Gay Adjectives vs. Lesbian Nouns
Today, the words gay man and lesbian are the most recommended words to use to describe people attracted to members of the same sex.
The above quote from Wikipedia's page describing the word "gay"epitomizes something that I've been wondering about for a while. Why is it that men can be, among other things, gay, but when a woman likes other women, she's no longer a woman: She's a lesbian? Why is it that in our language, among many others, the primary indicator for a man's sexuality is an adjective, but for a woman it's a noun?
This convention is codified by our friends over at GLAAD, who instruct members of the media on how to tell the stories of LGBT people "with fairness, integrity and respect" in their Media Reference Guide. In the section "Offensive Terminology to Avoid" the guide's authors make the case for "gay" and "lesbian" over the overly clinical and presumed offensive term homosexual:Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
In the strictest interpretation of the convention, gay is an adjective you use to describe one of the many aspects of a man. He can be tall. He can be blond. He can be gay. But he's still a man. Queer men are rarely referred to as "the gays", and when they are it's either reflecting a negative opinion about us gays or a straight person's inability to communicate with queer people.
Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.)
Please use "lesbian" or "gay man" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex....
However, with that same strict interpretation, when a woman comes out of the closet, she turns into a different thing entirely, a lesbian. A les-being. Lesbian is often used as an adjective, but only to refer to gay-lady types of things, like "her lesbian relationships" or "that lesbian training camp."
No one is assuming that "woman" and "lesbian" are mutually exclusive. Someone can be a woman and a lesbian. She can also be a professional basketball player or a brain surgeon. But why can't we simply modify the words "woman" or "lady" with an adjective?
Why all the fuss? It's my belief that, on some level, the noun "lesbian" displaces the notion of "woman" in people's brains. (And replaces it with a notion that nearly rhymes with "alien.") I imagine that when someone hears or reads the concept of a "gay man", the idea of "man" fills a spot, and hanging off of it is a modifier "gay." The modifier isn't as strong as the noun, and can be ignored, forgotten or otherwise deemphasized. However, using the noun "lesbian" puts far too much focus on the sexual orientation of the person. It puts the carpet munching right up there in your face. And in my opinion, it prevents the beholder from separating the person (the body) from the sexual orientation.
This is similar to how I tell people that "I am vegetarian" and not that "I am a vegetarian." I don't want people to subconsciously portray me as some PETA-trained, guerilla, anti-meat activist who's going to rip them a new asshole for having had bacon for breakfast. (The bacon will do that on its own, eventually.) My vegetarianism is only one aspect of my life, and I prefer to use adjectives to describe those aspects.
TNG Stephanie does a great job of making up lots of new terms for queer women that always crack me up: lady gay, lesbot, homa, etc. But all of them are still nouns. And all of them separate the "homas" from the "homos" by using different words for queers of different genders. (Actually, "homa" and "homo" doesn't, and I think it's pretty awesome.)
Lately, I've been using the word "queer" almost exclusively. It's an adjective and can be applied to people, parties, music, sex, etc. It's quite versatile that way. It's also a good catch-all for those who don't identify as straight but have a hard time carrying either the "gay male" or "lesbian" banners. And it unites all us non-straight-identified folks under one five-letter word that's actually pronounceable, versus the alphabet soup that is LGBTQIXYZ...
What are your thoughts on the matter? Is "queer" the way to go? Are gay men and lesbians so different that we should have different terms? Are you wondering why a man is so interested in what lesbians are called? Your thoughts are always welcome.
36 comments:
I agree with the general sentiment against the use of nouns in relation to queerness.
Personally, I've always felt that "lesbian" had more, and more specific, philosophical/political implications than suggested by "gay wowman". I don't know, this may just be my exposure to queer academia talking. (I similarly feel that "queer" carries a lot of philosophical/political implication - it's more than merely "not straight". I don't mind using "queer" as a noun.)
I thought, historically (and I could be wrong), that "lesbian" as a separate term was consciously added to "gay" (i.e. to make it "Gay and lesbian", and now "LGBT", and then...) to promote female visibility. Which doesn't really explain why it's a noun, but it would explain the different term.
I have similar issues with trans related vocabulary. I really hate "transsexual" and "transgender" as nouns (the latter just sounds stupid, to me). I also dislike "transsexual" in general because of the female visibility point I made above - besides being coined to pathologise us, "transsexual" originally meant MtF, and I think that the word automatically conjures up "man in a dress" for 99% of the population. FtMs don't need any help being invisible.
