That's so gay!

[thisisinteresting]

That's so paraplegic.

You got fired? That's hella handicapped, dawg! Shit.

 

[Hellax24]

Not sure of its usage in the US, but in the UK the word "spastic" was originally the correct term for someone with cerebral palsy. The word became so commonly used as a term of abuse or to describe something useless or broken that the main cerebral palsy charity The Spastic Society changed its name to SCOPE. Unfortunately, within months the term 'Scoper' apeared as an abusive term for the disabled.

I have never particularly liked the word "gay" which was only adopted fairly recently (60s?) to avoid using either abusive (faggot, queer) or medical (homosexual, invert) terms to describe our "condition". Personally, I prefer to reclaim terms of abuse, such as queer, in the same way the N word has been reclaimed. Also queer suggests a difference, an otherness to the 'norm' which is vital to avoid assimilation.

Oh Huney, The N-Word has never been reclaimed. It never belonged to the African-American people. Just because other people decided that's what we were does not make it fact.

CXXX

 

[asadoyayunta]

Oh Huney, The N-Word has never been reclaimed. It never belonged to the African-American people. Just because other people decided that's what we were does not make it fact.

CXXX

Sorry, I meant reclaim in the sense of "win away from vice or error", not meaning to imply a previous ownership.

 

[freefall]

My ears are deaf towards those words due to excessive exposure.

 

[Críostóir]

Does it bother you when people use terms to describe LGBT people in negative ways?

Such as

"that's so gay"
fag
faggot
homo
lesbo
nelly
pansy
fairy
etc

Is there a place for these terms? Or should they be permanently retired?

All except 'nelly' should be retired. 'Nelly' is an actual descriptive term. I do think it should be used with care to avoid insulting effeminate men (who are just as entitled to respect as anyone); in fact, in general it should be used primarily as a self-description, not as a label assigned by someone else.

You say "etc," but I think words need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 'Queer', for example, is a political label adopted by the community to include gay, Lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and other people who are members of sexual minorities of one sort or another. We don't have a good term otherwise, and giving the full list is cumbersome and generally leaves out someone...not to mention that I, for one, want to include sexual minorities I haven't personally encountered and wouldn't know how to name specifically!

Is it ok for LGBT folks to use these terms but not for str8 people? Or is it wrong for anybody to use them?

I think we shouldn't use them either, except when characterizing homophobia or accusing someone of it. In other words, we should use them only in heavily sarcastic tones, or in a context where the sarcasm is made clear by other means. We don't have special privileges on these otherwise; our use of them makes ignorant people think they're OK. I have this same problem with the use of the N word by African-descended people.

Does it make a difference if the person is obviously very intentionally being homophobic vs just using an expression without really thinking about its meaning?

Neither makes it OK, but the approach should be different. To the deliberate homophobe, one should be as confrontive as is compatible with personal safety. A gentler approach is appropriate for the thoughtless user.

Do you make a point to call people out when you hear them using these terms?

I'm not always as good about this as I should be. I think we can all try harder.

 

[ixthrock]

You're darn right words are powerful.

If you tell me you're offended and upset by the use of certain language, you've given me a very effective tool should I wish to offend or upset you. Unless it's just a not-very-reasoned political stance that causes your speech behaviour to reflect that certain language offends you, when you really won't be offended or upset at all should I use that language. In which case you'd just be playing me for a fool, or at least spouting blank ideology not very well grounded in your personal experience.

Hate offends me, stupidity offends me, ignorance... well, some things are easier to correct than others. Language is not something that can be "corrected;" Language corrects us. Anybody remeber the weight-loss candy "Ayds"?

Some people make more effective use of language than others... f'rinstance, say I ask you questions like:

"have you ever seen a picture of an elephant?" (visual remembered)
"how does that song go...'just a spoonful of sugar...'?" (auditory remembered)
"what does it feel like to twirl your body?" (kinesthetic remembered)

versus

"what would an elephant look like with an eagle's legs?" (visual constructed)
"what would it sound like if it had a beak instead of a trunk?" (auditory constructed)
"what would it feel like to be swept up in its talons?" (kinesthetic constructed)

for each type of question, there is a spot in your visual field that your eyes wander to while you're thinking about how to respond. The place you "look," while you search your memory banks or use your imagination, is fairly consistent for similiar questions. It differs from person to person, but each person uses the same sort of map. Neuro-Linguistic Programmers call these "visual accessing clues." Once you know the particular pattern someone uses, you know where it is "in their head" that they are "going to" when they are thinking of a response to your questions.

That's body language.

If we're going to police the words people use, why not just police the whole kit and kaboodle?