How Not To Say Gay

Posted on April 8, 2007
| buzz-it! | Huff it!

This article will do no good. The right-wing haters are on to us liberal, politically-correct fascists. They use the style guides on how not to be offensive precisely to know how to be as offensive as possible. More defeating still, is that we who care about words that hurt are also largely in the group that will protect most fiercely the right-wingers’ right to be offensive. When Ann Coulter recently trotted out the word “faggot” for a national audience she knew precisely what she had hold of.

Exposing the lie is the fact that fascism and liberalism are diametrically opposed views. Fascism is a movement of extreme right-wing, authoritarianism. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard right-wingers recently equating the left with fascism and naziism. Tom Delay did it in his recent book and then denied it even when it was there in print for everyone to see. At the same time the left and the MSM (mainstream media) dance all around themselves to avoid words like fascism even when they appropriately apply. We occasionally hear the word “authoritarian” slipped into the body of an article, but not frequently as a headline.

The MSM eschews the word “fascism” because we still have a relatively free press. The point they miss is that the administration suppresses speech every day wherever they have the ability and desire to do so. This has happened primarily with scientific and environmental information — funded by taxpayers and that belongs to taxpayers — information that is deemed harmful to the bottom lines of the administration’s corporate supporters. While some small amount of information can justifiably be suppressed on national security grounds, climate science and information that fails to support the administration’s extreme political positions can not be legally suppressed. Which is worse: one, a government saying you can’t speak ill of the “leader,” or two, suppressing public information, the suppression of which could harm planet-wide climate for generations upon generations. The problem here is making a legal distinction between party discipline and illegal suppression. The administration knows this as they recently have put politically-appointed gatekeepers on information released by all agencies. The MSM would do well to put some of their best legal reporters on parsing these issues.

Politically correct speech has long been attacked as limiting expression and for humorlessness. I get that. Liberals who generally embrace political correctness (though have largely abandoned the term) have long been painted with the same brush. The thing is that it takes a pretty keen mind to use language well. Even those of us who feel well-practiced have our dull moments. It’s good, on those occasions, to have some guidelines to help us keep our stinky feet out of our potty-mouths.

The liberal position on speech differs from fascist repression in that we believe all speech should be legal and protected, save for the often cited exception of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, or other speech that threatens public safety. We also believe that there should be consequences for offensive speech. The consequences have occasionally seemed too extreme. It does not seem extreme if Michael Richards cannot get bookings because of a racist tirade against hecklers; that is the consequence of his choice of speech. If Richards apologizes and makes amends and regains some of his audience, we all learn something. Then there’s Ann Coulter’s failed attempt at humor, suggesting that someone needs rehab for calling someone a “faggot.” If Isaiah Washington chooses that route, that’s between him and his publicist and / or therapist. What a fan wants is a sincere apology. Rehab could never become the catch-all amends for offensive behavior precisely because the sincerity of it is not believable.

This blog was one of the vast number that called offensive Ann Coulter’s attack on John Edwards and gays in a single breath. Again it’s not that she didn’t have the right to say what is offensive. That was never the point. The word itself is offensive, but context is everything here. If Ann had been hanging with some gay boyfriends and called one a faggot, and none took offense and any felt like they could call her a ho’ back with no offense, I’d say no harm, no foul. Now put her on a national stage speaking for her political party with full media coverage and toss out the f-bomb — she deserves the criticism she gets for not understanding the difference, or not caring. She also gets what she deserves if no serious candidate will ever again share a stage with her.

Anyone who studies English usage knows that dictionaries do not make the rules of language but reflect the evolution of words and their usage. As a lifetime gay man and curmudgeon, I still have the same gut reaction every time I read in the newspaper the phrase “a homosexual.” A homosexual WHAT? Dictionaries allow the usage of the word as a noun, but that is only a reflection of modern usage. It is still pretty meaningless and often offensive. It’s meaningless, in part, because it is an adjective, to my thinking, and a modifier. The noun often is not supplied. It is offensive because it reduces a person to what he or she does in bed. In other contexts it is too clinical and suggests illness or defect, a notion long discredited. Too often it is used where sexual orientation is irrelevant or if relevant could be understood from the context. Why not say John and his partner Bill, rather than John and his homosexual partner Bill?

The press has no difficulty calling groups of people what they choose to be called, except when it comes to gays and lesbians. “Homosexual” is usually offensive when not talking about what two men or two women might do together in bed — and how many newspapers are really writing about that? “Queer” and “fag” are “in-words” that should be used very carefully, if ever. Many do not get transgender and gender identity at all, and seem not to have tried. I suppose that can be difficult with such a spectrum. Probably better to say “he was wearing red sequins,” if relevant, or leave out the pronoun or the sequins altogether, rather than resorting to labels, especially when you get the labels wrong.

None of us wants to be invisible. In fact, invisibility is especially harmful to gays and lesbians. It all goes to relevancy, once again. A reporter can describe the scene and let readers reach conclusions. It’s good journalism practice. If the sexual orientation of suspect or victim in a crime story is relevant, it should be transmitted. In a style piece a pretty easy test would be if you would include a straight partner or date in the story, it would be an omission to not include a gay or lesbian counterpart.

I suppose some people are tone-deaf to language or seriously lack subtlety. I remember an editorial meeting in a small publishing group in the early 1990s, where we had just gotten news from a conference from which we, a mostly-white staff, learned that African Americans were beginning to prefer to be called African American rather than “Black.” One mid-level managing editor was looking tortured and asked out loud, “What do we call ‘them’ now?” A young staffer quietly said, “both” and was correct. The manager remained confused.

Language is an evolution and is not absolute. We should not get bent out of shape by little slip ups. I prefer to assume one’s language is inclusive until it becomes clear that it is not. For me, the word “gay” is inclusive of gays and lesbians. Some lesbians may disagree, but not all lesbians would disagree. I say lesbian when I am speaking of a woman who loves women. I may say gay inclusively, but will be careful to say “gay and lesbian” or “glbt” or the whole thing written out, not every time, but often enough to show inclusivity. I try and remember to say “gay men” when speaking only of men, to allow gay, alone, to cover all.

Words said in anger as in the cases of Isaiah Washington and Michael Richards — while potentially revealing — when there is not a history of cultural insensitivity, should be more easily forgiven than habitual abusers of others through language. I loved Mel Gibson’s early film work, but because of a long record of intolerant remarks, I’ll be damned if he’ll get a dime at the box office from me these days. When his stuff comes up on Tivo, I don’t just ignore it, I give it a thumbs down. On Netflix, I mark suggestions to rent his films, “not interested.” Free marketers should embrace such an approach.