G-A-Y
TNG reader Kyle submitted this post.
The word "gay" means a lot to me. It is a word for which people have died, and continue to die. It's a word for which I almost died. It's a word that most of the human race treats with contempt, and a few with great pride. Lately I have been hearing more people questioning the validity of the word "gay" as an identity marker. Either they assume that "gay" is a social construct, and has no inherent meaning, or they assume that "gay" represents a set of values at odds with their own personal values, despite the fact the persons questioning the validity of "gay" identify as homosexual. Can someone be homosexual and not be gay?
I understand questioning one's own identity. I understand being frustrated with the gay community. But when I hear of people trying to shed their gay identity as easily as changing a major in college, I get very troubled. What makes people of a homosexual orientation want to treat the word "gay" with such contempt?
Maybe it is because people in the gay community are very often shallow, mean-spirited, spiritually stunted. They obsess over celebrities and fashion. They are catty in the bars and dismissive online. At times it seems like they stubbornly refuse to see one's inner beauty and focus exclusively on external appearences. Many gay people are lonely as a result, and yet they don't outgrow the behaviors that keep them from connecting with other human beings. If this is the life of a gay person, why would someone want to be known as "gay"?
But guess what? Human beings are shallow, mean-spirited and spiritually stunted. It is the human condition, and one that few people ever outgrow. Human beings are mean to each other, prone to gossip, play games of one-ups-man-ship in the office and in the bars. Human beings form relationships on shallow bases, and stubbornly refuse to see each other's inner beauty. If you want to reject the label "gay" because you believe the gay community is rife with shallow, petty people, you should logically reject the label "human" for the same reasons as well.
Just as there are fine examples of human beings, people who have depth, experience, compassion and kindness, there are gay people among them. They are part of the gay community just as they are part of the human race. And while there are gay people who are shallow and mean, there are gay people who are deep and kind.
Too often we think gay culture is confined to a narrow set of values - the disco, high fashion, Oscar parties, show tunes, appletinis and shopping. If you believe that is what gay culture is about, you need to get out more. The truth is that gay life is as broad as the gay people who live it. Gays love Madonna; they also love Manu Chao. They love fashion, but some get their clothes at the thrift store or at WalMart. They love pop culture, but some are into obscure art films, or heavy Russian novels, or Scandinavian minimalist post-punk bands. When you choose to think of gay culture as limited to fashion and disco and fruity drinks for brunch, you insult all those out and happy gays who aren’t into those things. It isn't that fashion and disco and fruity drinks are bad things - they just don't represent the entirety of gay culture and experience.
Is “gay” a social construct? Only as much as “homosexuality” is – and there are some who believe homosexuality is a social construct. But if it is, it is a social construct that has cost people their lives. Have they died for something that has no value, for a myth, for an ephemera? And as for those of us who have survived, are we to be dismissed because you don’t like the word? Maybe “gay” is a social construct, as is all human sexuality. But if we discard it now, what will happen to us, to our culture, to our history of pain, death, survival and triumph? If you walk away from those things, what does that really say about you? If we do away with gay space, where will tomorrow’s youth with homosexual tendencies meet and mate? In the public square? Maybe someday in a distant and enlightened future, where all human beings are safe to explore their feelings with others. But we haven’t reached that age yet, not by a long shot.
Rather than discard the "gay" label, I strongly urge people who know themselves to be homosexual to embrace the word “gay" and expand its meaning by showing the world (or at least themselves) what being gay looks like in their individual lives. Calling yourself "gay" doesn't mean putting on a cultural straitjacket. Calling yourself "gay" means accepting your homosexuality, and telling the world that this is what "gay" looks like in my case. And it doesn’t mean you reject the Madonna-loving, high-fashion, appletini drinking set; you simply show the world that you, too, are gay, and that "gay" has a much larger meaning than anyone had previously acknowledged. Why discard a word that can have such an expansive and beautiful meaning?