< /wall of text>
Sorry... procrastinating at work promotes rambling. Heh.
Ugh. Can we send 'queer' back where it came from? Not only is it used in the phrase "queer theory"--relatively simple ideas about sexuality couched in impenetrable language to make its practitioners sound academically respectable--but it has for decades been a pejorative term. I've never bought the "we're reclaiming the word from our attackers" argument that has been bandied about in relation to "queer," "faggot," "nigger," and a host of other offensive words.
My vote: homophile. It's an old-school gay liberation movement term. "Homo" bring in the same-sex idea, "phile" uses a root word related to love. It doesn't entirely incorporate the idea of being transgendered, since it relates to sexuality rather than gender. That would be the only non-PC drawback.
I am a gay woman and not a fan at all of the term lesbian. Sounds weird, but it just doesn't feel like me. Maybe it is that I have a negative association with the word or something. I wish we could get rid of it completely. I'm all for the general "gay man" and "gay woman" thing.
Thanks for bringing up what I always wondered about - why we have to be referred to differently. Nice post!
@Phillip
You don't like "queer" as a reclaimed word, but endorse something that gets shortened back down to "homo"?
@Philip: Thank you. I hate queer as a generic denominator of homosexuality for two reasons. Firstly, the base definition of the term in most dictionaries results in homosexuality being the 4th, 5th, or 6th definition after things like:
# Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
# Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
# Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
# Slang Fake; counterfeit.
# Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
Secondly, my experience has been that there is a subset of the LGBTQQ community that chooses queer as a descriptor to specifically not ascribe any particular sexual paradigm to themselves.
As for lesbian, to be honest I've never considered the word to be a specific noun, but as an adjective that is always modifying the same word "woman." I think that it became more common usage because saying "lesbian woman" was seen as redundant.
And I'm fairly certain that Alex is right about the historical addition to the movement of the L to bring greater female visibility.
So don't shorten it. The word is "homophile." If idiots choose to shorten it to "homo," I'm not going to concern myself with them.
Simple solutions to complex problems!
@ Philip
I think "homophile" sounds too much like "pedophile" or "hemophilia". While those of us with brains know the difference, the rest of america will just think of us as having some sort of mental affectation or disease.
Thank you, Jack. Great comment. Yes, Alex is correct about the increased use of "lesbian." As in Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon's book "Lesbian/Woman,"the term should be seen in connection to womanhood, as a descriptive adjective. It is a case of a word that is an adjective being "nouned."
I can't answer why "lesbian" has come to almost always be used as a noun, except that it is shorter to say "lesbian" than "lesbian woman" all the time.
@Jack
"Reclaimed word" drama aside, I think the strength of "queer" is that it's not "a generic denominator of homosexuality". Because it's not just all about the homosexuals. It's cool not to have to spit out half the alphabet to be inclusive, and it's cool to be able to communicate the jist of my orientation without feeling like I'm implying something that's inaccurate (like "gay" and "bi" both do).
I'm curious - what's your issue with people who don't want to "ascribe any particular sexual paradigm"?
Once again, morons need not apply.
However! As I am always one to look at the practical situation rather than the pie-in-the-sky, in-an-ideal-world solution, you're right, Michael. The term is close in its sound to those other terms, which could cause problems.
But if we're only using the term to refer to ourselves, as a way to lessen our annoyance at "gay man" vs. "a lesbian," at adjectives versus nouns, then why not "homophile"? Outsiders who don't like us are going to call us "fags" or "queers." Most of the rest of America has been conditioned to refer to us as "gays" and "lesbians." As far as I'm concerned, we can choose whatever terms we want to refer to ourselves.
I like "homophile." But the initial poll, as indicated in the responses to your post, says that, while I've run the idea up the flagpole, there's no one else saluting it. C'est la vie.
great post - i h8 the word lesbian. it sounds like alien.
i prefer to simply say that i am a person who has the gay.
@Alex: I don't have a problem with people who choose to use the term for the specific purpose of not ascribing to one particular sexual paradigm. I do have a problem with using that term for myself and by extension having people suggest using this term to describe me. Basically, my point which I was trying to make quickly is that the OP was suggesting using a term which already has started accumulating it's own connotations (as well as strict definition associations), and that would be problematic.
I do agree with the OP that the alphabet soup for the movement is getting a bit out of hand, but the solution isn't to rename the individual members of that group but to re-brand the movement. And to some extents you are seeing that nowadays where things are no longer being named "Gay and Lesbian..." but instead "Equality..."
oh and philip, if you're going for the old school, why not similisexual?
