearing the way kids speak, that these expressions are used with any intent of abuse. Abuse may occur, despite the lack of intent. That depends more on the listener than on the speaker at times. If the expressions can cause hurt feelings, we should educate our children about that.
> 
> As to whether or not colloquial speech helps "...society move towards....."...that's the sort of PC stuff that hurts MY feelings, and makes me want to gag at times. The point of language is, first and foremost, clear communication. Some ideas are offensive and hurtful. Censorship and sugar coating are not the answer.
> 
> I've heard people criticize a poet because he didn't use his poetry to promote fashionable social causes, and societal improvements. Ditto for works of abstract art. The attempts to demand that language be put to use as a means to accomplish social change are sadly reminiscent of Stalanist music criticism.
> 
> I don't like the expression we have been talking about. It's apt to offend some of my friends. I've never used it, and would discourage those I know from using it for precisely that reason. But that is because it is imprecise and ambiguous, and will evoke different reactions than those intended by the speaker.
> 
> I remain unaccepting and intolerant of mushy language that tries to promote social change by wrapping direct thoughts and statements in gauze and euphemisms. That is what a lot of PC-speak does.


 
Hear, hear!!


----------



## .   1

Iona said:


> I will agree with you the day that 'that's really gay ' and 'that guy's such a spastic' are compliments etc .. until then I think that using such words as terms of abuse are not helping society move towards acceptance and tolerance..they are holding certain groups of society back...


There is a television clip that is shown repeatedly in Australia.
We have a television personality named Bert Newton who has carved a lucrative career out of slightly snide putdowns. I do not find him to be amusing in the slightest but he is totally hillarious during a persentation he gave with Mohammed Ali as co presenter.
Bert Newton was being fawning and trying to be funny when Mohammed Ali said something funny and interesting so Bert cracked a wide smile to the audience and said, "I like the boy!" 
This was a quip from a television commercial that Bert was running and he obviously thought it was funny for about half a second when Ali asked something like , "What did you say? Did you call me boy? Did he call me boy?"
Ali could see the utterly terrified look on Bert's face as it suddenly dawned on Bert that he had just insulted one of the most physically dangerous men in the world so Ali mugged for the cameras.
Ali raised his fist and put a mean look on his face for a couple of seconds as Bert tried to find a hole in the floor.
It was the best moment I can remember seeing.
Mohammed Ali was not insulted and was just playing for the cameras but he had Bert in the palm of his fist and he did seem to enjoy squeezing him just a little.
I can insult morons and fools using words that the Pope could not complain about but sentence construction and word placement reveal my intent to let a nitwit know that I think they are too stupid to effectively pound sand.
I agree with cuchuflete.
I do not like the phrase in question and will never use it but I can not stop hearing it so I must examine the intent of the user.
In the case of insults words are just words it is the intent behind the words that is important.

.,,


----------



## timpeac

foxfirebrand said:


> My impression of teenagers saying "that's so gay" is based on a pretty wide sample of real people. I have four grown children who are just past the teen years, they have an interest in language not unlike mine, they are generous with information about language use among their peers-- plus of course in many cases I know the specific, real people that're being talked about.
> 
> I'm confident that the expression has nothing to do with homophobia, period. These kids are extremely gay-friendly and void of bigotry toward ethnic groups or people with disabilities, or whatever-- you name it, if it's PC they have pretty unanimously bought into it.


I agree with you that people using the phrase probably don't mean to insult anyone and are probably not making any link between calling a film gay and homosexuality - just like calling a film lame makes no link to hobbling.

However, I think that it should be pointed out to them that it is offensive to use the name for a group of people as a synonym for "bad". As pointed out above gay children will have a lot of problems and the rates of suicide are high - they will probably be confused and depressed. Do they really need people going round blythely using their innate nature as a word for "bad"?


foxfirebrand said:


> What they used before "so gay" was the word _lame._ Now, it would be absurd for me to take offense at that-- but the fact is I am considerably lame, I use a cane and sometimes even a walker, and am medically "certified" as disabled though I don't go after any kind of monthly check on that account, just special license tags. Face it, I'm as lame as lame can be.
> 
> It has never occurred to me to take umbrage with "what a lame website" or any of the hundreds of other such expressions. The switch to "gay" was made with the same blithe obliviousness about the way such an expression might be taken literally. It simply does *not* have anything to do with homophobic slurs, to these kids that use the expression. It would surprise me not at all if some of them were themselves homosexuals.


I think this is where your "lame" comparison breaks down (it took a lot to put the quote marks in there!). You may be as lame as can be but I'm not surprised you were not offended by "lame" being used to mean "pathetic" and I would have thought you were over-reacting if you did. Why the difference? Because for being lame you haven't had to put up with a whole load of far-reaching prejudice. Your being probably isn't already bruised by being judged and found wanting on this small facet of who you are. I doubt any friends and family members have disowned you because of your lameness (opposed to what many gay people go through, I'm sure). Moreover the situation is fundamentally different - being lame _is _bad, isn't it? It might at most be insensitive to use it as a synonym for pathetic but you can see where the idea comes from, it makes sense to compare a bad film as "limping along". Using "gay" in such a way is just being nasty to a group of people (whether you've thought it through and are doing it on purpose or not) (like my "that's_ so_ American" example above).


foxfirebrand said:


> Again, I'm not theorizing or endorsing or condemning any of this-- simply observing and reporting. I can kinda see why some people might look askance at this nealogism, but their apprehension and/or disapprobation simply does not pertain to the situation as I know it to be.
> 
> I speak only for my own locale, but my degree of confidence is very high. These are kids that would speak up loudly and speak as one, if they heard any kind of bigoted attitude expressed.
> .
> .


