Why The Word 'Homosexual' Is Offensive

[W!nston]

Why The Word Homosexual Is Offensive
TheWeek | By Nicholas Subtirelu | June 2 2015

If you're a member of a stigmatized group, such as a person of color or a gay man or woman, even the smallest of talk can be fraught with small discomforts, slights, and aggressions.

Such casual offenses need not be intentional. Indeed, they often aren't.

For example, consider the word "homosexual," which Jeremy Peters writes "probably sounds inoffensive" to most people. I am a straight man who considers myself to be politically aligned with the struggles of gay men and women, and I frequently use the term (including just last night). I was surprised then to learn that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) listed it as an offensive term back in 2006.

I thought it was strange that I was so oblivious, so I began researching. I emerged with a couple of explanations about the term's offensiveness.

First, people often point to parts of the word itself to explain its offensiveness. They point out that, since it includes "sexual," the word focuses on sexual acts and not on gay men and women's basic humanity or that the word is related to a recognizable slur, "homo."

Second, some have also looked at the word's history and pointed out that "homosexual" has a history of being used to pathologize gays and lesbians. For example, the American Psychological Association considered homosexuality a psychological disorder until 1973.

These explanations are compelling, but I'm not sure they tell the whole story. For example, if the inclusion of "sexual" is the problem with "homosexual," why do I not feel equally uncomfortable with "heterosexual"?

Also, if similarity to a slur is such a problem, then why is the preferred term "gay"? After all, "gay" is often used cruelly, like when it's used to mean lame or stupid. Finally, as a linguist, I know that historical usage, while usually very interesting, often has very little relevance to how words are used and understood contemporaneously.

This led me to take a look at the use of "homosexual" by politicians, specifically members of the U.S. Congress, through data made available on CapitolWords.org by the Sunlight Foundation. It proved illuminating.

I was specifically interested in how different labels for gay men and women are used by Congressional Democrats and the Republicans, who have historically taken different stances on issues of deep concern to many gay men and women such as employment discrimination. The data I collected shows interesting tendencies in the use of "gay," "homosexual," and "lesbian" by political party.

For Democrats, "gay" and "lesbian" are both preferred over "homosexual." Republicans also prefer "gay" over "homosexual" but rarely use "lesbian." However, Republicans' preference for "gay" is far weaker, and they use the word "homosexual" more than Democrats do. In addition, Republicans have not always avoided the word "homosexual," as the graph below makes clear.

In this data, 1996 is the peak year for use of the word "homosexual." (It was also the first year digitized data is available, so we don't know if usage in 1995, much less 1955, was even higher.)

Republicans used the term quite frequently in 1996 as Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which excluded same sex unions from the federal government's definition of marriage, and the Senate debated, but did not pass, the Employment Nondiscrimation Act of 1996 (ENDA), which would have given legal protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace.

The divide between Democrats and Republicans was somewhat murky in 1996, both in terms of word usage and support for causes important to gays and lesbians. In fact, a majority of both Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of DOMA. However, it was mostly the Republicans in the Senate who opposed ENDA, and this opposition was accompanied by frequent use of the word "homosexual," such as when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked rhetorically, "Should the Senate run roughshod over the concerns of parents and educators about having homosexuals teach their kids?"

An even stronger divide emerged several years later when the House voted on an extension of DOMA, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (which died in the Senate). The vast majority of Republicans supported the bill, and the vast majority of Democrats opposed it, although in this year Republicans' use of "homosexual" was far more limited.

In its history of use in Congress, the word "homosexual" has largely been associated with some of the most clearly anti-gay politicians like Steve King (R-Iowa) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). Interestingly, the term has also been frequently used by former Democratic congressman Barney Frank, who is himself gay, although Frank is also a frequent user of "gay."

In the end, "homosexual" has largely faded out of use in Congress in the past few years, but so it seems has Republican discussion of gay men and women.

The offense that some gay men and women take to the term "homosexual" can be explained in part by its association with anti-gay stances heard especially in the 1990s and 2000s, not only in Congress but also on talk radio, at church, and around the dinner table. The subtle but close association between anti-gay politics and the term "homosexual" means that when they hear "homosexual" some gays and lesbians hear opposition to their struggle for equal treatment under the law and homophobic conspiracy theories about immoral and corrupt "homosexual agendas." It's no wonder they're offended.

SOURCE

 

[bigsal]

It would be constructive for everyone, look less to the form, and more to the substance.
What is important is the recognition that every person should have equal rights.