33 comments:
This is a great article, thank you for writing! I am curious however to your reaction to people who prefer to identify as queer.
Dear Kyle,
Your analysis of the value of the identity marker "gay" is very thought-provoking. Certainly, whatever term the community chooses to identify itself with ought to be embraced with pride; in addition, this term ought to become fixed to present a sense of unity both within the community and towards the larger heteronormative world. On the other hand, your argument misses a fundamental aspect of the questioning of "gay" as the identity marker: since "gay" connotes male same-sex desire--and perhaps a certain type of male--it leaves out other members of the community like lesbians and bisexuals. While "gay" has sufficed as an identity marker for at least a hundred years, the community has grown to be much more inclusive (including race, gender, and lifestyles such as that of S&M ) and so to continue using "gay" as the identity marker implies the existence of hierarchy within the community, with gay men at the top. So, I argue that "queer" would make a better identity marker as it is much more inclusive than "gay."
And then who knows? If society reaches a point in which it is no longer heteronormative in structure, then we may need to find new identity markers. Such is the slippery nature of language.
That said, you make a very compelling case for reflectiveness within the community, which I agree is absolutely necessary. Many of your thoughts including whether or not sexuality is essential or constructed and how we define ourselves as a community are worthy of further analysis. Your thoughts about the community's shallowness both intrigues and troubles me. I urge you to continue your explorations and see what insights you might come up with.
Matthew
One thing to consider - there is a whole bright, beautiful world out there beyond the gay bars.
Unfortunately, some folk think that the entire gay community lives in the bars; truth is, many never step foot in bars (of any kind).
The best life (for me) is where I simply live 100% OUT, and meet gays and straights along the way, independent of the "gay-bar-culture". No, I'm not condemning to hell all bar-hopping gay boys, but I am suggesting that a LOT of what you see in the bars (shallow, mean-spirited, spiritually stunted folk) is a very small picture of our community.
Ryan &c-
This dialogue, while certainly in its themes is noble and worthwhile, rests rather unfortunately on two major flaws of thought. The first, and probably most destructive to the argument, lies in an under-evaluated characterization of the linguistic interaction of a word and its referent. The position that selective abandonment or avoidance of the descriptor "gay" threatens the very existence of the lifestyle it denotes is in a sense exactly backwards; one must recognize that the word itself holds no inherent meaning, and is simply an arbitrary syllable, whose referent is subject to any sort of elaboration or dismissal of meaning. However, to adopt the term for one's self is to assume its understood meaning: it is, in fact, a sort of voluntary "cultural straightjacketing." It seems to me that what is really being criticized is the perfectly natural process of connotative evolution. When blacks abandoned the term "negro," black culture did not dissolve. If "gay" is to be redefined to refer to a certain set of characteristics present in some, but not all, of the homosexual community...so what? Another word will take its place to refer to homosexuals generically. In my opinion, "gay" is a lost cause. It is the property of the public as a whole, and now is flavored with our society's general regard for homosexuality; it is often used by younger straight people as a pejorative. Let them have it, and as our understanding of the complicated social dynamics of our community becomes increasingly nuanced, we will continue to appropriate appropriately, as we always have. Its just a word.
The other problem is an unpleasant sort of reactionism, evinced both by the resistance to semantic evolution, but also, and more distressingly, by the suggestion that there is something cowardly about distancing oneself from a word which may have come to suggest a lifestyle very unlike one's own. If the word "gay" naturally invokes the collective gay stereotype (the dualities of witty/snarky, fashionable/vain, handsome/preening, and so on), and those characteristics don't appropriately describe you, then for god's sake, reject it! There is nothing honorable about retaining a word in the name of its heritage, and even less in the name of tradition.
