"That's so gay" - enough to get twelve-year-olds suspended

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Osweld

Excuse me, you seem to be confused. It is you and Drake that are acting as the 'language police' and dictating to us what words mean, what we are justified in thinking, and what we have a right to interpret things as.

Hardly, the language police are the linguistic puritans on this thread who seem to think they have the right to tell teenagers that they don't know what they mean when they'r talking.

If the language police are right, we wouldn't have the word in the first place because we'd be siting around waiting for words to magicaly form and develop, without giving them any meaning on our own.

I find this comment opaque.

Thanks, another lesson on interpretation! This quote can be interpreted either as the meaning you intend or, to people who share a differeing opinion and view on the subject, as saying that we wouldn't be having this argument had people not turned a reference to sexuality and identity into a slur.

Groan.... Words are subject to interpretation, but there are shared norms of correctness within speech communities, without which language would be impossible.

I can see what you intend to say in this case because of your previous comments, but when I read it I see the complete opposite of what I know you're trying to say.

Again - I find this comment opaque.

There are two uses for the word. One is a reference to sexuality, lifestyle, and personal identity. The other is a slur.

Unfortunately, there are now more than two.

I am having a hard time sifering out your intentions in this one, though. I think what you are asking is if it is alright for someone to be offended by the term "train driver", and yes, it absolutely is. Infact, I know for a fact that certain people would be offeneded at this because train driving is menial and low-wage job. A pompous aristocrat would no doubt look down apon train drivers for that reason and associate it with negative meanings. Welcome to the world of language!

No - my intention was that people who think "train driver" means "sh*head" are mistaken about the meaning of the term, as are the teen-persecutors in this thread.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Hardly, the language police are the linguistic puritans on this thread who seem to think they have the right to tell teenagers that they don't know what they mean when they'r talking.

Apparently it's not just teenagers who don't understand the ramifications of the words they use as slurs -- you and Drake are apparently oblivious as well.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Agathon
Groan.... Words are subject to interpretation, but there are shared norms of correctness within speech communities, without which language would be impossible.

Yes, you are right, there are shared norms. The comon shared norm lately is that "gay''s old meaning, of happy and frivolous is no longer applicable. It now reffers to a specific sexual orientation, and as an extension of that, anyting to be construed as part of such an identity.

Please explain how then, this new meaning of gay could be associated with a negative connotation unless you seek to denote something negative about the sexual oreintation. For example, why was Liberace's method of dress and behavior to be mocked? Was it simply a fashion judgement? Or a musical one? or perhaps his actions ebign seen as effeminate, this coming form a male, were to be seen as inherently outlandish (interesting use of the notion of "out", as in not part of the group..) and thus negative?

You claim not to know how this word came about, fine. You are though a professor of Philosophy. weave for us a possible entimology, given the current usage of gay ("thats gay is a relatively new usage), in which the use of the word gay is not meant in any way to be derogative either towwards the sexuality in general, or in ways of showing it, like, lets say, being "flamming". Oh, while you are at it, also explain to us peons why being "flamming" is wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't straight people use the term "gay" for "homosexual" where you live?

mindseye:

Look at my posts, I use the two interchangeably.

The only reason for this is that gay people use the term themselves.

If you were to use a different word, I would use that word as well.

Boris:

One of the reasons "***" grew as a slur was because "gay" was starting to lose it's steam as one, since being "gay" wasn't so bad anymore.

So why are you so offended by this use of gay if gay has lost it's steam as an insult?

Just proof that even in the face of being shown something you say is offensive, you'll still blithely go on using it because, hey, you just don't care. How nice.

Is it offensive to gay people if straight people use the word amongst themselves?

Sava!

At last, we see Mr. Simmons arrive!
Merci beaucoup.

Gepap

Now, maybe is just my spidersense kicking in, but I hardly doubt that the first itme someone started saying "thats gay", it was taken as a sign of approval.

Your dialogue illustrates the point I was trying to make earlier. Words are flexible. What is to stop people from redefining the insult to an affirmation?

[SpencerH]

I didnt make it through the entire 14 pages before deciding to skip to the end. So apologies if these points came up before.

You've got to have your head up your ass if you dont know that the phrase "thats so gay" has negative connotations for homosexuals. I agree though, that it is aimed at the effeminate stereotype more than at all gays.

Its funny that many people have been talking about the use of *** as a 'kinder' word. If I wanted to insult someone by suggesting homosexual tendencies when I was in school in the 60's and early 70's, I would call them fags, homo's, queers, or ********ers (usually with ****in attached to it). I dont think that gay was in widespread use to denote homosexual until the late 70's to early eighties.

It seems to me that the problem here is that the thought police may be able to ban one word (or usage in this case) 'de jour' that they find offensive but what will they do about the next? Banning words wont change the negative attitude towards homosexuals amongst the hetero community especially amongst pre- and pubescent boys. Homosexuals have an image problem. I think even Boris has said he was not thrilled by the more outrageous of the participants in various gay pride marches. The stereotype of a gay male is that of a limp-wristed interior decorator. So long as that streotype exists in the public eye there will always be terms like '***' or 'thats so gay'. Banning the word or punishing a boy for using it wont alter anything. The image needs to change first.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

I find the "proof" argument absurd. Do you have any proof that it is NOT OFFENSIVE?

