Who owns "code words"?

Who owns "code words"?

by SouthernFriedInfidel | Published on June 22nd, 2009, 6:28 am | Life

Alice, I've looked at your links in the health care thread. Some thoughts about this business of using the term ":homosexual" versus LGBT or "gay."

The first link was the item about the Christian news site that hand that auto-replace gaffe where "gay" was replaced by "homosexual" with humorous consequences during the Olympics.

The AP Style Q/A page had this interesting exchange:

Q. This is a long question, so please bear with me. In a recent story on the "Day of Silence," our paper used the term homosexuality. The AP's entry on "gay" suggests the use of that word in place of "homosexual." Gay, on its own, can't replace "homosexuality," but the guide's listing also says that any reference to an "alternative lifestyle" should also be avoided. It's not an outright – from Fairbanks, Alaska on Wed, Apr 16, 2008
A. Your question breaks off. However, the stylebook's "gay" entry is not intended to bar the term homosexuality. This noun is used frequently in AP stories.

So the AP doesn't see a need to bar the term.

Granted, the Christian community has its cute uses of the word as a "code word," but to tell you the truth, I'm getting a bit sick of letting these nuts trying to take over the English language. Seems to me that all religious groups have a plethora of "code words" aimed primarily at helping them feel superior to outsiders. That's their problem, but I would prefer that it not become mine if at all possible.

Myself, I can't for the life of me visualize what a "gay lifestyle," a "homosexual lifestyle" or a "heterosexual lifestyle" might actually be. Maybe it's because my own life has little to no style anyway. Whatever -- I'm glad that "lifestyle" seems to have gone by the wayside -- except for in the nut community.

Now one of your links does state that gays don't want to be called "homosexual." Myself, I think it would be preferable to them not to be called by ANY group name. You can't discriminate against an unidentified group. Until people find a way to just look at other people and see "people," the problem will persist. And regardless of the word one prefers to use for identifying such groups, whether "pretty" or "ugly" or "clinical," the problem will remain in force.

This brings up the wider issue of using language in a way that is respectful of all people. It is really getting difficult. As an example, let me share with you the history I have lived with in terms of how to respectfully refer to people of the Negro race. My mother was a southerner, and she would NEVER allow her children to use the word, "nigger". And let me tell you that we lived in the North and that word was almost the only word used by my white neighbors and schoolmates to refer to Black people. However, even as early as the 1940s, my Mom recognized it as disrespectful and she was offended by it. A Black woman was her nanny, and as a child, she grew up loving that woman and by extension, she loved most Black people she met. In the 1940s and 1950s, the respectful word was "Negro". In the 1960s and 1970s, the Black Liberation movement asked to be called "Black" instead of "Negro". Some time during the 1990s, the term "Black" became unacceptable to some who wanted to be called "African Americans".

As a person who wants to be respectful of other people, I place great importance on avoiding use of words that others find offensive. However, I know some Black women who consider the term, "African American" to be offensive. Their point is that they and their ancestors for quite a few generations were born in America, and they have no ties to Africa. Therefore, they don't believe they are in any way "African Americans". Worse, they say the term implies they are not "real" Americans. So, today, I literally do not know how to refer to "Black/African American" people when I must talk about some of the differences medical people need to know about how to provide for their health care needs.

Right now, I don't know of any treatment decisions that should be linked to sexual orientation. It just isn't an issue in my practice. But of course I do see patients with gay/lesbian sexual orientation. But I don't refer to their sexuality when I treat them. It isn't relevant. All that is relevant is that they are seeking medical care and it is my priviledge to provide it to them. But given that the drug industry is moving toward group and even individual specific medications, that may change. I want to be able to refer respectfully to any population that I must identify as potential recipients of specialized medical treatments.

The point is that language is very important. Genetic/biochemical subgroups (racial/ethnic generally--but also groups that have biochemical characteristics that distinguish them as a subgroup) within a population have a right to determine how they want to be referred to--and of course, to be treated linguistically with respect. So, it is really important that any genetic/identifiable subgroup identify a name for themselves, and it would really help if that name doesn't change every few years.

I'm not sure there is really a use for any of the words in a perfect soceity.

Liv wrote:I'm not sure there is really a use for any of the words in a perfect soceity.

Indeed. When you move to Utopia, could you vouch for me to get in?

Timely.....

“They’re not,” Curry answered, “unless we give them civil rights and allow them to marry. Then they are a threat. Three percent is not harmful unless they keep pushing and pushing and take on rights.”

Curry then told lawmakers that because LGBT people use the word “gay” instead of “homosexual” and Will and Grace has gay characters, homosexuality will “become accepted.”

“Kids will grow up and try it,” she complained.

The exchange caused a visible reaction in Hite and other committee members, both Democrats and Republicans.

via

Liv wrote:Timely.....

“They’re not,” Curry answered, “unless we give them civil rights and allow them to marry. Then they are a threat. Three percent is not harmful unless they keep pushing and pushing and take on rights.”

Curry then told lawmakers that because LGBT people use the word “gay” instead of “homosexual” and Will and Grace has gay characters, homosexuality will “become accepted.”

“Kids will grow up and try it,” she complained.

The exchange caused a visible reaction in Hite and other committee members, both Democrats and Republicans.

via

Doesn't the stupidity of some people just amaze you??? Sheesh! Wonder what Curry will do when/if she learns that one of her own children is gay or lesbian.

Liv wrote:Timely.....

“They’re not,” Curry answered, “unless we give them civil rights and allow them to marry. Then they are a threat. Three percent is not harmful unless they keep pushing and pushing and take on rights.”

Curry then told lawmakers that because LGBT people use the word “gay” instead of “homosexual” and Will and Grace has gay characters, homosexuality will “become accepted.”

“Kids will grow up and try it,” she complained.

OK -- so what is the problem if some teenager "tries" gay sex? I recall being a teenager, and I imagine that (before I got religion) I might have "tried" gay sex had some opportunity come along. In retrospect, I rather think I would not have cared much for the experience. Me being "non-gay" and all. But that's the point. Adolescents see their world changing radically, and they manage to try out a lot of stuff that doesn't affect them long-term.

The way these numbskulls talk, you'd think that they believe that gay sex is waaay better than straight sex. That would be the only reason to fear having any teenager "try it" so far as I can see.

Good point. Gay sex is like marijuana, you try it because the lattes, interior design and coordinated clothes are cool, then one suck on a joint and you're hooked on the hard stuff.