posted
. . . is the redundancy inherent in the phrase. If we accept "gay" to mean "homosexual", then isn't that, by definition, what a lesbian is? Are there any lesbians out there that aren't gay? The phrase "gay and lesbian" goes out of its way to mention the entire group, in this case homosexuals, and then in the same breath specify one and only one subset of the group, in this case female homosexuals. It's ridiculous. Instead of "gays and lesbians", can't we just say "homosexuals" and be done with it?
(And yes, I know that "gay" actually means "happy". But that battle is lost already. Get over it. It means "homosexual" now, and there's nothing we can do about it.)
(And yes, I also know that, if you want to be absolutely technical, a "Lesbian" is an inhabitant of the Greek island of Lesbos. The island is called "Lesvos" in modern pronunciation, by the way, and its inhabitants are now called "Lesvonians".)
Another phrase that does the same thing is "drugs and alcohol". Alcohol is a drug. It's a substance that modifies chemical processes within the body. That makes it a drug. It's a waste of time to say "drugs and alcohol" when "drugs" covers the same concept in one fifth the syllables.
What's next? "Men and grandfathers"? "Food and sandwiches"? "Books and novels"? Enough already! Just because something takes longer to say doesn't mean it's more precise.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
No, no, I don't mean the words "lesbian" and "alcohol" shouldn't exist. I'm saying the specific phrases "gay and lesbian" and "drugs and alcohol" are redundant.
People use these phrases all the time. There are even homosexual rights organizations that use it as part of their names. For example, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. I'm saying it's pointless to say "and lesbian" in this context, since they have already said "gay" and therefore already covered the concept.
By analogy, suppose there was an organization called something like Alliance for the Fair Treatment of Humans and Women. The implication would be that women are a different concept from humans. That women are not already, by definition, human. But that would be ridiculous, and anyone could see that. Instead, they'd just say "Humans", or, more likely in this case, "Humanity".
Of course I'm not being so stupid as to suggest the word "lesbian" shouldn't exist. We need it for instances where we are specifically discussing female homosexuals. (Of course, we don't have an equivalent term for male homosexuals. Perhaps we should get one.) But using the phrase "gay and lesbian", saying it as a phrase is redundant.
posted
One problem I have with gays is that people took a perfectly good word that means "cheerfulness, merry, bright, lively, ect..." and perverted it. You shouldn't be using "gay" this way and start using the word "homosexual."
Posts: 312 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: (Of course, we don't have an equivalent term for male homosexuals. Perhaps we should get one.)
I believe "gay" has, in more recent times, become the term used for male homosexuals. Sort of like how "man" has been used to encompass the entire human species, but generally means a male.
posted
For example, here's a sentence taken from the GLAAD website:
quote:We know that what people watch on TV or read in their newspaper shapes how they view and treat the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people around them.
Lesbians are, by definition, gay. They've already said "gay" in this sentence, so how does it add anything to go ahead and throw in the word "lesbian"? That portion of the sentence is precisely paraphrasable as ". . . how they view and treat the homosexual, female homosexual, bisexual and transgender people . . ."
In this sentence, and in many others like it, the word "lesbian" appears redundantly. Why bother including it in this sentence when they've already established that they are talking about the whole group (homosexual humans) that includes the subgroup (homosexual women) they specified? Why specify?
It would be like saying, "We believe that Christians and Mormons are being unfairly treated by today's society." Aside from attempting to imply that Mormons are not, by definition, Christians, which is absurd, what possible use could there be for trying to use a phrase like that?
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't about what anyone wants to be called! It's about needless linguistic redundancy!
I also mentioned "drugs and alcohol", in case no one noticed. I said it was redundant because alcohol is already a drug. No one says "drugs and marijuana" or "drugs and ibuprofen". Marijuana and ibuprofen are both types of drugs, so why phrase it that way? Well, alcohol is also a type of drug, so what do we gain by tacking "and alcohol" on after the word "drugs" when we're discussing drugs?
I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't be called gay or that female homosexuals shouldn't be called lesbians!
