Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

It would be good to know.

[O.Wilde]

Not offended per se, just made mildly uncomfortable.

Spoiler: Specifically (click to show/hide)

The wording 'homosexuals' when discussing lgbt or gay people makes me uncomfortable. It may be the 'medical' term or whatever, but it feels denigrating and dehumanizing.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

I'm sorry. I use "medical" terms not to dehumanize, but to impartially describe.

[EDIT: a post edit fuckup has occurred, I will attempt to recreate it from memory. O.Wilde is being civil, and in no way unreasonable IMO]

[O.Wilde]

Yeah, I understand. I don't see the need to impartially describe gay people, tbh. Like, unless you believe that some of the acronyms in LGBT doesn't exist, what are you being impartial about?

Legit question, not trying to like, argue or anything.

[MrWiggles]

I also dont get why its dehumanizing. Its descriptive, not prescriptive.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

I live at a crossroads of totally incompatible ideologies and mutually hostile people that would attack me using social sanction or violence if I use language associated with their cultural enemies. In order to survive, I have used neutral language to discuss issues that affect me and people I care for. The language of popular science is neutral territory where I am, so I use it to communicate.

[Sonlirain]

This thread just made me mildly upset because it reminded me of my issues i don't want to derail this thread with... making my post entirely pointless.

[Reelya]

I also dont get why its dehumanizing. Its descriptive, not prescriptive.

But there's a choice in what characteristics we narrow in on, when describing someone or something. It's not completely objective or value-neutral. saying "homosexual" for gay people puts the focus on their sexual choices as defining who they are. We don't trot out "heterosexual" with equal frequency, except when needed to differentiate people as "not the gays".

A similar thing happens with video games that have characters defined by some single trait. For white male characters, the defining characteristic is their job, but for other characters their defining trait might be "is black" "is asian" or "is a woman", with the barest of stereotypes on top of that. The black guy is Muhammad Ali, the asian guy is Bruce Lee, the woman is acrobatic. It's similar to Original D&D where Humans were defined by the class they picked, but Dwarf, Elf and Halfling were "classes", not races. It's only acceptable because they're pretend races. If they were real races in OD&D it would be remembered as basically the most offensive thing in RPG history.

Straight people are described by what they do for a living, whereas "homosexuals" are described by sexuality. This is how it dehumanizes people. It's similar with crime reports. If a straight white male commits a crime, we'd describe him in some other terms: "an electrician from New Hampshire went on a shooting spree", whereas if a black man commits a crime, then it's reported as a black man did it, and you probably won't be told what his career is at all.

[Yoink]

...I kinda got the feeling the butcher, the baker and the candlestick-maker were a bunch of homosexuals.

On-topic, that crack about low-calorie cereals was a bit harsh I guess?

[ChairmanPoo]

I also dont get why its dehumanizing. Its descriptive, not prescriptive.

But there's a choice in what characteristics we narrow in on, when describing someone or something. It's not completely objective or value-neutral. saying "homosexual" for gay people puts the focus on their sexual choices as defining who they are. We don't trot out "heterosexual" with equal frequency, except when needed to differentiate people as "not the gays".

A similar thing happens with video games that have characters defined by some single trait. For white male characters, the defining characteristic is their job, but for other characters their defining trait might be "is black" "is asian" or "is a woman", with the barest of stereotypes on top of that. The black guy is Muhammad Ali, the asian guy is Bruce Lee, the woman is acrobatic. It's similar to Original D&D where Humans were defined by the class they picked, but Dwarf, Elf and Halfling were "classes", not races. It's only acceptable because they're pretend races. If they were real races in OD&D it would be remembered as basically the most offensive thing in RPG history.

Straight people are described by what they do for a living, whereas "homosexuals" are described by sexuality. This is how it dehumanizes people. It's similar with crime reports. If a straight white male commits a crime, we'd describe him in some other terms: "an electrician from New Hampshire went on a shooting spree", whereas if a black man commits a crime, then it's reported as a black man did it, and you probably won't be told what his career is at all.

Wouldn't any term referring to race and sexual orientation be just as dehumanizing in that context?

In fact, I was about to say that "straight and gay" were not any better than "heterosexual and homosexual", but upon reflection they're actually worse, as the former seem to imply stereotypes about both sexual orientations, whereas the later are much more aseptic.

[nenjin]

You generally know when you've truly offended someone around here, because they will report you to Toady. If you unintentionally offended someone and that's clear, he may just edit your post and send you a PM asking you to not do it again. If you intentionally offended someone, he will do the same and tell you this is a legit warning and that you'll be banned next time.

If there's at least one thing Bay12 does not shy away from, it's the Report This Post button.

Whether you've annoyed someone is an entirely different story.

[Strife26]

You generally know when you've truly offended someone around here, because they will report you to Toady. If you unintentionally offended someone and that's clear, he may just edit your post and send you a PM asking you to not do it again. If you intentionally offended someone, he will do the same and tell you this is a legit warning and that you'll be banned next time.

If there's at least one thing Bay12 does not shy away from, it's the Report This Post button.

Whether you've annoyed someone is an entirely different story.

Yet I've never managed to get any action on me. Frequently, if you're not causing offense, you're not doing anything productive. People are prickly creatures.

[nenjin]

I think it's less an issue of causing offense, and more an issue of whether someone chooses to take offense. For most things. The flagrant examples always get moderated.

[O.Wilde]

I also dont get why its dehumanizing. Its descriptive, not prescriptive.

Snip

For me, it's partially this and partially like, language of the oppressor. In my experience 'homosexual' is not a word that is generally used by lgbt people except when they're either 1: making fun of straight peoples reactions to us or 2: attempting to converse with someone who does not support lgbt rights.

In my life, I've found people who say homosexual rather than gay or lgbt to be, generally, much less accepting, sometimes to the point of outright homophobia. So, therefore it makes me uncomfortable when people use that word, cause I'm automatically preparing to be descriminated against by them.

[nenjin]

To me it's the clinical term for gay and lesbian. They're the common vernacular. But I can see why it might be off.