 

[gb2000ie]

When used in a neutral way, homosexual is not offensive. But, wow does it ever show up in a lot of very offensive sentences!

Since it's such a long word, it rarely gets used in regular conversation, so there are very few times you hear the word in a positive context. The context it shows up in is either dry and scientific, or hateful.

Gay and Lesiban on the other hand show up in both positive and negative contexts, which is probably why Democrats gravitate to those words over the factually correct 'homosexual'.

B.

 

[tonka]

Homosexual just sounds old fashioned to me, but neutral. Homo...offensive.

All the terms are pretty lame. Queer (as in odd). Gay (as in femininely fabulous).
Maybe new terms will emerge.

 

[topdog]

This opens a huge can of worms regarding language and trying to talk about sexual orientation. Groups of people use the same words but mean different things. And lots of people don’t understand the difference between sex and sexual orientation.

On the word “homosexual” I think I have evolved into Gore Vidal’s perspective that the word is a perfectly accurate adjective (as in “a homosexual act”), but a terrible noun (using the word to mean a person, or a type of person). When used as a noun, it has the connotation that someone can be summed up by their sexual orientation. As if saying that Fred is a homosexual tells you everything you need to know about Fred.

The word “gay”, to me, has always seemed to be more culture-oriented. It feels like it encompasses more than just sex; it’s a tribe with which I identify. While “homosexual” is objective and clinical (a sexual encounter between two people is either homosexual or heterosexual), “gay” cuts a blurry swath across friendships, politics, art, entertainment, and family. I think in that way the word doesn’t reduce people to their choices in the bedroom (as homosexual does), and connects to more social, non-sexual, life experiences.

All of this dances around the thing that really bugs me the most, which is recognizing that sexual orientation is a common human experience. Whether the focus is same-sex or opposite-sex, it’s the same thing. There isn’t “heterosexual” falling in love and “homosexual” falling in love; there’s just the common experience of falling in love. The gender of the beloved is psychologically irrelevant. (It is culturally very important, but that’s a different discussion.) Likewise sexual desire, relationships, sexual gratification, jealousy, partner bonding – these are what we all feel and deal with whether we are gay or straight.

 

[aman_dig]

Not sure if anyone would read this..
I'm genuinely wondering , what term should be appropriate for one to use for a person who like romantically to another person of the same gender?
The word homosexuals, gays or lesbians never rub me the wrong way as I find it nothing more than a classification term for species such as men, women, human, animals, birds, or arachnids.
i.e
waterfowls such as ducks or swans is a subspecies of birds which explain that it is a species of birds that habituates nearby pool of waters.
or in another examples
Subspecies of human such as ethnicity or genders.
both of this shows a physical traits which further distinct the group.

however
If we talk about a person character wouldn't it be classification too?
For instance , someone who talks a lot we would highly referred them as talkative,
or
someone who preferred staying at home most of the time would be regards as introverts,
in this case, someone who like another person of the same gender would be referred as homosexuals?

Am I missing something?

 

[topdog]

...I find it nothing more than a classification term for species such as men, women, human, animals, birds, or arachnids; i.e
waterfowls such as ducks or swans is a subspecies of birds which explain that it is a species of birds that habituates nearby pool of waters.
or in another examples subspecies of human such as ethnicity or genders ...

Yes, we do like to sort things into different categories, don't we - dogs, cats, birds, gay, straight, black, white, introvert, extrovert, etc.

First, let's get this out of the way - when you talk about class and species I understand that you are using those words to mean general classifications of things that go together. Just so we don't get confused, there is also stricter scientific definitions for categorizing all living things, as in the illustration of the fox below.

Now, here's the point - I think you may be mixing up attributes and classification groups. Attributes are individual qualities, while the classification groups (like species or sub-species) are groups of attributes that all the members have in common.

Example: Classifying Dogs

Let's take groups of dog breeds, as an example. There are lots of terrier breeds, like Westie, Scottish and Jack Russell Terriers. They hunt animals that are on the ground and they will dig them out of their burrows. Their instincts will fire up at the scent or sight of rats, squirrels, rabbits, etc.., and once they have detected prey they are fearless and determined. Other animals like birds, fish, or people may catch their curiosity, but won't send them into "hunting" mode. All of today's terriers came from a common (now extinct) breed of hardy, medium-sized British farming dogs.

A happy West Highland Terrier

So Terriers are defined by a number of attributes that they share in common:

• Hunt ground animals
• Love to dig
• Fearless and determined hunters
• Not interested in flying birds
• Genetically come from a common ancestor

There are differences between them as well, some are medium sized (Wheatons), some are small (Cairn, Westie), some are very small (Yorkie). Some are exclusively white (Westie), some are tan (Wheaton) and some come in a variety of colors. So, size and color are two attributes that they do not have in common.

