chipygmalion80 Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 (edited) GLAAD now says the word “homosexual” is outdated, derogatory, offensive and a term to avoid. GLAAD says the new term is SGL -- Same Gender Loving. 😐 I'm a month late on this news. It's quietly made the rounds elsewhere, like on Reddit /askgaybro and by YTube pundits like Brad Polumbo. I didn't get my Survey Says that asked me whether I thought "homosexual" was offensive. Did anyone? My hubby laughed when I told him and said: "GLAAD is a bunch of f*gs" <-- 😆now that IS an offensive word to some, and that's why he used it. The trouble I have is that I know nice people involved in local chapters of GLAAD, PFLAG, etc. and I trust(ed) they mean well. I've not asked them about this word ban, yet. Ironically, GLAAD's President Ellis said, just a few months ago, to leave the LGBTQA+ community alone and don't use us as political pawns in this mess. What do folks make of this change? Edited April 22 by chipygmalion80 typo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topblkmale Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 So now what happens to heterosexual and bisexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockstrapBottom Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 Long overdue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipygmalion80 Posted April 22 Author Report Share Posted April 22 17 minutes ago, topblkmale said: So now what happens to heterosexual and bisexual? Perhaps those words are too clinical too. It seems anything with the root "sex" is getting bombarded now... 11 minutes ago, JockstrapBottom said: Long overdue! Do you find the word "homosexual" offensive? Even if you do, why purge or ban it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topblkmale Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 7 minutes ago, chipygmalion80 said: Perhaps those words are too clinical too. It seems anything with the root "sex" is getting bombarded now... Homosexual was next on the chopping block after transsexual was deemed offensive. Next up will be the change from bisexual to polyamorous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators viking8x6 Posted April 22 Moderators Report Share Posted April 22 5 minutes ago, topblkmale said: Next up will be the change from bisexual to polyamorous. That would be problematic, because they don't mean anything close to the same thing. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbpoznow Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 why don't we just move on and stop trying to stir up crap by trying to ban certain words that we deem offensive. why dont people just take others as they are, you will find most are great people 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFCumdog Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 (edited) I find it all rather ridiculous. I think gay worked just fine. These folks need to stop fucking with shit that isn't broken, because all they achieve in doing this is make us all look like a bunch of thin-skinned snowflakes who are easily triggered by words. Just be nice to us, that's all anyone wants. Edited April 22 by SFCumdog 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipygmalion80 Posted April 22 Author Report Share Posted April 22 2 minutes ago, viking8x6 said: That would be problematic, because they don't mean anything close to the same thing. I've heard the argument goes that we can make words mean anything. Problem with that is words can mean gibberish. LOL! Anyways, just let the word mean something positive instead of negative. Don't ban it. Let's be real here. What if we (some LGBs) already took ownership of the word "homosexual" and meant it to mean something more than just clinical or offensive to us. I've heard "proud homosexual!" shouted a Pride Parades! I think the message is clear at a parade: the gay person yelling it is saying they won't be silenced or labelled. I don't see the problem with "homosexual" if folks make it mean something positive for folks. 2 minutes ago, bbpoznow said: why don't we just move on and stop trying to stir up crap by trying to ban certain words that we deem offensive. why dont people just take others as they are, you will find most are great people Totally. And I hesitated to even post this because it could just give folks cannon fodder. I wish this crap would end. I'm tired of all the word banning. It started years ago and won't stop. GLAAD is just the latest example. Remember folks aren't "homeless" or "jobless" anymore? They're "underemployed" and "unhoused". In the end, it doesn't change what I mean if I say the new words. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swytch360 Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 They didn’t ban the word and the statement provided recommended alternate terminology. I’m not bothered by it TBH. There are some hot dudes who turn out to be trans and have vaginas. There are beautiful women with dicks. I know there’s some people out there who don’t care about the plumbing down below so the new proposed terms that indicate you are attracted to masculine or feminine presentation make sense to describe them. They did say that homosexual has a derogatory connotation, and I disagree with that, the word still works for me, but maybe it has become… imprecise. I feel like those terms don’t really address whether you are attracted to a masculine or feminine presentation AND the genitalia commonly associate with them. But I can also understand how maybe the trinity of homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual aren’t concisely or effectively covering all of the options in a world with more trans visibility. Either way, a memo on recommendations from GLAAD ain’t exactly law, but this is probably something someone ought to start figuring out so we can all avoid some awkward misunderstandings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
