Ideological bias or common linguistic sense?

Guest · **Posted:** Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:25 pm

From the MetroWeekly:Are you now, or have you ever been, a homosexual? Or do you prefer the more modern appellation, gay? Most likely, the latter. While gays and lesbians have adopted and discarded many names over the years -- "uranian " becomes a historical footnote, while "queer " undergoes a progressive retrofitting -- most homosexuals have come to agree that one of the last things they want to be called is "homosexual. " So when Rick Rosendall of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance (GLAA) submitted a letter to the Washington Times criticizing another writerâ€™s linking of male homosexuality to pedophilia, he definitely meant to use the word "gay. " "I simply treat â€˜gayâ€™ as a synonym for homosexual, " Rosendall says. "[H]omosexual just sounds clinical, and the more common usage for a long time has been â€˜gay.â€™ " But when his letter appeared in the January 8 Times, "gay " had been changed to "homosexual. " When he protested that the change fundamentally altered his meaning, letters editor Matthew Rarey responded in e-mail, "Per The Times' policy against Orwellian abuse of the English language, the euphemism â€˜gayâ€™ is not used to describe the homosexual lifestyle. " Further down ...."I think objecting to the term â€˜gayâ€™ is bizarre, " (gay writer Andrew) Sullivan says. "It's not a fad. It's been around for years and years. The key is linguistic honesty and simplicity. " Most large papers have changed their style guides to allow the use of "gay " in place or along with "homosexual. " The Associated Press Stylebook accepts the use of "gay " as a "popular synonym for both male and female homosexuals. " The Washington Post further delineates the usage in its style guide, encouraging the use of "gay " in many situations. "Gay is generally preferred to homosexual, " says the Post guide. "Homosexual should be reserved for a clinical or biological context. Be wary of using homosexual as a noun. In certain contexts, it can be seen as a slur. " *** And "gay" is never used as a slur? This whole thing seems like an argument absolutely nobody can win.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:23 pm

The Times was wrong to change the letter. It's wrong to reject "gay." The word is undeniably part of the language. In my view, it's a more worthy word than "homosexual." That word was an academic creation, a hybrid of Latin and Greek. "Gay" entered the language the more natural way, via common usage.

Testy Copy Editors

Ideological bias or common linguistic sense?

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links