But I don't see why you think someone has to be being deliberately offensive to censure a usage and ask them to use something else. Please understand that I'm not trying to support any PC changing of terms. Someone is crippled and so they are called a cripple. Some people use that term as an insult and so you can't say "cripple" any more. So another term is found and before long that term falls out of grace because it is used as an insult and so on ad infinitum. No point, just leave people saying what they want as they will find a way to insult people if they want to and changing the language will make no difference.

This situation is different. This is using a standard term for a group of people to mean "bad" for no apparent reason. I've explained above why I think it could be very hurtful for a gay child growing up already very uncertain and vulnerable to hear the term constantly used in this way, and I think if it were pointed out to your friends and children that they might severely dent someone's self-esteem at a time they are particularly vulnerable by using such terms they would probably be horrified, but would nevertheless want to know. I am by a long way not a bleeding heart or PC or overly sympathetic generally, to be honest, but I firmly believe this could cause damage to some people.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

I want to add my tiny humble contribution to this thread:
for me (and for most of us who use the word _gay _also in our own language), non-native English speaker, the first and dominant meaning of the word _gay_ is homosexual: I'd think of any other possible meanings (cheerful, bright, dissolute..) only if I was really sure that homosexuality was not involved in the context.


----------



## Brioche

Paulfromitaly said:


> I want to add my tiny humble contribution to this thread:
> for me (and for most of us who use the word _gay _also in our own language), non-native English speaker, the first and dominant meaning of the word _gay_ is homosexual: I'd think of any other possible meanings (cheerful, bright, dissolute..) only if I was really sure that homosexuality was not involved in the context.


 
_Gay_ was taken into other languages after it had acquired the meaning _homosexual_.  It's not unusual for words to modify their meaning when they are adopted by other languages.

For example, _tampon_ and _douche_ are French words which have acquired much narrower meanings in English.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Brioche said:


> _Gay_ was taken into other languages after it had acquired the meaning _homosexual_.  It's not unusual for words to modify their meaning when they are adopted by other languages.
> 
> For example, _tampon_ and _douche_ are French words which have acquired much narrower meanings in English.



Yes, I'm aware of that..I just wanted to point out that _gay _is one of those tricky words which should be used carefully by natives when talking or writing to a foreigner, each time you want it convey a different meaning from the most common one.


----------



## Hockey13

Paulfromitaly said:


> Yes, I'm aware of that..I just wanted to point out that _gay _is one of those tricky words which should be used carefully by natives when talking or writing to a foreigner, each time you want it convey a different meaning from the most common one.


 
This is a good point. I could imagine a context where I'd say "This video game is so gay," if I'm really annoyed at the AI, and I'm around a foreigner where he might misconstrue the meaning.


----------



## suzi br

I work with young ppl in the UK and they are currently (still) using "gay" as an all purpose derogatory word.  I flinch everytime I hear it, because it obviously IS related to homophobia - even if it has shifted a little it is still not independent of its soruce. 

I challenge students  if they do it on my class-room.  Generally they avoid doing it in my earshot, and maybe they think twice about it elsewhere.

On the other hand I dont think many of my students ARE homophobic, I've heard really nice kids who I knokw are gay-friendly use it -- so I can see the logic in both points of view here, on this age-old topic of how language reflects thought and vice-versa!


----------



## Hockey13

suzi br said:


> I work with young ppl in the UK and they are currently (still) using "gay" as an all purpose derogatory word. I flinch everytime I hear it, because it obviously IS related to homophobia - even if it has shifted a little it is still not independent of its soruce.
> 
> I challenge students if they do it on my class-room. Generally they avoid doing it in my earshot, and maybe they think twice about it elsewhere.
> 
> On the other hand I dont think many of my students ARE homophobic, I've heard really nice kids who I knokw are gay-friendly use it -- so I can see the logic in both points of view here, on this age-old topic of how language reflects thought and vice-versa!


 
Insensitivity does not imply hatred.


----------



## Iona

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> As to whether or not colloquial speech helps "...society move towards....."...that's the sort of PC stuff that hurts MY feelings, and makes me want to gag at times. The point of language is, first and foremost, clear communication. Some ideas are offensive and hurtful. Censorship and sugar coating are not the answer.


 In what way does it hurt your feelings? this is about empathy ..  . I did not say words should be 'sugar coated' ..which is a bit of  an easy word to bandy about . If someone is gay OK they're gay ,if they're Jewish they're Jewish fine ,if they've got cerebral palsy they've got cerebral palsy BUT ....if you start using these words to signify *negative things* then subconsciously you are  developing negative ideas about certain groups in society who already 'don't have it easy '.If a young child hears   don't  be so gay/such a spastic/ a Jew etc that child is NOT going to say to himself ..hey , being gay is good .. he's going to have a negative impression of all things gay ,Jewish and handicapped .
We're not talking about 'sugar coating' ..we're talking about insensitivity - if you or your child were handicapped (N.B I could also say  'challenged' but would hate to make 'gag' .. your word ,not mine)..would you really want  the word 'spastic' or 'mongul' to be used as a general insult terms ..I don't think so ... well ,neither do most people in these groups ..even if some claim otherwise.