I see more and more people using queer, but it just isn't the right word for me. I shy away from labels in the first place, though I guess I would be technically bisexual, considering I've slept with about equal numbers of men and women.
And I like the word lesbian. Anything that aligns me with Sappho isn't such a bad deal.
I've heard the "lesbian" vs "lesbian woman" debate before and do try to use "lesbian" as an adjective whenever I remember but, unfortunately, I don't always catch it.
On the "queer" front, I wrote a couple of articles on my blog about it - basically arguing that using LGBT creates divisions within our community. Queer is a word I've come to accept but an alternative would not opposed (I disliked queer at first).
http://www.penwing.me.uk/node/47
http://www.penwing.me.uk/node/94
Alex
x x
Adam: Funny you should bring that up! I just got myself a copy (after years of trying) of "The Intersexes: A Study of Similisexualism as Problem in Social Life"(1908) by "Xavier Mayne"/Edward Iraneaus Prime-Stevenson. So actually, I'd be down with "similisexual" as a substitute term.
Would we rather go with an old-school term that emphasizes sex or love? Does my preference for "homophile" over "similisexual" indicate a basic reticence to emphasize sex? Does this mean I'm repressed? A romantic?
Oh well, back to work. Once again, the 9-to-5 (7-to-3?) is keeping me from getting the truly burning questions answered.
probably means you're repressed, yeah. i will rue the day that the advocate/logo/hrc/glaad folks finally succeed in taking the sex out of homosexuality.
Ooh, now y'all have gone and gotten me worked up. I'm just going to have to write a Hidden History about this: I can call it, "When is a Queer Not a Queer?"
Yep, that's it, Adam. It must mean I'm repressed. That's why I spend my time writing about incestuous lesbians, because I have sexual hang-ups.
What about "yakoo?" I think that would be a good word for all of us.
I feel like we're all standing on the precipice of something profound. You know, something that says:
"To my feminist eye, this is incredibly influenced by patriarchal standards wherein men retain facets of their identity as generic descriptors and women simply become their identity because they are nothing more."
But nah. Let's talk about how much people hate the word "queer" instead.
Hey, Meaghan -- who are you quoting?
Philip - myself. Well, not quoting. It's just something I made up and would've signaled with airquotes. Like air guitar, but snobbier.
Cool -- but go further! If we're only on the precipice, push us over the edge. (I, for one, love going over the edge.) Expand, give more examples, write a whole separate post and make us publish it.
What's wrong with "homosexual"? Like "heterosexual" it is a very simple word that describes sexual orientation only.
If we can reclaim "queer" and "fag", fine words I use all the time, why not "homosexual"?
Personally I prefer to use a term that describes sexual orientation only, a term that does not invoke an affected cultural identity that is imposed on me relentlessly.
I use lesbian or queer to refer to myself, dyke to refer to things that others have labeled as "dyke" (like dyke night), and I don't feel comfortable at all using "fag." It's a very loaded word for me, and it's not one that is mine to reclaim.
I prefer the word "queer" as a antonym for "straight," in sexual orientation and gender identity. I like that it's a catch-all to bring all of us different people under the same umbrella without alphabet soup or preferring orientation over identity, which LGBT does, and while also having the potential to refer to variations in identity that are not at the extremes of being transsexual.
Plus, the Lesbiennes want their name back. http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid53716.asp
I have to agree with Ben43. Sure, there are times when I'm gay, and times when I'm queer, and times when I'm a fag (oh, there's a noun for the male homosexual- does "fag" do for men what "lesbian" does for women?); however, I'm always a homosexual. I just get the impression that all the other words say more about someone than just whom they like to get naked with. It's fine to use other words if that's what you mean, but "homosexual" is the best, most basic word. And hey, as a bonus, it's gender-neutral.
That said, as I have no problem going retro, what about "Uranian?" It associates us with a god, and makes a fine pair with "lesbian." Now there's a term we can all get behind.
Although I could also get used to "has the gay."
Gotta leave "Uranian" behind, Doug, sorry. Michael was worried about my adoption of "homophile" sounding too much like "pedophile." The Uranians were a group of late Victorian and Edwardian gay male poets who all advocated boy-love in their poetry. Probably the most famous among them at this point is Ralph Chubb. (Cue the collective "who???")
Yeah, Uranian has that bad association with man-boy love (I was reading Strangers: Homo... and I got sick of the word). Also, sounds too much like Iranian.