I make the following proposition, instead. Let us no longer feel meaningfully defined by, or perpetuate allegiance to, the words which suggest our homosexuality. Rather than attempt to force a friendly image onto a word whose history is insurmountable, let us instead publicly present something much less mutable, and also much harder to misinterpret: we are first, and most importantly, people. "Gay" only defines us as much as we allow, and frankly, it's among the least descriptive, and the least interesting, of our characteristics. To truly resist self-confinement, do not affect to wear an ill-fitting label with pride; instead, dismiss out of hand the necessity for the label in the first place. The truest, purest gay pride, the most admirable and dignified image we may present, is that of a community who regards its sexuality as it expects the rest of the world to: with the indifference born of utter acceptance.
thanks for the lesson in general semiotics jordan. if i wasn't with kyle before, i am now. the most aggravating thing about this textbook zombie drone is the idea that total acceptance breeds indifference, when i think exactly the opposite is true.
How does one die for a word? If you're talking about gay-bashing victims, the issue is not the word but the restrictions society places on how people are allowed to express their sexualities. Which is exactly what you're doing when you dismiss my desire to stop describing my sexuality with a label that doesn't accurately describe it. (I'm not putting your polemic on a par with murder, I'm saying that the difference is only one of degree.)
Jordan's comment might be pedantic (sorry Jordan :) -- I get a little stuffy myself sometimes), but somebody needed to point out that Kyle's argument is incoherent. If Kyle is going to throw around expressions like "social construct," then I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting him to be more rigorous in his reasoning.
Regarding this comment thread:
"Drummond always says that an ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure." - M'Lynn Eatenton
i really don't care what people label themselves as. i really don't. but i'd like to know exactly how gay fails to describe anyone who is only interested in having sex with someone of their own gender. exactly how don't you fit into that? (and i'm not shouting this, please try and remain calm. i genuinely want to know)
"...i'd like to know exactly how gay fails to describe anyone who is only interested in having sex with someone of their own gender. exactly how don't you fit into that?
--adam isn't here
Here you go:
GAY
Madonna, Queer Eye, Will & Grace, Cher, PnP, Gay Face, Gay accents,
Gay-only neighborhoods, Gay-only bars & restaurants, Gay-only resorts, insecurity that produces addiction and hostility, clothes two sizes too small, etc.
HOMOSEXUAL
attraction to the same sex. that's it. just simple biological sexual orientation.
Wow, the anonymous discussion is blowing up. That is a discussion for another day.
While people on here have tried to support or rebuke Kyle's post, it comes down no one will ever live up to the "gay" identify. It falls in line with the ideals of masculinity and feminity. No one will ever be completely "gay" as our society has defined. Everyone straight or gay has "gay" traits or traits that do not align with heteronormative behavior for one's gender. No matter how not "gay" you think you are, you at least like something "gay" whether you are homosexual or not.
I might actually use Anonymous #5's suggestion of calling a gay friend a cocksucker if he does not identify as "gay". It always me to be inappropriate, and allow us both to laugh at gender and sexual orientation constructs while being technically accurate.
"Drummond always says that an ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure." - M'Lynn Eatenton
Yowch! Touche.
"thanks for the lesson in general semiotics jordan. if i wasn't with kyle before, i am now. the most aggravating thing about this textbook zombie drone is the idea that total acceptance breeds indifference, when i think exactly the opposite is true." -adamisnthere
Apologies for the pedantic nature of my post. I can see why it may be frustrating. It doesn't, however, relieve you of the duty to make judgments that are informed by relevant criteria (one would hope you feel obligated to this). Rejecting my position on the grounds of my "textbook zombie dron[ing?]" is lazy thinking, and aligning behind Kyle out of distaste for the way I write serves only to provide a gleaming example of the sort of shallow analysis that pollutes otherwise meaningful discourse, and the effect is further exacerbated by no attempt to defend, or even explain your contrary position.
Instead of presenting what is, in effect, a jazzed-up flame, do you care to affect a little pedantry and explain your claims, assuming there is some logic behind them?