----------



## Hockey13

Iona said:


> cuchuflete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to whether or not colloquial speech helps "...society move towards....."...that's the sort of PC stuff that hurts MY feelings, and makes me want to gag at times. The point of language is, first and foremost, clear communication. Some ideas are offensive and hurtful. Censorship and sugar coating are not the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way does it hurt your feelings? this is about empathy .. . I did not say words should be 'sugar coated' ..which is a bit of an easy word to bandy about . If someone is gay OK they're gay ,if they're Jewish they're Jewish fine ,if they've got cerebral palsy they've got cerebral palsy BUT ....if you start using these words to signify *negative things* then subconsciously you are developing negative ideas about certain groups in society who already 'don't have it easy '.If a young child hears don't be so gay/such a spastic/ a Jew etc that child is NOT going to say to himself ..hey , being gay is good .. he's going to have a negative impression of all things gay ,Jewish and handicapped .
> We're not talking about 'sugar coating' ..we're talking about insensitivity - if you or your child were handicapped (N.B I could also say 'challenged' but would hate to make 'gag' .. your word ,not mine)..would you really want the word 'spastic' or 'mongul' to be used as a general insult terms ..I don't think so ... well ,neither do most people in these groups ..even if some claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

 
I've never used that term once with my 11 year-old cousin. I heard the term well before I was 11 and I'm in no way homophobic. Any parent of a white kid who exposes their children to gay/black/Jewish/etc. people will be raising a kid who probably won't believe in stereotypes since he will have had personal experiences with members of those groups. Every Sunday I went to my family's closest friends who were two gay guys who owned two Golden Retrievers. They never took advantage me, acted completely like regular human beings, and I never considered gay people "those people" because to me they've always been part of "us."

I think my attitude is completely removed from hatred as I continue to have old friends and find new friends who are gay (though I can't generally hang out with the particularly effeminate ones for the same reason I can't always hang out with girls). My life views did not sway when I heard the term, just like my lifelong friendships with Jewish people don't sway when I make a racial crack at them, they make a racial crack at me, people in general make racial cracks about Germans, etc. If I really think they're ignorant, I make a polite attempt to explain to them that not all Germans are genocidal. If they don't get it, I certainly can't change them by yelling at them or forcing them to believe what I want them to believe.

I don't know...it seems a pretty rough thing to do to censor a word completely, and all that does is anger people more as it puts existing feelings under the surface. If someone really hates gays, the removal of the word from regular conversation will not change their hatred. Gay is, at this point, synonymous with other things in the English language, much like "French" is synonymous with other things in BE. If you want to make changes in the world, try spreading knowledge instead of censoring.


----------



## geve

Iona said:


> ....if you start using these words to signify *negative things* then subconsciously you are developing negative ideas about certain groups in society who already 'don't have it easy '.If a young child hears don't be so gay/such a spastic/ a Jew etc that child is NOT going to say to himself ..hey , being gay is good .. he's going to have a negative impression of all things gay ,Jewish and handicapped .
> We're not talking about 'sugar coating' ..we're talking about insensitivity - if you or your child were handicapped (N.B I could also say 'challenged' but would hate to make 'gag' .. your word ,not mine)..would you really want the word 'spastic' or 'mongul' to be used as a general insult terms ..I don't think so ... well ,neither do most people in these groups ..even if some claim otherwise.


We had the same situation on French playgrounds when I was a child: children would use "mongolien" (often shortened to "gogol") to say that one was dumb. "Mongolien" used to mean "someone who has Down's syndrom/Trisomy 21". It was so commonly used that I'm pretty sure I've uttered it myself several times back then. Until some good-thinking adults explained us what it really meant and adviced us against using this term in such contexts (especially when a section was opened in our school for mentally disabled children). 

Kids probably didn't mean to denigrate individuals with Downs syndrom - or maybe they did. Kids can be pretty harsh; tolerance and empathy are not innate, they need to be taught, and it starts with correcting unappropriate use of words. "Son, you have to know that this is not an insult, it's the name of a genetic condition that affects real human beings". 
It's not censorship, it's education.


----------



## Iona

Who said anything about censoring ? I'm saying people should be 'aware' that what they're saying can be a) distressful and b) re-enforce ideas about a society ... It's great  that you can make cracks about differences .. BUT , my point was and is .. would you ever use words that denote certain  social groups  to mean  something bad .. not cracks between adults who understand the roles and limits ? 'that video game is so gay'..or 'don't be such a spastic' or ' he's such a Jew' .. our wires are crossed .. I have never implied censorship , I have never implied 'sugar coating' .. just that we must be careful ..


----------



## Hockey13

Iona said:


> Who said anything about censoring ? I'm saying people should be 'aware' that what they're saying can be a) distressful and b) re-enforce ideas about a society ... It's great that you can make cracks about differences .. BUT , my point was and is .. would you ever use words that denote certain social groups to mean something bad .. not cracks between adults who understand the roles and limits ? 'that video game is so gay'..or 'don't be such a spastic' or ' he's such a Jew' .. our wires are crossed .. I have never implied censorship , I have never implied 'sugar coating' .. just that we must be careful ..


 
Ah..then I agree whole-heartedly  . I often forget that others weren't as lucky as I was to have been exposed to many different cultures and lifestyles as a child. I hope this thread can get back on topic!