A Group that Shares Many Attributes in Common = a Classification

OK, where am I going with all this? A classification is really only useful when there are multiple attributes consistently in common.

Let's say we want to instead classify dogs by color (a single attribute). In our black dog group we would have Scotties, black Labrador Retrievers, Poodles, Pit Bulls, Dachsunds, to name a few. But what else do they have in common, other than being black? Other than the fact that they are all dogs, not much. A black Lab share lots of traits with a blond Lab, but not many with a Scottish Terrier.

So while you can classify dogs by color - it doesn't tell you anything about the dogs as a group. Other than the one attribute they share in common: color.

Back to classifying people

The same is true of using a same-sex orientation as a way of classifying people. Let's say we lived in a world where everyone was either homosexually or heterosexually oriented; it was exclusively one or the other. We could divide people into these two groups - but the question is what else do they have in common? Personality? Size? Intelligence? Nope. Gays and straights share every other attribute.

What makes it worse is that we do not live in that binary world. Some men fall in love with women, but still enjoy sex with men. Some can fall in love with either gender. And some vary over time and cirstances. As I said before, you can classify a single sexual encounter between two people as either homosexual or heterosexual. But that's where the certainty ends. Once you look at all of a person's life and experience, two boxes are not enough. So sexual orientation is even problematic as an attribute because there is no objective way to sort out one from the other.

Here's another issue, if "homosexual" is the attribute we are using to create our classification, then it will include not just humans, but also penguins, pelicans, dolphins, lions, horses, and the multitude of other animals that have same-sex attractions. So the more exact you are with the classification, the more dissimilar the members of the group become.

Human, birds, ducks, swans, poodles, terriers - these are all groups that share many common attributes among their members; in other words, they tell you a lot about the individual animal. Gay, straight, introvert, extrovert - these are individual attributes that don't tell you anything new about the individual, other than the single characteristic.

 

[Shelter]

Wow Topdog - what a good post. I'm very impressed. It was as if my Prof has spoken.
Very interesting what you have said and so true! Thanks for this lecture.

 

[fkboy1]

Depends on the context and tone of the speaker/writer.

 

[Theatreart]

Is it more offensive than the word queer?

 

[cranston]

Interesting not a single person voting in the poll so far has considered the word to be offensive. I have never in my life heard of a homosexual being offended by this word.

 

[aman_dig]

Thank you for the enlightenment..
If I may add,
Firstly I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression on using the word classification mainly for two reasons.
1. English is not my first language and I do not hold strong grasp with it.
2. I intend to use the word more for the english vocabulary rather than the scientific term of it.

Secondly,

Some men fall in love with women, but still enjoy sex with men.

Do you mean that we cannot classify sexual preferences because it is more complex than a biology class order?
If so that would not be entirely impossible since a behavior outside of a pattern would be referred as an anomaly.

As for my opinion, a person who like to consummate with both genders are not at all unusual in fact I would say that it is an entirely new group (for the sake of this conversion though it may have exist longer), different but not better or worse.

Human, birds, ducks, swans, poodles, terriers - these are all groups that share many common attributes among their members; in other words, they tell you a lot about the individual animal. Gay, straight, introvert, extrovert - these are individual attributes that don't tell you anything new about the individual, other than the single characteristic.

Let's say we want to instead classify dogs by color (a single attribute). In our black dog group we would have Scotties, black Labrador Retrievers, Poodles, Pit Bulls, Dachsunds, to name a few. But what else do they have in common, other than being black? Other than the fact that they are all dogs, not much. A black Lab share lots of traits with a blond Lab, but not many with a Scottish Terrier.

So while you can classify dogs by color - it doesn't tell you anything about the dogs as a group. Other than the one attribute they share in common: color.

Well its true that we can't say much about a dog's color but how about its eyes?
Dog's eyes was place to point at the same direction allowing binocular viewing, similar to humans and any other large mammals
While a fish or a rabbit have eyes located on either side of their head which allowing them to obtain panoramic visions.

Two different set of eyes placement in each of their own species but tells which is suitable to a predators to hunt or a prey to evade.

Here's another issue, if "homosexual" is the attribute we are using to create our classification, then it will include not just humans, but also penguins, pelicans, dolphins, lions, horses, and the multitude of other animals that have same-sex attractions. So the more exact you are with the classification, the more dissimilar the members of the group become.