I am sorry for not proofreading my post. That is rough on the eyes.
uhhh. i did disagree with you quite pointedly. i just didn't have to blather on and on with five dollar words to get to the point. i don't think that total acceptance is the same as indifference. if anything, total acceptance would engender greater concern for the needs of any specific subset of people. not that i think "total acceptance" is the goal. i'd settle for a green card and job protection.
re: adam isnt here
Boo. Hardly worth the cost of all those big silly words.
you're telling me.
Though i assume the misuse of "semiotics" was free.
LOL! Jordan you are hilarious. Thanks.
To some extent, I think this discussion, at least in part, is an extension of one started last week by the Dispatches column that I penned.
In that column I wondered how much the social construct that we see as "Gay lifestyle" has to do with the oppression that we face. I'm afraid some confusion occurred as to my opinion.
Let me be clear. I'm not one of the people interested in throwing off the label gay. I think as a label that it is concise, well-known, and helpful. But I also realize that it comes with connotations.
It is a word which we picked as a community to refer to ourselves. It is important to understand why, as well. In the 1950s, "gay" just meant "happy." Well, in the 1960s, we told the world that "gay" (happy) was precisely what we homosexuals were with our lives.
And so from then on, "gay" came to be almost synonymous with "homosexual." But not quite. I, for one, have always made a distinction between "gay" and "homosexual" when it comes to the coming out process. For example, I was born homosexual--that is, with an attraction to people of the same sex--but I did not come out to myself or others as gay until I was 20.
I think that "gay" in the personal sense means that you have come to accept yourself. Once you've made that step, whether or not anyone else accepts you, I think gay applies. Before that, you're just homosexual in my eyes. But even I blur that distinction in conversation.
Because "gay" also refers to a lifestyle. In my opinion it's a generic lifestlye, not a particular bar-hopping, curcuit-partying, madonna-loving type of lifestyle, but just the lifestyle of gay people. You see, I am gay. I call myself gay. I have no problem with the word gay as it applies to me. But I don't like bar-hopping, I've never even been to a curcuit party, and I don't think Madonna's all that.
But I understand that "gay" comes with baggage. If there are some out there who don't wish to refer to themselves as "gay," I have no problem with it. Personally, I believe in calling someone what they wish to be called.
Gay, as a lifestyle, has come to be synonymous with some of the fruitier aspects of gay culture, but by and large, I think even most heterosexuals realize that there is some variety among us. Take Police Academy, for instance. In that movie, the gay bar, the Blue Oyster, is full of leather daddies dancing the tango to a catchy little tune called "El Bimbo." Clearly not a twinky situation at all.
But despite all of that, "gay" is just a word. So is "homosexual". They often mean the same thing, but frequently they mean very different things. Despite that, no one dies for words. They die for the things the words are based on.
People who are subject to homophobic attacks aren't attacked because they use the label "gay" or "schwul" or anything else to refer to themselves. They are attacked because they are something. They might have been attacked because they have an attraction to persons of the same sex, or they might have been attacked because they fit some stereotype that their attackers found threatening. But rarely is someone attacked merely because of a label.
If we choose to move on to a new word, it does not threaten the gay liberation movement. The NAACP still fights for the rights of African-Americans even decades after "colored" became an offensive term. But no matter what blacks call themselves, they are still a racial minority, and the change in names has not stopped their determination to acertain their rights.
It won't stop us either. But whatever we call ourseleves, Kyle is right. We have to take ownership of the term. And we have to take pride in it. It just doesn't have to be "gay."
I also think that Kyle misinterprets what people are doing when they shed the monikker "gay." They are not, as he says, "shed[ding] their gay identity," they are only shedding the label. They're still homosexual. I almost never call myself "homosexual" but I still have sex with men (technically just one man, but we won't get hung up on semantics). A label is a label. An identity is so much more. And it is our identities which we must truly take pride in, not our labels.
But to simplify matters, let's just look at the dictionary. According to dictionary.com, "Gay" can mean "having or showing a merry or lively mood" or just "homosexual". So, it appears they are synonyms. However, the entry includes a usage note: The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to people whose orientation is to the same sex, in large part because it is the term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexuality as opposed to sexual practice.