----------



## Iona

My reply was to 13 Hockey (not Geve - yes , in my opinion you are so right)


----------



## Iona

Hockey 13 - I'm glad our wires are now uncrossed ..


----------



## Porteño

Here in BA a certain English Acadamy where I used to teach, still uses some textbooks written by the founder way back in the 40s in which appears the following rhyme: 

Learn an English proverb every day,
And keep your teacher gay.

This sometimes causes a laugh among the students, or if not, the phrase has to be carefully explained to allay any doubts!


----------



## jimreilly

The shift of meaning of "gay" can be funny, as you have discovered. Here in Minneapolis there is a big bar called the Gay 90's. It was orginally a strip bar catering to straight men, with the theme of the 1890's; there was a gay bar adjoining it. Now the gay bar has expanded to fill the whole premises and even the upstairs, which used to be business lofts. No one even had to change the name -- the Gay 90's (old sense) has become the Gay 90's (new sense). 

So context and intention counts for a lot. While I do find "it's so gay" offensive, I also can recognize it's sometimes said more innocently ... and life is too short to always let offence get to you.


----------



## Iona

"So context and intention counts for a lot. While I do find "it's so gay" offensive, I also can recognize it's sometimes said more innocently ... and life is too short to always let offence get to you."

Of course - noone is denying that context and intention count , .. what I'm saying is that  all too often  alas 'gay' is very often used in negative contexts .. and .. life is too short to cause offence ... Your bar is a bit of an exception maybe? I am not gay ..but , imagine living in a world that was predominantly gay and a phrase like ' that's so hetero' was used to equal 'that's rubbish' .... sorry ... I would find that offensive and unhealthy for society.I think it's better to say.. that's rubbish , lousy etc


----------



## jimreilly

I'm with you, Iona, and while I often do take personal offence at the phrase (*and I am gay), there are times when I don't. I also, just to stay sane, have to find a balance: not get too angry too often, but not stifle my real feelings. Sometimes it's tricky, sometimes it's impossible. I'm sure many other people in many other groups know this game all too well, and have suffered far more than I have trying to play it.

Playing it gets easier when sypathetic people--like yourself--understand what's at stake. So...thank you!


----------



## Iona

and  THANKYOU  Jim for your words...I am not a one off ... there are thousands of people who think like me !


----------



## .   1

The only negative impact that homosexuality has had on me was when the word gay was nicked .

.,,


----------



## Iona

Well- I'm not sure of how 'gay' came to be attributed to  homosexuals maybe someone can enlighten me? BUT it was (originally at least) a more pleasant alternative to faggot,bent, queer etc .. other words that were 'nicked' or forced upon them


----------



## Brioche

Iona said:


> "life is too short to cause offence ... Your bar is a bit of an exception maybe?


 
Unfortunately, there are people out there who insist on being offended. Worst of all are the people who get offended on behalf of other people.

There was a recent court case in Scotland where a man was prosecuted for revving his car engine in a _racist manner_. How the driver was supposed to know the religious affiliation of a couple of pedestrians, is beyond me.


----------



## jimreilly

Brioche said:


> Unfortunately, there are people out there who insist on being offended. Worst of all are the people who get offended on behalf of other people.
> 
> There was a recent court case in Scotland where a man was prosecuted for revving his car engine in a _racist manner_. How the driver was supposed to know the religious affiliation of a couple of pedestrians, is beyond me.



No, worst of all are the people who deliberately and knowingly give offence.


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> There was a recent court case in Scotland where a man was prosecuted for revving his car engine in a _racist manner_. How the driver was supposed to know the religious affiliation of a couple of pedestrians, is beyond me.



Racism and religious bigotry are not the same. And in Scotland it is easy to know the religious affiliation of many people - football colours can tell you a lot, for example - as can wearing a turban, a yarmulka. Perhaps the wife was dressed as many Muslim women do — very identifiably!


----------



## cuchuflete

Mod note:  This is getting more than a little bit away from the thread topic.  Closely related comments about Post#1 are ok, and so are those with some direct relationship to it, albeit farther afield. There are limits to what can be construed as pertinent to the thread topic.


----------



## mgarizona

Iona said:


> Well- I'm not sure of how 'gay' came to be attributed to homosexuals maybe someone can enlighten me? BUT it was (originally at least) a more pleasant alternative to faggot,bent, queer etc .. other words that were 'nicked' or forced upon them


 
"Gay" meaning 'merry' has had a negative connotation (overindulgence in pleasures) since the 1600s when "a gay man" just meant 'a rake' and that usage remained very common until recently in phrases like "a gay dog." The OED quotes a physician from 1897 writing "My patient was a married man who admitted having been very gay in early life" with no notion of homosexuality implied.

The usage was first extended to women (mid 1800s) where it implied at least lack of morals, usually prostitution.

The first citation regarding homosexual behavior is for 'geycat' for a homosexual boy in a 1935 dictionary of underworld and prison slang.

But Noel Coward wrote a song in 1929 called "Green Carnation" (an Oscar Wilde reference) containing the line:

_And as we are the reason_ 
_For the "Nineties" being gay,_ 
_We all wear a green carnation._

In 1938's _Bringing Up Baby_ Cary Grant, dressed in a woman's robe, declares he "just went gay all of a sudden."

After that it's pretty much everywhere.