That's not what he's talking about. He means there are alternative hypotheses regarding the genesis of this use of the term and that to argue that it is intentionally offensive is to assume without evidence that one of the hypotheses is correct.

if not, then why are you against removing the usage if some find it offensiv,a s some clearly do?

Because mere offence is no grounds for censorship. If it were then we would be censoring things when people had made mistakes about them. People who don't understand the correct meaning of the word "niggardly" may believe it is a racist term and be offended by it. But they have no right to prohibit others from using it, because they are wrong about its meaning. That's the main reason we've been giving.

Tht makes no sense to me. "Ho, some people find it offensive, but even if we have qords that can express the very same idea without giving insult to anyone, lets use it, even though I can;t show you that it is not meant as an affront to being homosexual." This to me is what you are saying..I can't prove to you it isn;t mean to slander gays (you can;t, you constantly ask for any explination of how this came about), obviosuly (as we see form this thread) people do find it offensive, but all you can say is"well, so what, suck it up...". Well, that to me is the least defensible agrument of all.

No. What I've been asking is "do people have good grounds to find it offensive" or in other words, "in finding it offensive are people making a mistake of fact." I think they are.

We may not know where it comes from, but language develops in patters, patterns that can be reasoned out. For example, before gay, you say there was lame. OK, why lame? Why that word and not, lets say, tall? Both are just adjectives to explain some physical condition. Isn;t one as good as the next? And yet..we use the one that reffers to a physical problem, a defect and not the one that is generally neutral, to describe soemthing negatively.

Some of this has been dealt with already.

And lest explore Agathon's notion, that it refers to "flamming gays". Please explain to me why this is not still offensive? Why is attacking and individual for their manner of dress and act? Did Liberace hurt anyone? Why was his behavior to be mocked?

I can't believe you are asking this as a serious question. I think most people would say that Liberace's style of dress and behaviour was to be mocked. Even Liberace himself were he still with us - he was being deliberately outlandish and silly to get a reaction. When we laugh at his style of dress we are laughing with him and not at him. If people in the street wore some of Liberace's old clothes, do you not think they would look ridiculous? If gay people thought it was so contemptuous, why do famous gay people like Ian McKellen deliberately act up this way to get people to laugh? (I nearly died laughing when he was on Conan O'Brien last year).

In any case I think it would be pretty hard to use this stereotype to offend someone because it has been discredited. Our stereotypical gay person these days is basically a normal person who happens to be gay, like Ellen DeGeneres.

Even if ,as you say Agathon is stating, it reffers to the "flammers", inherent in the critism is an attack against males acting in some method seen as female, and being effeminite is one of the most basic attacks against homosexuals.

The "flaming" stereotype is mocked by gays and non-gays alike because it isn't true. And it is generally not mocked in a hurtful manner but in the way that people respond to the outlandish British TV host Julian Clary - we laugh with him, because the "flaming" stereotype is a ridiculous character which is charmingly funny. After all somebody that looks like a cross between a circus clown and a ballerina looks pretty funny - and he knows it - that's why he dresses that way.

Anyway, so if Agathon and Drake declared that people have no right to be offended by the word "train driver" because they somehow think it means "sh*thead" we would be so wrong and be deemed fools by the linguistic elect?

Give me a break and respond to the actual argument.

I find this answer absurd. "Somehow we think gay is ebing used to denote something negative?". Please Agathon, i beg you, post some place in which someone said "that's so gay!" when aproving of something.

The point here is one about mistaking the meanings of expressions - that's the point. Please don't try and stretch the example.

Here's an example - when a gay friend had "Stroppy B*tch" painted in large letters on the side of his motorcycle, I said to him, "That is sooo gay." He laughed and agreed.

[GePap]

Your dialogue illustrates the point I was trying to make earlier. Words are flexible. What is to stop people from redefining the insult to an affirmation?

Becuase we see the word being used as a slur, and not by the group itself.

Words are not that flexible: Moron, or Assh0le can hardly become positive overnight. Look at what Boris said: homosexuals decided to let gay go, as it were, and no longer take offense to it being used as a adjective to describe them. But here it is being used as a adjective to denote the inferiority of something. That is a new, and inherently negative meaning.

Like I asked Drake.. we go from using one word to denote somehting being wrong, "lame" which derives form a description of someone with a physical impediment to using a word in its place, "gay", that is used to denote a sexual orientation that is minority and in the eys of many, wrong. I see a pattern forming. Don't you?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's not what he's talking about. He means there are alternative hypotheses regarding the genesis of this use of the term

Again, why is this even a point of contention?

Of course everyone can believe the word originated in different ways.

Gays seem to (logically) assume the slur "gay" is directly derived from their sexuality, so regardless of how many "altnernative hypotheses" you put forth, people are still offended by it.

