The "H" word now seen by many as mildly offensive and dated

[Jingthing]

OK, this guy has a stronger view.

I don't think it's really there yet.

It might be in 10 or 20 years ... not sure.

So go to Atlanta and start talking to some black people, say something like "what's happening in the Negro part of town" and you really might be looking at a problem.

Go to gay bar there and say "you homosexuals really know how to party" and I think people would just smile.

Although the term homosexuality is still used, describing gays and lesbians as "homosexuals" is as offensive today as the words Negro, colored, or crippled. The correct words are gays and lesbians or GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) community.

http://www.joekort.com/homosexual_n_word.html

[David48]

JT ... all these comments are very USA focused and sourced.

You must have some Thai Gay/Homosexual friends ... how do they feel about the thrust of your OP?

[ToddWeston]

JT ... all these comments are very USA focused and sourced.

You must have some Thai Gay/Homosexual friends ... how do they feel about the thrust of your OP?

I think you'll find most Thai gays don't give a toss about the issue & you're correct the article and most posts in this forum have more to do with the USA, so it's unlikely we'll hear directly.

I do know what my Thai thinks but I'm not sharing

[Jingthing]

In Thailand they speak Thai. Homosexual is English. Yes the word gay has been adopted internationally. This is an English language forum and the topic concerns an English word. On American influence that is natural as the USA is the most populous native English speaking nation by far. Cheerio mates.

Also note to the cheeky character who persists in addressing me personally (which is not welcome) this here is the gay forum. It is a forum where any connection to Thailand is not necessary.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited March 26, 2014 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

And there we have it the word Gay absolutely no longer means happy.

As for USA influence, again perhaps the topic title could reflect that for those who are interested in USA politics and gay issues in that country, would certainly save me lots of time.

[Jingthing]

And there we have it the word Gay absolutely no longer means happy.

As for USA influence, again perhaps the topic title could reflect that for those who are interested in USA politics and gay issues in that country, would certainly save me lots of time.

I think you just like to kvetch. Did an American do you wrong?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

If people don't like the nature of the threads started on this forum, they are more than welcome to start more of their own that are more to their personal liking, yes?

So rather than whining that's there is too much American-centric content, how about getting off your gay old duffs and doing something to change what you don't like?

Regarding this topic, while I do get the point that the political use of homosexual by anti-gay types might be largely (but certainly not entirely) related to American social issues politics, I will argue here that this is STILL relevant internationally.

Actually, very much.

As many know these same anti-gay American types, knowing they are LOSING badly at home, have taken their show on the road ... all over Africa, Russia, and beyond.

Let's hope Thailand is never receptive to their poison!

__________________ and now for something completely different .............................................

Gay still DOES have the older meaning but it is now a secondary definition.

Honestly, growing up in the USA (sorry Yankee-phobes) way BEFORE gay had its current primary definition (which we all know and I reckon we all use) the word gay was really VERY RARELY used. Even then, it was VERY ARCHAIC. Yes it was seen in old movies and songs, and there is that Christmas song, but beyond that, as an everyday word, I don't recall saying it even once that way in all my life in CONVERSATION nor do I recall other people using it either.

Now I am asking to y'all from outside the USA, if you were old enough to grow up before gay was the gay we know now, did you actually use the older meaning gay word MUCH (or at all) in conversation, or not? I am guessing NOT.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Start their own topics? Quit complaining about the ones on the forum?

A lot of myths have been debunked, but the 'bitchy queens' myth is alive and well.

[sustento]

Start their own topics? Quit complaining about the ones on the forum?

A lot of myths have been debunked, but the 'bitchy queens' myth is alive and well.

There really doesn't seem to be much point in starting our own topics.They don't fit in with the accepted norm. The people who start them tend not to last all that long either.

Here's an idea. How about we have a sub forum in the gay forum devoted solely to the glacial movement towards equality in the USA? Then those who are interested can fill their boots.

The rest of us can celebrate the fact that equality arrived some time ago.

[ToddWeston]

Start their own topics? Quit complaining about the ones on the forum?

A lot of myths have been debunked, but the 'bitchy queens' myth is alive and well.

There really doesn't seem to be much point in starting our own topics.They don't fit in with the accepted norm. The people who start them tend not to last all that long either.

Here's an idea. How about we have a sub forum in the gay forum devoted solely to the glacial movement towards equality in the USA? Then those who are interested can fill their boots.

The rest of us can celebrate the fact that equality arrived some time ago.

That is a great idea, perhaps two pinned topics, one for global activism and one for the USA, this way the main area would hopefully generate more topics from both straight and gay people.