So, while the words are bound up, they aren't the same. My friend just told me that watching Frasier is "gay". I don't think that subbing "homosexual" would be accurate in this case.
But despite all this, I have no objections to Kyle's final paragraph. Indeed, "calling yourself gay" does mean "accepting your homosexuality." Being gay does not mean rejecting anything. It is very much about "telling the world" what gayness means to you. We should embrace and expand the word "gay" and we should take pride in it.
However, if we do chose to raise up a new word in its place, that does not change who we are. It only changes our label. And we can still do all the things Kyle encourages us to do, no matter what we call ourselves.
For now, for me, that's "Gay." G-A-Y, gay. And I'm proud to say it.
GAY
Usage Note: The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to people whose orientation is to the same sex, in large part because it is the term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexuality as opposed to sexual practice. Many writers reserve gay for males, but the word is also used to refer to both sexes; when the intended meaning is not clear in the context, the phrase gay and lesbian may be used. Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in There were two gays on the panel; here phrasing such as Two members of the panel were gay should be used instead. But there is no objection to the use of the noun in the plural to refer collectively either to gay men or to gay men and lesbians, so long as it is clear whether men alone or both men and women are being discussed. See Usage Note at homosexual(see below).
HOMOSEXUAL
Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use. See Usage Note at gay (see above).
Sorry, forgot to include the reference to the definitons in the above comment.
It is from the American Heritage Dictionary.
This conversation seems to be breaking down into two camps. 1) a group that uses "gay" and "homosexual" interchangeably. 2) a group that recognizes that "homosexual" is a state of being. It is concrete. Whether or not others believe it is a choice is not relevant to the the fact that, even if it were a choice, the definition would remain the same.
According to the Merriam-Webster online medical dictionary used by the National Institutes of Health:
HOMOSEXUAL
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex -- compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex -- compare HETEROSEXUAL 1b
- ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly /-emacron/ adverb
The word "gay" is not in the medical dictionary. Look for yourself.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html
In 1973, when the American Psychiatric Association removed same-gender attraction from the revised DSM-II, the word they used was Homosexual.
Conversely, "gay" is defined by the individual, and the author betrays his own position by using the term "gay culture" four times, and references "our culture" once. Culture is not innate. As best we can tell, homosexuality is. The author also poses the question, "If this is the life of a gay person, why would someone want to be known as 'gay'?" I am guessing he meant is rhetorically, but isn't that what we all want the freedom to explore?
Why are some people so determined to push their word, with its myriad connotations, onto individuals who are sure they are homosexual, but want to determine how that innate characteristic will manifest culturally?
I would also like to know how someone dies "for" a word.
"Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in There were two gays on the panel; here phrasing such as Two members of the panel were gay should be used instead."
Is this true? Can someone explain the reasoning behind this? The only rationale I can surmise for this objection would be balking at reduction through metonymy, but its easy to conceive of a situation where this would be acceptable. So, what's the impetus here?
thanks matt. we're pretty much on the same page there.
and jordan: you sure are faggy for someone who isn't gay.
Snip, snap!
Okay,
Sorry, I have one more thought on this.
Human beings are shallow, mean-spirited and spiritually stunted. It is the human condition, and one that few people ever outgrow. Human beings are mean to each other, prone to gossip, play games of one-ups-man-ship in the office and in the bars.
I completely reject the Puritanical notion that all human beings are inherently evil or bad. I saw the two or three sentences about good people tagged on as an after thought, a glimpse of hopefulness buried under the bitter, jaded view of the world? But it hardly balances out the volumes of negative things said about human beings and the "gay community."
The idea that homosexuals have to be gay in order to belong to the club is one of the reasons fewer homosexuals are trying to join the club. The author asks, "Why discard a word that can have such an expansive and beautiful meaning?"