versasslover Posted April 23 Report Share Posted April 23 I feel OP wants to stir the pot here, or definitely follows some reactionary content creators. A one second google search and you can find out exactly why they recommend avoiding the word homosexual. And it’s not SGL. The whole list is recommended for use by the media, not the LGBTQ Community: This Guide is intended to be used by journalists reporting for mainstream media outlets and media creators who want to tell the stories of LGBTQ people fairly and accurately. It is not intended to be an all-inclusive glossary of language used within the LGBTQ community, nor is it a prescriptive guide for LGBTQ people. There is no one way to be LGBTQ, nor is there one way to describe LGBTQ people. In fact, you will see one practice recommended throughout the Guide: Ask people how they describe themselves, ask people their pronouns, and identify them in your coverage as such. [think before following links] https://glaad.org/reference/ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipygmalion80 Posted April 23 Author Report Share Posted April 23 18 hours ago, swytch360 said: They didn’t ban the word and the statement provided recommended alternate terminology. I’m not bothered by it TBH. There are some hot dudes who turn out to be trans and have vaginas. There are beautiful women with dicks. I know there’s some people out there who don’t care about the plumbing down below so the new proposed terms that indicate you are attracted to masculine or feminine presentation make sense to describe them. They did say that homosexual has a derogatory connotation, and I disagree with that, the word still works for me, but maybe it has become… imprecise. I feel like those terms don’t really address whether you are attracted to a masculine or feminine presentation AND the genitalia commonly associate with them. But I can also understand how maybe the trinity of homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual aren’t concisely or effectively covering all of the options in a world with more trans visibility. Either way, a memo on recommendations from GLAAD ain’t exactly law, but this is probably something someone ought to start figuring out so we can all avoid some awkward misunderstandings? For sure. It's not law. This can be a non-issue within group, so for some of us. I took the recommendations to mean that journalists going forward will report "SGL", and rather than be confused by that acronym, hopefully the definition is included in their reporting. It's not law. People are free to say whatever they want. 12 hours ago, versasslover said: I feel OP wants to stir the pot here, or definitely follows some reactionary content creators. A one second google search and you can find out exactly why they recommend avoiding the word homosexual. And it’s not SGL. GLAAD uses SGL on their website as an alternative. When you search the GLAAD website, you'll see the term and variations of it like "LGBTQ+/ SGL". Yet another very long acronym. Drum-roll Dave Chappelle and his hilarious jokes about the Alphabet People. These acronyms are getting ridiculously long. Who has time to even remember what they all stand for?! I will react when someone with authority like GLAAD says they took input from 'the community' to create these language guides. On the one hand say 'be respectful of each person', yet also say 'reference such people with these words'. Hah! Can't have it both ways mate! Just take each person as a person. Sex boils this down very easy for me. I fuck. I do not go up and ask, "are you a gold-star gay?" or "are you trans?" I've had sex with everyone. Well, not literally. There's not enough time, 😅 and some people don't want to have sex with me, nor I them, LOL! Am I bi? pansexual? Which label? which box? Good grief, those boxes and labels are their problem, not mine. So yea, I think GLAAD should actually do what they say and respect the individual. Or do another survey of the community. I'll fill in the bubble sheets for a survey. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hntnhole Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 On 4/23/2024 at 4:22 AM, versasslover said: In fact, you will see one practice recommended throughout the Guide: Ask people how they describe themselves, ask people their pronouns, and identify them in your coverage as such. I tend to look for the "better" rather than the "non-better", but that's just my bent. When all is said and done, the actual words don't really matter; it's what the intent happens to be that matters. Language - just like a hammer or screwdriver - is our most commonly used "tool" to communicate with others. It's the intent behind the words that's either reinforcing or negative. I see these efforts at making language relating to those of us that are sexually different from the majority as efforts to make language itself less able to be interpreted as negative in connotation. I'll bet that we've all heard Black Americans use a word amongst themselves that would get non-Af/Am's asses kicked if they used the word, and justifiably so. Sure, I'm pleased to know that one of our organizations has taken this step, which can only be interpreted as a step forward, but it won't make the kettle boil over either. It's all in how the language is used that's so important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PozBearWI Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 <sigh> It does seem to be the way... Maybe we can stop trying to fix our issues by making up a new word every few years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topblkmale Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 I still identify as homo erectus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now