[Jingthing]

I find both suggestions disingenuous. Just start your topics and see how they go. Many topics on all kinds of forums are started and become duds. Some which you would never guess surprisingly have traction. You really never know.

Why do you want more topics started by straight people on the gay forum? What is that about? On the women's forum are they begging for topics from men? No. On forums about vehicles are they begging from people who only walk? No. I could go on and on with more examples. I trust you get the point.

Of course I am not suggesting respectful straight people aren't welcome to start topics and post but the "suggestions" that the goal of a gay forum design is to attract straight people to start topics just seems weird.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Jingthing

[David48]

I find both suggestions disingenuous. Just start your topics and see how they go. Many topics on all kinds of forums are started and become duds. Some which you would never guess surprisingly have traction. You really never know.

Why do some of you want more topics started by straight people on the gay forum? What is that about? On the women's forum are they begging for topics from men? No. On forums about vehicles are they begging from people who only walk? No. I could go on and on with more examples. I trust you get the point.

Of course I am not suggesting respectful straight people aren't welcome but the "suggestions" that the goal of a gay forum design is to attract straight topic starters just seems weird.

Oh ... I think there is some merit in the Ideas.

Maybe the members who post on the forum, with the exception of you of course, would like a break away from the USA focus and dogma?

Maybe they would be encouraged to post more if there was a focus on Asia ... specifically Thailand.

Surely the Gay/Homosexual issues are not the same (granted, some issues are universal).

Maybe JT ... if you could find it in your good nature to take a step back and see what the other members here consider are issues, you might be surprised by the variety of comment and topics.

Just a thought ...

.

[Jingthing]

Back on topic, this clip relates to it.

Here a famous anti-gay hater uses homosexual in the political way referenced in this thread.

But then slips in the gay word, one time.

Curious.

The guy is very old now.

It almost sounds like it was an off-script slip.

[ToddWeston]

I find both suggestions disingenuous. Just start your topics and see how they go. Many topics on all kinds of forums are started and become duds. Some which you would never guess surprisingly have traction. You really never know.

Why do some of you want more topics started by straight people on the gay forum? What is that about? On the women's forum are they begging for topics from men? No. On forums about vehicles are they begging from people who only walk? No. I could go on and on with more examples. I trust you get the point.

Of course I am not suggesting respectful straight people aren't welcome but the "suggestions" that the goal of a gay forum design is to attract straight topic starters just seems weird.

Oh ... I think there is some merit in the Ideas.

Maybe the members who post on the forum, with the exception of you of course, would like a break away from the USA focus and dogma?

Maybe they would be encouraged to post more if there was a focus on Asia ... specifically Thailand.

Surely the Gay/Homosexual issues are not the same (granted, some issues are universal).

Maybe JT ... if you could find it in your good nature to take a step back and see what the other members here consider are issues, you might be surprised by the variety of comment and topics.

Just a thought ...

.

It's easier to just not to post IMO, it seems JT wants to leave the impression this is a club and not welcome others to post or ask questions, which is sad really, you don't have to be sick to post in the health forum and if I post in the automotive forum and use the wrong term or call it a thingy I'm not attacked.

The USA focus and global struggles should be pinned for those who are interested, leaving the general posting area open for perhaps even some fun.

It would certainly encourage more posters both gay and straight to post intersting topics because at first glance it looks like a war zone.

[Scott]

If you don't like the threads, you are under no obligation to read or to respond to them. I don't think anyone that is not interested in the US is required to read those thread. There are 4 that are clearly US specific and 4 that are clearly Thai specific on the front page. Russia, Nigeria, the UK (well, the BBC actually), Malaysia, Uganda, Iran and Hong Kong are also on the front page. That's 9 countries. By contrast, there are 8 countries clearly represented on the front page of the World News Section.

[Jingthing]

Yes the idea of segregating American stuff is really rude and the intent is so very transparent.

[David48]

Yes the idea of segregating American stuff is really rude and the intent is so very transparent.

I disagree 100%.

Moving a section where there is USA specific content is not a crazy idea ... and as for it being rude ...

Some folk here have zero interest in what the USA does or thinks or comments on this subject.

So often the Gay community simply asks for balance, equality ... and when the the constant stream of topics are USA opinion based ... we start to look at the issues, not through Asian or Thai eyes, but through a Country that is 1/2 a world away from Thailand.

[WitawatWatawit]

Phew, has this topic wended its way through some thickets, or what? The OP offers up an interesting subject for those of us who work in the public domain, but ultimately we have to be both the protectors of language and moderators of linguistic dynamics. I'll go back later and re-read the article - it might have some points for the ABC's Scose Report.