----------



## Iona

Brioche -Unfortunately, there are people out there who insist on being offended. *Worst of all are the people who get offended on behalf of other people.*

I think this subject has perhaps reached its zenith - the above comment is just not worth answering ...


----------



## foxfirebrand

Iona said:


> Brioche -Unfortunately, there are people out there who insist on being offended. *Worst of all are the people who get offended on behalf of other people.*
> 
> I think this subject has perhaps reached its zenith - the above comment is just not worth answering ...


I think it's intelligent and to the point.  Consensus is the _sine qua non _of any nation under Law, and of the society it serves.  Norms of offensiveness established by consensus are good, they work, they give guidelines for how to deal with offensiveness-- shame it and shun it.

Otherwise we have entitled license on one extreme, and  ruinous litigation on the other.  Leaving to each "offended" individual to determine for himself what is offensive is the secular-humanist Progressive's logic reduced _ad absurdam._  People can conceive offenses that never before existed in civil society, and insist on their being given "respect."  This becomes a malicious and aggressive act when carried to the extreme, and there is nothing in the logic of allowing subjectivity and "feelings" such supremacy-- to deter exactly this from happening.

Being offended on behalf of other people is indeed another step over a boundary that is already way outstretched.  It can be done in ignorance and even bigotry, as in the case of people who smugly correct anyone who doesn't use "native American" or some other double-jowlful of syllables-- on behalf of people who are in many cases offended by exactly that term, if you but *asked* them.
.
.


----------



## Porteño

Personally, foxfirebrand says it all and I agree pretty well 100%. I too, am fed up with all these euphemisms and 'political correctness'. I've always believed in calling a spade a spade and if someone doesn't like it, they know what they can do! Of course that does not mean I can gratuitously insult someone, but speaking the truth should not be construed as insulting.

In this regard, why do we have to bother with these asinine definitions?  An American is an American? What's with this 'afro-american', 'hispano-american' nonsense? What do we call the others - 'euro-americans', 'white americans', 'saxo-americans' or whatever?


----------



## Brioche

Iona said:


> I think this subject has perhaps reached its zenith - the above comment is just not worth answering ...


 
I think the word you are looking for is _*nadir*_  

It's another word we pinched from Arabic, and means the exact opposite of _*zenith*_.


----------



## Iona

Porteño said:
			
		

> *I've always believed in calling a spade a spade and if someone doesn't like it, they know what they can do! Of course that does not mean I can gratuitously insult someone, but speaking the truth should not be construed as insulting.*
> 
> Porteno- If by calling 'a spade a spade'  you mean just that, I agree... but what and whose spade exactly? .. spades can be used to dig holes and bury too  .   I've heard people say 'that idea is spastic ,or gay ' 'don't be such a jew' ..etc many times . My question is , why use words that denote groups in society  ? Why not  REALLY call a spade a spade by saying ...that's a stupid/crap  idea or don't be so mean/tight fisted ..for me this is calling a spade a spade ...
> it's being indirectly 'gratuitously insulting' to   handicapped , homosexual and Jewish people (to name but a few) -to pin point their social group  as a  term for insult .. it's what I call linguistic bullying and on a par with censorship , albeit on the other end of the scale.
> *Worst of all are the people who get offended on behalf of other people...* moving (physically or mentally)outside your own social tunnel is sometimes enlightening ... this is why in the sixties many people  supported  groups  that were outside their own -
> Brioche - that's what I get for trying to be ironic  it doesn't always work !


----------



## mgarizona

I would only like to interject a simple query, isn't "getting offended on behalf of other people," especially when one is in a better position to defend them than they may be to defend themselves, a basic tenet of the empathy the Judeo-Christian societies have been paying lip service to lo these many centuries?

Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:40)


----------



## cuchuflete

What?  Call a spade a spade?  Any student of language knows that the word "spade" has, among other meanings, one that refers to a group of humans.  You dig?

Online etymology dict. says...."To call a spade a spade "use blunt language" (1542) translates a Gk. proverb (known to the Romans), but Erasmus mistook Gk. skaphe "trough, bowl" for a derivative of the stem of skaptein "to dig," and the mistake has stuck. The original, then, is "to call a bowl a bowl." "

It adds, in a secondary definition, " Derogatory meaning "black person" is 1928, from the color of the playing card symbol."

So, let's all stand up and chastise users of the older phrase, because, who knows, it just might be taken as a reference, however indirect, to something else which just might be offensive, despite the obvious contextual clues that the second usage is nowhere to be found in the first.  

Sensitivity is good.  Oversensitivity can have some absurd results.    Would someone please pass the euphemisms?


----------



## wildleopard

Yes it can be used in a way that does not refer to homosexuality or being happy... and is not meant to offend gay people either.

"you're gay man" or "that's so gay" are common with young people...


----------



## jimreilly

mgarizona said:


> I would only like to interject a simple query, isn't "getting offended on behalf of other people," especially when one is in a better position to defend them than they may be to defend themselves, a basic tenet of the empathy the Judeo-Christian societies have been paying lip service to lo these many centuries?
> 
> Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:40)



Well, Mgarizona, you have really identified some of the reason why this thread is so contentious. We have is the intersection of language issues with ethical/religious issues. You quote Christian scripture, but the principles involved can apply whether one is Christian or not; the injunction to put oneself imaginatively in the place of the "other" is central to many ethical and religious traditions. 

We are blessed/cursed with that ability to differing degrees, as well as the desire to exercise it. Our culture, despite all the complaints (many of them exaggerated and trivial) about political correctness, often encourages selfishness and the lack of regard for others.