Also I really don't have an issue about sharing a homosexual attributes as with the multitude of other animal, in fact I find it liberating since all my life I was told that it was unnatural. So that is the most natural it can be (I did a class presentation in my university about homosexual waterfowls). Which from your previous quote imply that you would not like it (maybe I'm wrong, sorry if I misinterpret). If so that is true, wouldn't you be bothered that we share opposable thumbs attribute same with primates (though we might be slightly similar to genetics with them but distance in intelligence) or we grow with cultures same to those of zebras or elephants, or sometimes we sleep talk as a dolphin does?

My point is using the word homosexuals shouldn't be offensive but more how do you differentiate characters of certain people. It should not have ill thoughts or malice intents come from using that word.

when a person who generally like to copulate with a another person of the same gender are homosexuals.
when a person who generally like to copulate with both genders are bisexuals.
when a person who generally like to copulate with the opposite genders are heterosexuals.
when a person who generally have sex with both genders at a certain phase, I say it's experiments.

 

[W!nston]

GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Terms To Avoid

Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people"

Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP & New York Times Style).

Offensive: "homosexual relations/relationship," "homosexual couple," "homosexual sex," etc.
Preferred: "relationship," "couple" (or, if necessary, "gay couple"), "sex," etc.

Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple," characterizing their relationship as "a homosexual relationship," or identifying their intimacy as "homosexual sex" is extremely offensive and should be avoided. These constructions are frequently used by anti-gay extremists to denigrate gay people, couples and relationships.

As a rule, try to avoid labeling an activity, emotion or relationship gay, lesbian, or bisexual unless you would call the same activity, emotion or relationship "straight" if engaged in by someone of another orientation. In most cases, your readers, viewers or listeners will be able to discern people's sexes and/or orientations through the names of the parties involved, your depictions of their relationships, and your use of pronouns.

Offensive: "sexual preference"
Preferred: "sexual orientation" or "orientation"

The term "sexual preference" is typically used to suggest that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is a choice and therefore can and should be "cured." Sexual orientation is the accurate description of an individual's enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to members of the same and/or opposite sex and is inclusive of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, as well as straight men and women (see AP & New York Times Style).

Offensive: "gay lifestyle" or "homosexual lifestyle"
Preferred: "gay lives," "gay and lesbian lives"

There is no single lesbian, gay or bisexual lifestyle. Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are diverse in the ways they lead their lives. The phrase "gay lifestyle" is used to denigrate lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals suggesting that their orientation is a choice and therefore can and should be "cured" (See AP & New York Times Style).

Offensive: "admitted homosexual" or "avowed homosexual"
Preferred: "openly lesbian," "openly gay," "openly bisexual," or simply "out"

Dated term used to describe those who self-identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual in their personal, public, and/or professional lives. The words "admitted" or "avowed" suggest that being gay is somehow shameful or inherently secretive. You may also simply describe the person as being out, for example: "Ricky Martin is an out pop star from Puerto Rico." Avoid the use of the word "homosexual" in any case (see AP & New York Times Style).

Offensive: "gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda"
Preferred: Accurate descriptions of the issues (e.g., "inclusion in existing non-discrimination and hate crimes laws," "ending the ban on transgender service members")

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are motivated by the same hopes, concerns and desires as other everyday Americans. They seek to be able to earn a living, be safe in their communities, serve their country, and take care of the ones they love. Their commitment to equality is one they share with many allies and advocates who are not LGBT. Notions of a so-called "homosexual agenda" are rhetorical inventions of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of equal opportunity for LGBT people as sinister (see AP & New York Times Style).

Offensive: "special rights"
Preferred: "equal rights" or "equal protection"

Anti-gay extremists frequently characterize equal protection of the law for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as "special rights" to incite opposition to such things as relationship recognition and inclusive non-discrimination laws (see AP & New York Times Style).

DEFAMATORY LANGUAGE

"fag," "faggot," "dyke," "homo," "sodomite," and similar epithets
The criteria for using these derogatory terms should be the same as those applied to vulgar epithets used to target other groups: they should not be used except in a direct quote that reveals the bias of the person quoted. So that such words are not given credibility in the media, it is preferred that reporters say, "The person used a derogatory word for a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person."
"deviant," "disordered," "dysfunctional," "diseased," "perverted," "destructive" and similar descriptions

The notion that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is a psychological disorder was discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Today, words such as "deviant," "diseased" and "disordered" often are used to portray LGBT people as less than human, mentally ill, or as a danger to society. Words such as these should be avoided in stories about the gay community. If they must be used, they should be quoted directly in a way that clearly reveals the bias of the person being quoted.

