Ok, let me explain to you why straight bros saying "gay" when they mean "pathetic" and "lame" (NEVER "harsh", "unfair" or "hopeless") is FAR more damaging than a site changing a column's title using a word that has been reappropriated for over a decade by the community it used to insult.
You are just wrong. It is a subculture of that community who have adopted the word, not the entire community. And the word STILL is used to insult, and STILL is recieved as such by everyone else, so its a ridiculous notion to suggest that the word 'used' to be an insult like it no longer is....IT IS.
Furthermore, the notion that cussing with the word gay is FAR worse than reappropriating queer, is just preoposterous.
In accepting the undertone that 'gay' can be associated with 'lame', 'pathetic' 'ridiculous' and all other negative descriptors at a subconscious or subtle level, how can you possibly regard that as worse than a blatant descriptor which means 'odd', 'peculiar' or 'weird', like those don't conjure negative stereotypes themselves.
The word itself contradicts the very identity of many gay individuals who do not see themselves, nor want to be percieved, as odd, or different, or peculiar, or indeed more extensive descriptors of greater negativity, like abnormal.
Reappropriation is a positive move, and using a reappropriated word to try and be more inclusive (whether you like the word or not, today it is a broad term that encompasses gay people, as well as many other non-labeled sexual and gender minorities) is a good thing. Sure, people who need to be offended, will be offended, especially if they have no notion of modern queer culture, as you clearly don't. But in the end, it's an American site and it's reacting to American culture. And HERE the word "queer" is massively accepted as positive.
So massively accepted as positive that barely anybody had a negative thing to say about it.....but erm.
Look, reappropriation of a word works for those who accept it. I don't, others don't. Those who do, do so because they are a part of, or appreciate the queer subculture. They represent perfectly what queer means. In HuffPosts case, it is a very suitable word for trying to be as inclusive of all the 'ODD' persons that don't fit neatly into that cumbersome LGBT acronym, but it is a bad choice to adopt a slur of gay men as an umbrella term, because it pushes many in that group away. It is counter-productive. Even lesbians voiced their opposition to the use.
And just to pull up on the dig that i clearly know little about the queer culture, you are absolutely right, but i choose it to be that way. Queer culture is unappealing to me. I have next to no interest in it. I am perfectly happy in my male gender identity, i have no interest in wearing women's clothes (in whole, or as an accesory), i have no interest in liberal arts, i don't wear make-up, i don't have any kinky eccentricities, i don't 'style' my hair, i don't wear tight and colourful clothing, i'm not a militant, i don't hang out at gay venues.
I'm just a gay male. I'm a normal guy as far as i'm concerned. And i take offence to being described as queer. Simple as that.
