The term "homosexual"

[Haven]

During the past week, I have observed a number of people here using the word "homosexual" in reference to gay and lesbian people. Although some might not realize it, the term is considered offensive and demeaning to gay people. With the site's rule against cursing and offensive language, I find it surprising that such a term is allowed here. Would it be possible to put out a mod announcement clarifying that the term "homosexual(s)" in reference to a person / group of people isn't allowed? Thanks.

[Darias]

[Replying to post 10 by Haven]

Well, as a rule of thumb, call people whatever they want to be called.

Homosexual seems like the scientific term to me; it seems pretty dumb to label it derogatory just because WBC mentions it.

The strange thing is that "queer" is now more commonly accepted. I always felt like it was a really vicious slur, but I've used it recently as a synonym for my bisexuality -- and it still feels wrong. I guess it's like discovering you are black after thinking you are white all these years and then using the N word to describe yourself because some people think "African American" is offensive.

Labels are more of a pain in the arse than they're worth. Life would be much easier if we all could just say, "this is how much melanin I have, and I have a certain kind of genitalia, and I have a certain preference (nature/nuture/whateverthehell) for others with this kind of genitalia." Simple.

[Ooberman]

I suspect this is a move toward the more enlightened state in which we consider sexuality more like shades of color, and not Hetero or Homo.

Ideally, we would get to the point where healthy, loving sexuality isn't a concern. Ideally, society should concern itself with loving people as who they are and letting sexual preference be in the hands of the beholder: like choosing a favorite style of music, or liking a variety.

It would be a tragedy to leave Beauty and Attraction in the power of the most repressed in our society. They haven't proven that forcing one limit their sexual preferences is a virtue.

[elle]

[Replying to post 10 by Haven]
The strange thing is that "queer" is now more commonly accepted. I always felt like it was a really vicious slur, but I've used it recently as a synonym for my bisexuality -- and it still feels wrong. I guess it's like discovering you are black after thinking you are white all these years and then using the N word to describe yourself because some people think "African American" is offensive.

While I'm deeply conflicted about use of the "n" word because of how it was used against older members of my family in past decades (yes, I'm Black), I think that it is entirely possible for marginalized groups to reclaim words. I personally don't use the "n" word, but I have recently started increasingly referring to myself as queer instead of LGBT or lesbian. I feel it is a word that has been sufficiently reclaimed for me to be comfortable using it. It does a decent job of signaling that my sexual orientation and gender identity fall outside the majority, without having to explain any of the messy details. For example, I'm probably somewhat less than 100% gay (85%? 90%? who knows??), but I only have sexual relationships with women and don't feel the word bisexual would be accurate for me. I don't call myself transgender, but have always rejected gender binarism because it never applied to me. That much I knew even as a kid. There are dozens and dozens of gender labels and categories, and after researching the topic I decided that not having that exact 100% accurate and complete label was okay. I use queer because it seems to be an umbrella term that can cover all of that, and I can give longer explanations of what exactly it means in my case when it's a close friend or someone I have decided to connect with deeply.

I say all of this to say that we each have different understandings of, reactions to, and experiences with language. I think that Haven makes a good point, and I do bristle when I hear anti-gay statements use the word homosexual as if it were a slur. I also think that McCulloch is exactly right when he describes the "euphemism treadmill" (thank you for introducing me to that concept by the way--it's a very good descriptor). I think we ought to be very careful when we decide to police language and the words people use to describe themselves or others. This is an internet debating forum, not a newspaper or other media outlet, and different standards apply. "Homosexual" is an accurate, more clinical word for "gay/lesbian" and until there is widespread consensus that it has devolved from that to the level of the "f" word, I would be very hesitant in restricting its use.

[Nickman]

I heard about this on Glenn Beck and then on Hannity about two weeks ago. I find it ridiculous because the term homosexual is a true term. It defines a persons sexuality. It is also a term I use to replace gay, because gay became offensive some time ago. I have heard some friends say " that's homosexual" when speaking about something that is not cool. I also heard it used about someone's clothes. I feel that it comes down to how you use it.

[Haven]

I heard about this on Glenn Beck and then on Hannity about two weeks ago. I find it ridiculous because the term homosexual is a true term. It defines a persons sexuality.