Associating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people with pedophilia, child abuse, sexual abuse, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, adultery and/or incest

Being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender is neither synonymous with, nor indicative of, any tendency toward pedophilia, child abuse, sexual abuse, bestiality, bigamy, polygamy, adultery and/or incest. Such claims, innuendoes and associations often are used to insinuate that LGBT people pose a threat to society, to families, and to children in particular. Such assertions and insinuations are defamatory and should be avoided, except in direct quotes that clearly reveal the bias of the person quoted.

SOURCE

The following sentence is a direct quote from the article in the original post of this thread:

I was surprised then to learn that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) listed it as an offensive term back in 2006.

I thought it might be helpful to post the 'GLAAD Media Reference Guide' he referenced. Within the explanation given in the above 'Guide' it is clear that foes of the Gay Equality movement use terms such as 'homosexual' with pejorative and derogatory connotations.

I would equate the usage of terms such as 'homosexual' by those foes to the usage of the 'N' word by foes of the Black Equality movement. In that context the word 'homosexual' is offensive to me.

Does anyone else feel the same way or not?

 

[gb2000ie]

I would equate the usage by those foes of terms such as 'homosexual' to the usage of the 'N' word by foes of the Black Equality movement. In that context the word 'homosexual' is offensive to me.

Does anyone else feel the same way or not?

It's certainly true that you only hear the word used by discriminators. As a scientific term it should be dry and boring, but alas, the nut-jobs have made the word their own

B.

 

[cranston]

Homosexual in casual or scientific usage is ok, whereas its use in a media or political context isn't ok i guess.

 

[cranston]

Thank you for the enlightenment..
If I may add,
Firstly I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression on using the word classification mainly for two reasons.
1. English is not my first language and I do not hold strong grasp with it.
2. I intend to use the word more for the english vocabulary rather than the scientific term of it.

Secondly,



Do you mean that we cannot classify sexual preferences because it is more complex than a biology class order?
If so that would not be entirely impossible since a behavior outside of a pattern would be referred as an anomaly.

As for my opinion, a person who like to consummate with both genders are not at all unusual in fact I would say that it is an entirely new group (for the sake of this conversion though it may have exist longer), different but not better or worse.






Well its true that we can't say much about a dog's color but how about its eyes?
Dog's eyes was place to point at the same direction allowing binocular viewing, similar to humans and any other large mammals
While a fish or a rabbit have eyes located on either side of their head which allowing them to obtain panoramic visions.

Two different set of eyes placement in each of their own species but tells which is suitable to a predators to hunt or a prey to evade.



Also I really don't have an issue about sharing a homosexual attributes as with the multitude of other animal, in fact I find it liberating since all my life I was told that it was unnatural. So that is the most natural it can be (I did a class presentation in my university about homosexual waterfowls). Which from your previous quote imply that you would not like it (maybe I'm wrong, sorry if I misinterpret). If so that is true, wouldn't you be bothered that we share opposable thumbs attribute same with primates (though we might be slightly similar to genetics with them but distance in intelligence) or we grow with cultures same to those of zebras or elephants, or sometimes we sleep talk as a dolphin does?

My point is using the word homosexuals shouldn't be offensive but more how do you differentiate characters of certain people. It should not have ill thoughts or malice intents come from using that word.

when a person who generally like to copulate with a another person of the same gender are homosexuals.
when a person who generally like to copulate with both genders are bisexuals.
when a person who generally like to copulate with the opposite genders are heterosexuals.
when a person who generally have sex with both genders at a certain phase, I say it's experiments.

That's cool I never knew dolphins talked in their sleep before, I bet they are having tons of nightmares about the gulf of Mexico.

 

[cade]

I refer to myself as gay rather than homosexual because the latter sounds so clinical, as if I'm an odd creature being studied by a bunch of scientists.

 

[Sebaceous]

What a stupid article

 

[Mardo]

I think the word heterosexual is deeply heterophobic.

 

[gb2000ie]

Having said that, I would rather be called anything by anybody than have freedom of choice in the use of the English language being proscribed by prissy lists like the one from GLADD.

Do bear in mind that a style guide is not intended as a proscription for all of society, it is just the voice a publication defines for it's writers, and ONLY while they are writing for that publication.

All major publications have style guides, that's why all NYT articles speak in a similar voice etc..

I think some people may be reading too much into what is basically nothing more than a help sheet for GLADD writers.

B.