I'm not saying we should pass laws banning the use of the word as a slur or anything, I'm simply saying schools should discourage the use of the word which describes someone's sexual identity as a slur.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

Yes, you are right, there are shared norms. The comon shared norm lately is that "gay''s old meaning, of happy and frivolous is no longer applicable. It now reffers to a specific sexual orientation, and as an extension of that, anyting to be construed as part of such an identity.

It also has a new shared norm amongst teens which means "lame".

Please explain how then, this new meaning of gay could be associated with a negative connotation unless you seek to denote something negative about the sexual oreintation. For example, why was Liberace's method of dress and behavior to be mocked? Was it simply a fashion judgement? Or a musical one? or perhaps his actions ebign seen as effeminate, this coming form a male, were to be seen as inherently outlandish (interesting use of the notion of "out", as in not part of the group..) and thus negative?

Anyone here who finds Liberace's style of dress and deportment to be anything other than ridiculous and outlandish, please raise your hand?

You claim not to know how this word came about, fine. You are though a professor of Philosophy. weave for us a possible entimology, given the current usage of gay ("thats gay is a relatively new usage), in which the use of the word gay is not meant in any way to be derogative either towwards the sexuality in general, or in ways of showing it, like, lets say, being "flamming". Oh, while you are at it, also explain to us peons why being "flamming" is wrong.

Oh no.... I did this about five pages ago. I'm not doing it again.

Look, I'm not saying this to be argumentative but you seem to be accusing me of failing to address points that I've already addressed in some detail in previous posts. I'd be quite happy to give up and agree with you if you can prove me wrong, but so far I haven't seen anything on this thread to make me change my mind.

[Ramo]

Egads folks, using "gay" as an insult is an insult to gays. What's so hard to understand?

The gratuitous use of this expression in such a homophobic environment as a grade school when kids are just discovering their sexuality is extremely insensitive towards gay and bi students.

[GePap]

It also has a new shared norm amongst teens which means "lame".

And "lame' was negative. Oh, and why was the word "lame" used in the first place?

Anyone here who finds Liberace's style of dress and deportment to be anything other than ridiculous and outlandish, please raise your hand?

The question,which you failed to answer, is why that sort of behavior seen as outlandish? Cause its not "manly" enough?

You have failed to show that "that's gay" wans't meant in a negative way. You have also failed to show why authorities should not try to discourage the use of this phrase if it is found to be offensive, just as they act againt many words and phrases meant as insults or expletives. Tow days suspension, as i said at the beginning, was excessive, but some sort of lower level punishmwent was certainly in order.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I didnt make it through the entire 14 pages before deciding to skip to the end. So apologies if these points came up before.

You've got to have your head up your ass if you dont know that the phrase "thats so gay" has negative connotations for homosexuals. I agree though, that it is aimed at the effeminate stereotype more than at all gays.

It does but I think they shouldn't feel this way and that if they do it is based on a misinterpretation. My main reason for objecting is that this sort of reasoning is a typical strategy employed in debates about PC language and I think it is fallacious because it ultimately robs the speaker of the ability to mean what he says and gives all the power to the hearer to hear what he wants to.

Its funny that many people have been talking about the use of *** as a 'kinder' word.

Eh? Who said that?

If I wanted to insult someone by suggesting homosexual tendencies when I was in school in the 60's and early 70's, I would call them fags, homo's, queers, or ********ers (usually with ****in attached to it). I dont think that gay was in widespread use to denote homosexual until the late 70's to early eighties.

Where I come from it has been a PC term for a long time.

It seems to me that the problem here is that the thought police may be able to ban one word (or usage in this case) 'de jour' that they find offensive but what will they do about the next? Banning words wont change the negative attitude towards homosexuals amongst the hetero community especially amongst pre- and pubescent boys. Homosexuals have an image problem. I think even Boris has said he was not thrilled by the more outrageous of the participants in various gay pride marches.

That's true, but I think that the United States lags behind other countries when it comes to gay rights. After all, how many congressional representatives in the US are transexual ex-prostitutes voted in by the most conservative electorate in the country. We've had one for years in NZ and she is very highly regarded as a politician.

The stereotype of a gay male is that of a limp-wristed interior decorator. So long as that streotype exists in the public eye there will always be terms like '***' or 'thats so gay'. Banning the word or punishing a boy for using it wont alter anything. The image needs to change first.

I actually think that the image has changed. When most people I know think of a gay person they are most likely to think of a gay celebrity or Kevin Spacey (c'mon Kev, we all know... ). That's part of the previous 14 pages of argument.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ramo
Egads folks, using "gay" as an insult is an insult to gays. What's so hard to understand?

It depends.

The gratuitous use of this expression in such a homophobic environment as a grade school when kids are just discovering their sexuality is extremely insensitive towards gay and bi students.

Then why do they use it as well?

[Imran Siddiqui]

After all, how many congressional representatives in the US are transexual ex-prostitutes voted in by the most conservative electorate in the country.

I don't think the 'gay' would be a problem as much as the 'prostitute' .

[Ramo]

Then why do they use it as well?

They don't. Granted, I didn't know all that many openly gay people in high school or earlier, but they usually didn't use "gay" as a synonym for "lame."