Do you think a word can truly define the enormity of who we are as individuals? Does the word sky really tell you everything you need to know about the clear blue sky, the orange sky before a thunderstorm, they green sky before a hurricane, the night sky? A word is a word.
And whether you like it or not, the word gay comes with baggage. Gay is the label sitting on the floor when we come out of the closet. It is so easy to pick it up and put it on without giving thought to whether or not it fits. I more closely associate with the homosexual individuals who make the conscious choice to assuage gay and embrace queer or nothing at all.
I am a homosexual, and I love being one. If there was a pill I could take to make me heterosexual, I would buy as many as I could and throw them in the ocean. But I view "gay" as a cliche. I don't want to redefine the word. I want to define myself as an individual. If anything, I am interested in demonstrating that being a homosexual is about more than the gender of the person I screw. In my life and with my partner and my friends, it is about way more than that.
As things stand, I cannot escape having to prove I am not a gay cliche, and I don't want to waste any energy on it. Instead I want to expend my time and effort letting younger homosexuals know that they have choices. They can be anything they want to be, and that includes being something other than gay.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that I am not proud of being a homosexual. Maybe someone put a "gay" label outside you closet that fits, but some of ours didn't. I am a homosexual. I love my male partner and all the things that make him a man (hairy legs, hair on his chest, stubble, the way he smells, and his male parts), but all those people you mentioned at the beginning of your article who died. The way I chose to show my respect for them is by exercising the freedom to make up my own mind. They didn't fight and die so I could be gay. They fought and gave their lives so that I could love another man, and not be limited by the same rules, laws and social constraints against which they actually did fight.
That is why I say alot of LGBT people don't get the Civil Rights Movement. It wasn't about having celebrating the loss and victimization. It was and is about taking every advantage of freedom, fully exercising our rights, and making up our own minds about who we want to be and how we choose to live our lives. That is what the Gay Rights Movement was about. So limit yourself if you want, but I am going to explore all of my options. I owe our predecessors at least that much.
Jordan - if I can bear to copy down the atrocious sentence, I would like to address:
"The only rationale I can surmise for this objection would be balking at reduction through metonymy"
Yes, this is exactly the grounds for objection. If offense at the statement, "We have a black for President" confuses you, return perhaps to your own statement, that "we are first, and most importantly, people".
I must also take issue with your jibe about the "misuse of 'semiotics'" by adamisnthere. Concern with the "linguistic interaction between a word and is referent" is absolutely central to semiotics; I might direct you back to Saussure or Peirce. If adamisnthere misused the word, it is only because the content of your original post was too garbled to accurately fit into that discipline.
Jordan - one more thing: "reduction through metonymy" is a screeching pleonasm.
i MET ferdinand de saussure. you can't use a bulldozer to study orchids, he said.
Well, I appreciate the response to my question, though it offered no new insight (but yeah, that sentence was ugly, right?).
Perhaps it's uncouth of me, but since your reply was framed by more objection to the way I've written (as if that's really what's important here), I will defend myself.
Metonymy is inherently reductive, of course, but I thought it fair to emphasize this quality, since this reduction is what is actually important to the point, instead of the metonymy. The other option to arrive at the same meaning would be to say something like "balking at being reduced by the equation of a single one of their characteristics with their person as a whole," which I personally find rather more pleonastic.
In regards to my somewhat juvenile quip about semiotics: I've come to understand "semiotics" to refer to a much broader field of study, including all forms of linguistic study which focus on signs and symbols. I think it's right to say that my short primer on semantics is not fairly characterized as "a lesson in general semiotics," in the same way that calling an explanation of real-world skepticism a "lesson in general epistemology" is a misuse of the word.
Your criticisms, unfortunately, aren't exactly compelling enough to send me back to Peirce.
oh god. please. stop. typing.
Jordan - Respectfully, then: you are not arguing about the misuse of the word 'semiotics', but rather the misuse of the term 'general lesson'. Be careful when mocking logical weakness in others.