Nothing in personal and basic consideration for others will prevent anyone from calling a spade a spade. But it _will_ cause a thoughtful and imaginative person to wonder why expressions like "it's so gay" (and others directed toward other groups) are used negatively, and what that says about both the language and the culture. Those who respond with such distaste when this kind of language nastiness is identified as such remind me of the bullies who profess to be surprised when they are told they have hurt someone whom they have just hit.

I am glad I have to ability "to be offended on behalf of other people" and I think I could probably use more of it, as well as the ability to act more effectively as the result of it.


----------



## HistofEng

wildleopard said:


> Yes it can be used in a way that does not refer to homosexuality or being happy... and is not meant to offend gay people either.
> 
> _*"you're gay man"*_ or "that's so gay" are common with young people...


 

I don't think it's a coincidence that we hardly ever hear "you're gay girl."


----------



## HistofEng

cuchuflete said:


> What? Call a spade a spade? Any student of language knows that the word "spade" has, among other meanings, one that refers to a group of humans. You dig?
> 
> Online etymology dict. says...."To call a spade a spade "use blunt language" (1542) translates a Gk. proverb (known to the Romans), but Erasmus mistook Gk. skaphe "trough, bowl" for a derivative of the stem of skaptein "to dig," and the mistake has stuck. The original, then, is "to call a bowl a bowl." "
> 
> It adds, in a secondary definition, " Derogatory meaning "black person" is 1928, from the color of the playing card symbol."
> 
> So, let's all stand up and chastise users of the older phrase, because, who knows, it just might be taken as a reference, however indirect, to something else which just might be offensive
> 
> 
> Sensitivity is good. Oversensitivity can have some absurd results. Would someone please pass the euphemisms?


 
Words are arbitrary until they are given meaning by a society. Someday "spic" may be much less offensive than it is now and will be used sparingly to identify people people of Hispanic origin. The dictionary, however, will still have a deragotory definition for the word. But today, labeling anything or anyone that is bad or uncool as "gay" is currently offensive to a group of people (that frequently tells you it's offensive to them). I'm gay and I'm rather indifferent to the expression today. Alot of my straight friends use it, and when I'm around they catch themselves and say "oops sorry" even though I tell them I'm indifferent to the expression. They know that I know that they're not trying to be offensive, but they know that the expression is offensive to a group on a whole because it stems from homophobia (not that the expression itself is directly homophobic). 

Before I came out, when I knew I was gay, and I heard a plethora homophobic remarks all around me all the time from friends and family, it really did feel like all of society was against me. "You're gay" as a put down between school friends wouldn't have been so hurtful if I didn't have to hear it literally 10 times a day, everyday. A little more sensitivity by my schoolmates and family could have saved me years of agony.


----------



## foxfirebrand

This expression is ubiquitous among kids today, especially teenagers.  It's used by young people who are not tainted by anti-homosexual feeling, and have accepted the teachings of tolerance by their public-school experience on this matter.

It's pointless to change the subject to how offended any of *us* choose to be about it.

Teenagers love to belch loudly, make fake farting noises, and many of the slang expressions each new crop of them adopt are chosen for their aggravation value.  They are not malicious in their obnoxiousness, it seems to be a natural response to the pressures and confusions of impending adult life.

"Educating" teenagers about how offensive they may seem to some people is pointless, and will get you nowhere-- that to me is the one relevant fact here.  Telling a kid that age he's being offensive is music to his ears.  But it won't "educate" them-- they already know they're standing euphemisms on their head and putting them to insulting use.

They're rejecting the "proper" use of the word _gay_, and the redefinition of it (unlike its original promulgation beginning back in the late 60s) comes from the bottom and percolates to the top. 

That's the way language is, its changes are uncontrollable _grassroots phenomena._  "I'm about to go postal" is not a malicious slur on a certain sector of the workforce-- but any mailman who voiced hurt feelings, or complained about what was being implied about his sanity, would be jeered at by these young people.  Fuckem if they can't take a joke, is the attitude that applies here.

In rebutting any of this, *please* refrain from mistaking my descriptive observations as advocacy on my part.  Hurting people's feelings is a _different matter_ from this example of colloquial usage, in my opinion, and disregard for the thin-skinned is an ineradicable trait of adolescence.
.
.


----------



## Porteño

Beautifully put, as always, foxfirebrand


----------



## timpeac

foxfirebrand said:


> This expression is ubiquitous among kids today, especially teenagers. It's used by young people who are not tainted by anti-homosexual feeling, and have accepted the teachings of tolerance by their public-school experience on this matter.
> 
> It's pointless to change the subject to how offended any of *us* choose to be about it.
> 
> Teenagers love to belch loudly, make fake farting noises, and many of the slang expressions each new crop of them adopt are chosen for their aggravation value. They are not malicious in their obnoxiousness, it seems to be a natural response to the pressures and confusions of impending adult life.


I agree that they are in the vast majority of cases not doing anything to be _deliberately_ malicious.


foxfirebrand said:


> "Educating" teenagers about how offensive they may seem to some people is pointless, and will get you nowhere-- that to me is the one relevant fact here. Telling a kid that age he's being offensive is music to his ears. But it won't "educate" them-- they already know they're standing euphemisms on their head and putting them to insulting use.