Queer is one of those words that reminds me of High School torment, so I abhore it. Homosexual is what I was when I was in the closet. Gay is what I am now, how I have claimed my lifestyle as my own.
I often wish there was a noun that indicated gay man. I think lesbians have it easier not having to write Lesbian woman all the time.
This is such an interesting debate. I am doing a series of oral histories of women in small Midwest town, and i have struggled and struggled with the wording in my appeals. While "queer" is the most comfortable way for me to describe myself, my mentor pointed out that it is certainly generational. She said she would never use the word and most women her age (50s and 60s) wouldn't either.
Interestingly, part of her objection was that as a dyke (her word), she doesn't feel connected to gay men. The fact that i do feel that connection, as well as my desire to question gender categories in general, is precisely why i like using "queer" so much.
How about this:
Instead of words for US (the gays, the lezzies, the LGBTBQIIIZZQQEEs) versus THEM (the straights), how about a series of words that describe only who we love/have sex with, regardless of what gender we are:
Homophile - latin for one who loves men
Feminaphile - latin for one who loves women
Omniphile -latin for one who loves both/all/etc.
Yea, they're still nouns, not adjectives, but they're not gender specific (ie: a straight woman is a homophile, but then again, so is a gay man).
Take away the US vs. THEM.
@Allison
It's been done, although more etymologically consistently (since "phile" and "phobia" are Greek, not Latin) with gynophile/gynosexual and androphile/androsexual.
While certainly they may have their appeal (and I have used "androphile" in the past to try to describe my attraction to "men+butch women"), there are two big issues with them.
Firstly, I think that it exacerbates the association of gender with sexuality - that gay men are effeminate and gay women masculine. (And, since you're putting these forward as eliminating the "us vs them, you don't get to use Philip's "for gay/non-moron use only". =)
Secondly, there is a very good reason to maintain the dichotomy - queer isn't just our identity, it's our dating pool. (Yes, people don't like "queer", but it's general, so take this as I mean it =P)
I have never noticed the use of "gay man" vs "lesbian." One possibility is that sometimes the word "gay" is used to describe both same-sex/gender loving men and women. On the other hand, "lesbian" is only used to describe women. I have been moving away from calling same-sex/gender loving women "gay" as I see it along the lines of the using the word "man" for all humanity or calling a group of people guys even if there are women in the group. Could "gay man" be a move away from the the general use of "gay" to describe all homosexuals??
I've also heard "homophile" adapted by straight allies to mean "One Who Loves the Homos (and I don't mean sapiens.)"
An old gay man that has been a mentor to me for over a decade (native american spiritualist and a Jungian) uses the term "Homosexual" all the time, and does so with a voice reminiscent of James Earl Jones. I once winced when he used it in conversation, but as I've aged I've come to interpret the word with a sense of honor and history. I think its a good label that should be relieved of its applied shame. That being said, queer is growing on me too. I've always felt different/outside the norm, so why not use a word used to define it.
While I have no new suggestions on replacement words (though I'm a fan of "feminaphila"), I have an idea of why there's a distinction between "gay man" and "lesbian".
"Gay girl" is a 19th century term for prostitute, and "gay" came to refer to the sodomites as well, who were frequently lumped in with the prostitutes as being of an un-hetero, un-saved orientation. The dichotomy between hetero/homo as a type of person didn't really exist until the mid-to-late 19th century. At this time, men, mostly, were legally prosecuted for being homosexuals--that is for being a person who is sexual with those of the same sex--rather than for being a sodomite--that is the concept of a man who commits sexual acts with another man. (There was no legal word or concept for women who commit sexual acts with other women. Except perhaps frigid.)
As time wore on, and persecution of the homosexuals made it into an orientation unto itself , the word "gay" stuck with those men, but the use of the term "gay girl" for prostitute was dropped from popular usage, as slang often is. However, a new term was needed for gay women, since "gay" female had different implications than gay men and so these sly nouns developed to mean a homosexual woman that has nothing to do with the implication of prostitution.
And, like any good student of history, I must name my sources:
The etymology of the term “gay girl” can be found here
The idea of the concept of homosexuality developing in 19th-century European culture came from Michel Foucault in his History of Sexuality, vol. 1, and was used by Ruth Mazo Karras in Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others. Karras, for those familiar with ancient gay history, was a student of John Boswell, who wrote Same-Sex Unions In Premodern Europe.
Post a Comment