I can defend my objections to ways of writing (I do believe that's what's important here, particularly because this was a post regarding language and personal expression), but I will try to engage your original post apart from its style.
-- "major flaws of thought"
Please correct me if I misunderstand, but your own post is a rightful target of your own accusation. You make an argument, and then contradict its premise.
"to assume [gay's] understood meaning: it is, in fact, a sort of voluntary 'cultural straightjacketing'"
vs
"'Gay' only defines us as much as we allow"
I don't know which of these is more representative of your opinions, but I will proceed under the assumption that you are arguing the first claim; I am more sympathetic to the second.
It seems much less interesting to me to abandon a word because of its immediate status than it does to work towards expanding the scope of meaning for a word that causes us dissatisfaction. 'Gay' is, as you say, the property of the public, and it has indeed absorbed "society's general regard" and the pejorative usage of young straight people. However, we are members of that public, and it excites me to think that we are in a position to challenge and realign a word that matters to our lives.
-- "'Gay' is a lost cause".
I think it is flatly ridiculous to claim that the history of the word is "insurmountable". Reagan never uttered the word ‘gay’ in public, and mentioned ‘homosexuals’ sparingly and only in the context of the AIDS epidemic. Obama uses ‘gay’ in an expansive and empathetic way; if he can shed the word of its undesirable connotations, why can’t we? Furthermore, if time has encumbered ‘gay’ with implications of wicked lifestyles and practices, it has also given rise to ‘gay rights’, ‘gay marriage’, ‘gay adoption’ and even the innocuous ‘gaydar’. The only thing insurmountable about the history of the word is its continued expansion of meaning. Recognizing this capacity for expansion, why should we miss our chance to invest the word with whatever we want?
-- “There is nothing honorable about retaining a word in the name of its heritage”
I would argue that abandoning 'gay' cannot be anything other than a conciliatory gesture; to me, abandonment can only say "come on, we may have sex with men, but we're not like those people". I sincerely believe that bigotry against gay/homosexual/queer men arises not from reasoned distaste for some sort of lifestyle or stereotype, but from the profound challenge posed to gender structures by men who have sex with men. Moving away from ‘gay’ because of its connotations is self-defeating; dodging the word won’t dodge “society’s general regard”, because that regard is directed at something besides the word and its connotations. By standing behind ‘gay’, we can sidestep issues of lifestyle or stereotype by remaining identifiable and confronting the root causes of discomfort with alternative male behaviors.
-- “self-confinement” and an “ill-fitting label”
Maybe, as you say, ‘gay’ describes the least interesting thing about us. Even granting that an ideal world would be free of labels (and I would not grant that), ours is not an ideal world. With legislation to be passed, with bigots to be converted, and with any goal of community assembly, our group requires a label. Semiotics aside, a word can bring people together.
Finally, in regard to that word, there is the simple matter of aesthetics. 'Homosexual' is an awful hybrid of Greek and Latin, with clinical connotations. 'Queer' suffers from the burden placed on it by academia, and it remains largely confrontational. ‘Gay’ is what we’ve got, and giving it up is far less intriguing to me than going through the grunt word for redefinition.
Anonymous,
I, and I assume others who don't want to be called gay, are NOT arguing for an expanded definition of the word. If anything, I would like a restricted definition of the word to mean only same-sex erotic attraction. Obviously some of you anonymouses (anonymice?) and others believe that it already has that simple meaning, but I disagree.
As the "Ben" whose comment Matt referenced in his Dispatches post last week (2/11/09) I am glad to see this discussion taking place.
For me it is self-evident that "Gay" is not a sexual orientation but a cultural identity that varies between cultures and across time. It is equally self-evident that "homosexual" is a sexual orientation. I am proud to claim it.
I strongly agree with Ed (2/17/09 7:45PM)that civil rights activists fought and sacrificed not for us to capitulate but for us to have choices about who we are and how we live.
Post a Comment