I don't agree, and this is at odds with your previous paragraph. I thought these were kids who "are not tainted by anti-homosexual feeling, and have _accepted the teachings of tolerance_". Surely if they use a term which causes deep offense and hurt (I doubt HistofEng was being hyperbolic in his phrase "years of agony") but do not wish to be bigoted then it is just that don't realise how insulting they are being and would probably be glad to be told. After all can you imagine them going round saying "it was a nigger of a bad day" or "my teacher's as boring as a Jew" in natural everyday unashamed usage? Why not if they revel in simply causing offence? Because they have been educated that there is a reason why they are asked not to say such things and in these instances the offence and hurt caused far outweighs the thrill of breaking the rules.


foxfirebrand said:


> They're rejecting the "proper" use of the word _gay_, and the redefinition of it (unlike its original promulgation beginning back in the late 60s) comes from the bottom and percolates to the top.
> 
> That's the way language is, its changes are uncontrollable _grassroots phenomena._ "I'm about to go postal" is not a malicious slur on a certain sector of the workforce-- but any mailman who voiced hurt feelings, or complained about what was being implied about his sanity, would be jeered at by these young people. Fuckem if they can't take a joke, is the attitude that applies here.


I really don't agree. They are not doing anything on purpose, just following a usage. However, your comparison with "going postal" is just not fair, and for two good reasons at least that spring to mind (and both are why I disputed your analogy of "lame") -

- Going "postal" is based on some sort of reality. There were a disproportionate number of postal workers turning mass-murderers. I don't see any similar link with "gay". You yourself fully admit that these are basically non-homophobic kids so what reason do they have to link that word as a synonym for "wet"? As I say there is a reason for them to pick on postal workers - however weak a reason.
- Postal workers are not a heavily picked on and discriminated against group. Of course you'd think "what an idiot" if one of them was to be truely offended by the phrase "go postal". Gay kids on the other hand are surrounded by images and information that they are bad, really bad people.


foxfirebrand said:


> In rebutting any of this, *please* refrain from mistaking my descriptive observations as advocacy on my part. Hurting people's feelings is a _different matter_ from this example of colloquial usage, in my opinion, and disregard for the thin-skinned is an ineradicable trait of adolescence.
> .
> .


I wouldn't assume such advocacy on your part for a minute. However, I do think you are underestimating the offence nay harm this usage can cause. I also think you are underestimating the young. I think if you took the time to explain precisely why it is could be so hurtful they wouldn't want to use it and in the meantime yes, they should be told off by parents and teachers for using it. You don't not tell a child to look twice before crossing the road for fear that he'll do the opposite and run straight across, and you don't laugh indulgently if your kid calls someone a Jew in a loud voice as you're sitting in a restaurant. After all if they are over 10, say, then they are starting to understand for themselves why it's not good to harm other people and hopefully they are starting to get a distaste for it in its own right.


----------



## jimreilly

Thanks, Timpeac.

As for those teenagers who are "not tainted by anti-homosexual feeling", give them time: if they hear "it's so gay" as a negative description enough times, they'll get the idea!

Funny, since there are so many untainted teenagers running around, that many (not all) of the ones who _are_ gay/queer still have problems with self-acceptance and sometimes a fear or even panic of identifying themselves. Are they the thin-skinned ones?

Having counseled a straight teenager a few years ago who was being taunted by classmates who thought he was gay, I know it's not even just the gay kids who can be thin-skinned. Maybe it's a human thing....


----------



## foxfirebrand

> I think if you took the time to explain precisely why it is could be so hurtful they wouldn't want to use it and in the meantime yes, they should be told off by parents and teachers for using it.


I've talked with my own kids about things like this, and my wife is in the restaurant business, where she picks up all sorts of information on young adults, their language and their attitudes.  I still feel I speak with confidence, even though I disagree on all points with people whose intelligence I respect.

These young people feel people shouldn't be so thin-skinned.  If "that's so gay" is causing deep offense, the offended parties should take their share of the general misery and learn to live with it.

At that age, one's own pain and discomfort is of paramount importance, and (not to compound my offences by insulting young people, but) I don't think empathy is fully developed until at least age 18-- and the cusp of emotional maturity seems to be rising incrementally over the generations.

Young people who aren't black or gay or members of some other "special group" feel discomfited by the pains they are supposed to take, walking on eggshells in the workplace, never telling jokes with any kind of edge, watching what you say at every turn.  The college prof who got fired for using the word "niggardly" is a universally-known urban legend.  And people are tired of it-- especially people born after the death of Jim Crow, who feel unfairly blamed for the sins of their fathers.

It's a vastly complex issue I don't pretend to understand thoroughly.  But bottom line, my chldren's  generation is getting seriously fed up with PC, and to their egocentric mindset, the relief achieved by a rebellious expression like "that's so gay" (instead of "lame") is worth having, even at the expense of a few people getting their panties in a twist.

No, "explaining" how hurtful it all is would get you nothing but a good eye roll-- but I've already taken pains to "explain" all that.

Whenever I'm on the other side of an unprovable argument, up against good and intelligent people, it always seems to me that I look at the world without asking _why_-- let alone evolving to the "why not" stage.  I try to build on what little I know by avoiding a state of denial about the undeniable.  I try to take even the unpleasant givens in life as just that-- axioms of human nature.  And if it's dawning on some of you that I take a Hobbesian rather than a Rousseauvian view of the animal, then by George I think you've got it.
.
.