So in the spirit of a final bit of entertainment before I retire for the night, I leave you with this lift from the NY Times article:

Gerry E. Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, once recalled how someone confronted him about whether he was still a practicing homosexual. He shot back: No. As a matter of fact, I think Im very good at it.

[Scott]

A post has been removed. If you wish to discuss the forum you may do so. Discussing other posters is inflammatory and is not permitted.

[Jingthing]

Speak of the devil Fox News!

As Equality Matters reported this week, use of the term "homosexual" to refer to gay and lesbian people long ago fell out of favor with most mainstream news outlets, as "homosexual" is commonly used by opponents of LGBT equality — and rarely by advocates.

Fox News, however, is slow to change. The network, which apologized after it came under fire in February for its open mockery of the term "intersex," continues to use "homosexual" when reporting on gay and lesbian people. As pointed out by Equality Matters, conservative pundit Todd Starnes recently wrote on FoxNews.com that "Christians are trading places with homosexuals" in a story about an Air Force veteran who claimed he was "relieved of his duties because he disagreed with his openly gay commander over gay marriage."

http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/2014/03/27/fox-news-clings-term-homosexual-covering-lgbt-issues

[tominbkk]

I always get confused that two huge organizations, The United Negro College Fund, and the Association for the Advancement of Colored People, both have names with outdated and "Taboo" slang.

[Jingthing]

I always get confused that two huge organizations, The United Negro College Fund, and the Association for the Advancement of Colored People, both have names with outdated and "Taboo" slang.

That's a very interesting observation. The obvious reason is these have become very well respected institutions and the cost of changing the name was likely deemed not worth it. I think especially the NAACP which is known more for its acronym anyway! For U.S. gay political lobbying and advocacy, there never was such a pro-gay institution that had homosexual in the name in the first place. Not even the old hat Mattachine Society.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

While we're on words, what ever happened to Queer?

I really thought that phase was basically over.

But I guess not for everybody.

"When I originally wrote the blog, I wrote, ‘I am gay,’” Djuan Trent, Miss Kentucky 2010, explained about her public coming out last month, in which she stated on her blog, “I am queer,” stunning the pageant world as well as many of her fellow Kentuckyans. “And then, I went back and I looked at it and I decided I wanted to change it. I wanted to put ‘queer' there, because it’s a word that I like. I feel that a lot of people outside the LGBTQ community don’t know it’s a thing, that it’s okay.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/djuan-trent-queer_n_5077443.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

[sustento]

Thank the Lord for my parallel universe.

[sustento]

Gerry E. Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress,

Please tell me you made that up

[onthemoon]

OK. I am a gay male and I sometimes engage in homosexual activity. For me, being gay is about a lot of things having to do with my lifestyle, culture and friends. It is about my being. Homosexual is about the sexual behavior. I know a guy who has never had sex. He self-identifies himself as gay and he prefers the company of other gay men. I am not sure he is a homosexual because he has never had sex.

We didn't hijack any words. They were attached to us, and most of those were not particularly meant to be nice. I have no problem with the use of the word gay to mean happy, apparently some people do, including Hallmark greeting cards, but that's their problem.

While I read in this thread that many LGBT activists in the US now reject the word "homosexual" and consider it derogatory, I, being European, have no such problem with the word. As the article in the OP mentioned, I consider it a bit clinical though. I also have always had a problem with the "sexual" part in it, and keep explaining that homosexuality does not only refer to sex, and so on.

Oh yes, in German we do have the word "homosexuell". The Thai word "phetsampan" is also very clinical, I feel.

In colloquial speech, I prefer the word "gay". In English, German and Thai.

And I have no doubt that anti-gay people in the US use the word "homosexual", and they may also use the word "gay" (we saw both in the most recent YouTube video linked to by JT). This is because they are talking about the issue, and it is no reason to suddenly reject these words just because they do. I don't follow that logic.

And in fact, I use the word "homo" too, as I don't find it offensive. In fact, I find it better than "homosexual".

Edited April 6, 2014 by onthemoon

[Jingthing]

Now we're terrorists ...

[sustento]

Now we're terrorists ...

He ought to get his medication checked out. It appears to be having all the wrong effects.

[onthemoon]

Now we're terrorists ...

{embedded URL deleted}

While he is in fear (I almost feel sorry for him), he does have a point about the vocabulary. As this very thread shows.

[kurnell]

I think the terms yobbo and bogan are offensive. Both of which I have been called.