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are hardly good sources for any information, let alone news on the LGBT community.

It is also a term I use to replace gay, because gay became offensive some time ago.

"Gay" is not offensive. It's the term preferred by the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community. It's certainly better than "homosexual."

"Homosexual" is to gay what "Negro" is to black. Originally a non-offensive term, but now dated and most often used by opponents of the communities it describes. It is, at the very least, borderline offensive. Why use a borderline offensive term when a well-accepted alternative (gay / lesbian) is available?

Personally, I would be slightly bothered if someone called me "Negro" or "homosexual" (I'm both black and gay). Some people wouldn't care, others would be really offended. I just think it's best to avoid terms that could be taken as offensive.

I have heard some friends say " that's homosexual" when speaking about something that is not cool. I also heard it used about someone's clothes.

That's incredibly homophobic and ridiculous (those people's comments, not anything you've said). Think about how stupid it would sound to say of something bad "that's so heterosexual" or "that's so straight."

[Nickman]

I heard about this on Glenn Beck and then on Hannity about two weeks ago. I find it ridiculous because the term homosexual is a true term. It defines a persons sexuality.

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are hardly good sources for any information, let alone news on the LGBT community.

I never said anything about their reliability. I just said this is where I heard about this subject for the first time. After checking their facts, I found out that they reported properly.

"Gay" is not offensive. It's the term preferred by the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community. It's certainly better than "homosexual."

Then why is bisexual acceptable but homosexual unacceptable?

"Homosexual" is to gay what "Negro" is to black. Originally a non-offensive term, but now dated and most often used by opponents of the communities it describes. It is, at the very least, borderline offensive. Why use a borderline offensive term when a well-accepted alternative (gay / lesbian) is available?

Homosexual is an adjective that describes the person's sexuality. Any term can be used negatively. That doesn't make it negative on its own.

Personally, I would be slightly bothered if someone called me "Negro" or "homosexual" (I'm both black and gay). Some people wouldn't care, others would be really offended. I just think it's best to avoid terms that could be taken as offensive.

But you are a homosexual, no offense. Are you not? I am heterosexual. Why should a person's sexuality be offensive? That makes no sense.

That's incredibly homophobic and ridiculous (those people's comments, not anything you've said). Think about how stupid it would sound to say of something bad "that's so heterosexual" or "that's so straight."

Oh I agree, I was just showing examples of how these words can be used offensively. I don't see how it is offensive to call someone who is homosexual, a homosexual. What is silly to me is, that if someone called me heterosexual and I got offended. I think it is ridiculous to group people by these terms in the first place, and instead don't do so. When I am talking about a person's sexuality, however, I will use heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual. I see no offense in this.

[bluethread]

It has been said, he who controls the language controls the argument. This is the standard principle of sophistry used by social engineers. From the inception of the philosophy, scientific humanists insisted that all terms related to biology and physiology be stated in terms defined by the scientific community. The justification was that they made discussion values neutral. However, as the objection by haven shows, no language is values neutral. This has been used to great effect by socialists and progressives as a tool for social engineering. First, one demonizes common terms as socially biased and calls for them to be replaced by "values neutral" terms. Then once the "values neutral" terms become common, they are in turn labeled as insensitive to the preferred social paradigm. In this way, the preferred social paradigm becomes correct by definition, without argument. Therefore, if the term "homosexual" is indeed unacceptable because it is insensitive, it is the scientific humanists who are to blame, not the moralistic theists. Personally, I am willing to accept "values neutral" terms for argument sake. However, I am not going to accept the redefining of terms for the purpose of changing the social paradigm. Any change in the social paradigm should be earned by means other than simple sophistry.