----------



## maxiogee

foxfirebrand said:


> This expression is ubiquitous among kids today, especially teenagers.



And below!
When my son was eight he moved school, as almost all urban Irish boys do - leaving the mixed convent school he attended and going to a boys-only school.  
The urinals in the new school were of a standard type - a long row of about 15 - 20 identical, somewhat-bucket-shaped, ceramic items affixed to a wall and plumbed top and bottom.
He was told by one of the lads that the one he was using was "the gay toilet" - neither of them knew what 'gay' meant (in any of its meanings) but the school's mythology had handed down a tradition that this particular fitting was somehow 'different' and to be avoided.


----------



## jimreilly

foxfirebrand said:


> These young people feel people shouldn't be so thin-skinned. If "that's so gay" is causing deep offense, the offended parties should take their share of the general misery and learn to live with it.
> ...
> Young people who aren't black or gay or members of some other "special group" feel discomfited by the pains they are supposed to take, walking on eggshells in the workplace, never telling jokes with any kind of edge, watching what you say at every turn.....
> .
> .



If it is within my power to lessen someone else's "misery" by being polite, I will be polite. If I am (rarely and momentarily) discomfitted by the effort, so be it. The people who are being too thin-skinned are really the ones who are asked to be aware of their language and don't want to bother.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

I'm coming out (no bad pun here!) with my awful English to say I'm really shocked by this phrase. Usually I'm happy to learn a new one, but not this time. Moreover, I'm shocked that virtues of pedagogy to teach innocent teenagers, when they are not using as such an innocent expression as they could think, are not seen... If there is no immediate effect, I'm sure the idea will make its way (like we say in French), and one day maybe at 13, or at 18, or at 60 (and even for some never!?), they will realize their mistake. Call me optimistic-girl if you want.


----------



## geve

foxfirebrand said:


> Being offended on behalf of other people is indeed another step over a boundary that is already way outstretched. It can be done in ignorance and even bigotry, as in the case of people who smugly correct anyone who doesn't use "native American" or some other double-jowlful of syllables-- on behalf of people who are in many cases offended by exactly that term, if you but *asked* them.





Porteño said:


> Personally, foxfirebrand says it all and I agree pretty well 100%. I too, am fed up with all these euphemisms and 'political correctness'.


What's that got to do with the price of tea? I fail to see how political corectness fits in this thread. Can't you see the difference between forcing a euphemism upon people, and using an existing word that normally describes a category of people, as a term to express dislike, weariness or aversion?

I think this is where the problem lies: some jokes and phrases aren't funny or meaningless when there are hard feelings in the background. I don't get offended by the use of the word "blonde" to mean stupid/silly - why, I even use it myself, and with even more convincing power since I am one. But it's because blondophobia doesn't exist, nor does postalphobia (both categories might be laughed about but they're usually not stigmatized or discriminated for that characteristic of their being). Homophobia does exist, as does racism, which means that using the words "gay" or "nigger" in the way that is described in this thread is more problematic than my "blonde" example.

But then, that's just the opinion of a blonde.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Nobody's saying "that's so gay" is supposed to be funny!  It's rebellious, sarcastic, contrary-minded.  It plays for attention.  It's a consummately adolescent thing to say.

A lot of people are saying they go out of their way to be sensitive to others.  That has nothing to do with this idiomatic phenomenon under discussion.

One might as well try to stir up an educational crusade against "that sucks!"  Let them know it bothers you, and they'll know they're on the right track-- and that does *not* contradict my impression that today's young people have a lot more empathy and political solidarity with gay people than any so far in history.  They aren't too impressed with _old_ gay people who don't "get it," but if it's any consolation, they feel the same about old people in general.

The good sign is that they're showing signs of rejecting the culture of special victim groups, recompensatory entitlements, and showing more of a preference for the idea that people are responsible for their own actions-- including the choice of being deeply offended by everything or just blowing it all off.

Young gay people aren't exactly eschewing the expression either-- they're going back to _queer_, in a way that reminds me of the way post-hippie types embraced _freaks_ in the early 70s, a term of disapprobation in the extreme.

I know a male nurse on a forum where his detractors were always demeaning him with bedpan jokes, or so-gay attempts at jokes.  He started signing off as "dances with bedpans."  This guy is not only one up on his would-be tormentors, he's miles ahead of the type of person who would stew about the treatment he was getting.  Score one for male nurses with a sense of humor-- and anti-sensitivity.
.
.


----------



## geve

foxfirebrand said:


> I know a male nurse on a forum where his detractors were always demeaning him with bedpan jokes, or so-gay attempts at jokes. He started signing off as "dances with bedpans." This guy is not only one up on his would-be tormentors, he's miles ahead of the type of person who would stew about the treatment he was getting. Score one for male nurses with a sense of humor-- and anti-sensitivity..


Maybe I misunderstood something in you story... is nursophobia a common phenomenon?


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> Maybe I misunderstood something in you story... is nursophobia a common phenomenon?


I'd hazard a guess that male nurses get sideways glances that female ones don't get, and probably derogatory comments also.


----------



## panjandrum

I wonder what this thread was about?
Maybe I should have a look back ...

It has run its course, run its course, run its course.
Equus mortis est.

Anyone wishing to continue the discussion further might consider finding a forum where there is less emphasis on words, their meaning and usage, and more emphasis on the analysis of sociology.

Meantime, this thread is closed.


----------