[Nickman]

It has been said, he who controls the language controls the argument. This is the standard principle of sophistry used by social engineers. From the inception of the philosophy, scientific humanists insisted that all terms related to biology and physiology be stated in terms defined by the scientific community. The justification was that they made discussion values neutral. However, as the objection by haven shows, no language is values neutral. This has been used to great effect by socialists and progressives as a tool for social engineering. First, one demonizes common terms as socially biased and calls for them to be replaced by "values neutral" terms. Then once the "values neutral" terms become common, they are in turn labeled as insensitive to the preferred social paradigm. In this way, the preferred social paradigm becomes correct by definition, without argument. Therefore, if the term "homosexual" is indeed unacceptable because it is insensitive, it is the scientific humanists who are to blame, not the moralistic theists. Personally, I am willing to accept "values neutral" terms for argument sake. However, I am not going to accept the redefining of terms for the purpose of changing the social paradigm. Any change in the social paradigm should be earned by means other than simple sophistry.

Homosexual is a neutral term. It only describes a person's sexuality. How is that offensive?

[bluethread]

It has been said, he who controls the language controls the argument. This is the standard principle of sophistry used by social engineers. From the inception of the philosophy, scientific humanists insisted that all terms related to biology and physiology be stated in terms defined by the scientific community. The justification was that they made discussion values neutral. However, as the objection by haven shows, no language is values neutral. This has been used to great effect by socialists and progressives as a tool for social engineering. First, one demonizes common terms as socially biased and calls for them to be replaced by "values neutral" terms. Then once the "values neutral" terms become common, they are in turn labeled as insensitive to the preferred social paradigm. In this way, the preferred social paradigm becomes correct by definition, without argument. Therefore, if the term "homosexual" is indeed unacceptable because it is insensitive, it is the scientific humanists who are to blame, not the moralistic theists. Personally, I am willing to accept "values neutral" terms for argument sake. However, I am not going to accept the redefining of terms for the purpose of changing the social paradigm. Any change in the social paradigm should be earned by means other than simple sophistry.

Homosexual is a neutral term. It only describes a person's sexuality. How is that offensive?

I said I would accept it for arguments sake on the "values neutral" premise. However, "values neutral" terms can be offensive simply because they ignore the fact that all terms are derived by societies for the sake of communication and, therefore, inherently carry the values of the culture that derives them. For example, so called "values neutral" terms carry the scientific humanist value that science alone should dictate values. The root of haven's argument is that the "values neutral" term "homosexual" does not negate the values that haven finds offensive. Socialists and progressives like to use the illusion of "values neutral" terms to negate terms that do not support their value system, so they can then promote their value system by introducing terms that support that value system. This is the nature of sophistry, argumentation based solely on word usage.

[Nickman]

It has been said, he who controls the language controls the argument. This is the standard principle of sophistry used by social engineers. From the inception of the philosophy, scientific humanists insisted that all terms related to biology and physiology be stated in terms defined by the scientific community. The justification was that they made discussion values neutral. However, as the objection by haven shows, no language is values neutral. This has been used to great effect by socialists and progressives as a tool for social engineering. First, one demonizes common terms as socially biased and calls for them to be replaced by "values neutral" terms. Then once the "values neutral" terms become common, they are in turn labeled as insensitive to the preferred social paradigm. In this way, the preferred social paradigm becomes correct by definition, without argument. Therefore, if the term "homosexual" is indeed unacceptable because it is insensitive, it is the scientific humanists who are to blame, not the moralistic theists. Personally, I am willing to accept "values neutral" terms for argument sake. However, I am not going to accept the redefining of terms for the purpose of changing the social paradigm. Any change in the social paradigm should be earned by means other than simple sophistry.

Homosexual is a neutral term. It only describes a person's sexuality. How is that offensive?

I said I would accept it for arguments sake on the "values neutral" premise. However, "values neutral" terms can be offensive simply because they ignore the fact that all terms are derived by societies for the sake of communication and, therefore, inherently carry the values of the culture that derives them. For example, so called "values neutral" terms carry the scientific humanist value that science alone should dictate values. The root of haven's argument is that the "values neutral" term "homosexual" does not negate the values that haven finds offensive. Socialists and progressives like to use the illusion of "values neutral" terms to negate terms that do not support their value system, so they can then promote their value system by introducing terms that support that value system. This is the nature of sophistry, argumentation based solely on word usage.

But how does homosexual carry negative connotations? It is just an adjective that describes a person's sexuality. I see nothing offensive about calling a person homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. If I call a gay person a homosexual, am I wrong? No, I am 100% correct. The word gay carries much more connotation than homosexual.