Are you telling me that none of you have ever heard anyone say "gay and lesbian" or "drugs and alcohol"? Have you never said something like "We need to find a way to keep our kids away from drugs and alcohol" or "I think that it's important that we protect the rights of gays and lesbians"? Casting the sentence that way is redundant because by the time you get to the word after "and", you've already covered the concept by the previous word!
posted
When I hear "drugs" by itself, though, I don't think "alcohol". I think "speed" and "marijuana" and, depending on the context, I may think "nicotine".
So they probably say things like "drugs and alcohol" for oblivious people like me.
Also, did you see my last post? It has to be right because somebody agreed with me.
Neil Gaiman said it best: I've never liked gay as a synonym for queer. Renders a perfectly decent word hors de combat. Lost philological battle, though, there.
Lost, lost, lost. Even those of us who liked the word "gay" to mean "happy" and are sad that it no longer means "happy" must come to terms with it. It has a new meaning. It has History now. Maybe it's happier.
posted
Oh. You think it's perverted. I thought you meant, it's a sad sad thing that this word no longer means what it used to mean. I meant, maybe it's happier because now it is not just a word that has always meant one thing; now it has a History. I beg your pardon for misunderstanding. You sound rather upset about it, and it is only the evolution of a language. Nice doesn't mean precise anymore either.
posted
Like I already said, that particular battle is lost. As RRR said, words evolve in a living language like we have. It may be frustrating to lose certain words as we see it happening, but that doesn't mean we can stop progress. The language will continue to change as long as there are people speaking it on a daily basis.
It's far too late in the game to try to make "gay" stop meaning "homosexual". That sense is so established that it is no longer slang; it is what the word means. You would do just as well to try to restore to "pretty" its original meaning of "deceit". That ship has sailed.
posted
I do make a conscious effort to say "drugs" rather than "drugs and alcohol". It is now pretty well ingrained; I have even said, "I didn't know anyone at the party, but hey- free drugs." My listeners were not nearly as excited when they realized which drug I was referring to, but I think I helped to propagate the meme.
"Drugs and ibuprofen" would actually make more sense than "drugs and alcohol", because drugs can have an implied psychoactive in front of it.
I believe "gay" has come to mean homosexual male at least as much as it means homosexual. Would you call a homosexual female a gay?
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fyfe, I'm saying that you should use the word "homosexual" instead of "gay" because they mean two completely opposite things.
I wouldn't say "opposite", but in any case, they don't any more, G-Money. Check it: times change, dude, and so does slang, y'dig? Even if you want to give it a hardcore fight, slang is going to form the next generation's vocabulary. You can't stop it, so you have to just go with the flow. Yardworks (that's a new slang for "words" from now on) that were viewed as obscene or completely out of context fifty or sixty years ago, most of our society is now completely down with. Look at "contractions", for goodness sake. Those started out as slang, but are now completely accepted as normal and are even taught in English schools. Fo' reals.
quote:I believe "gay" has come to mean homosexual male at least as much as it means homosexual. Would you call a homosexual female a gay?
Would I? No. But then, I wouldn't call a male homosexual "a gay" either. That would make me sound like a homophobe.
"Yeah, John's got a boyfriend. Didn't you know he's a gay?"
It sounds homophobic. I only use "gay" as an adjective. Unlike "lesbian", which does perfectly fine as an adjective or a noun, "gay" does not sound at all right as a noun.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you can't stop it, just go with the flow?"
Suddenly I'm reminded by a story about a boy who was picking up and throwing the muscles, or something, that got stuck on the beach after the tide lowered back into the water. Then a man walked by and saw the boy and all the effort he put into to save the muscles, or something, and he asked the boy, "Why are you doing this? You're never going to save all of these. Why don't you just give up?" And the boy replied with something like, "I'm going to save as many as I can." Then the boy threw another muscle into the water.
I guess this story popped into my head because it's about not giving up and doing as much as you can. The boy wasn't able to stop all the muscles from dying, but he didn't just give up and go with the flow of ignorance.
posted
Oh, on the subject, the word "gay" can mean "homosexual" regardless of gender, OR it can mean "male homosexual", and a little thing called context tells us which definition is applicable in any given sentence.
If you say the word "gay" by itself, referring to homosexuals in general, it is very easy for a listener to misunderstand and assume that you are only referring to male homosexuals. Adding in the words "and lesbian" makes your intentions clearer, so that even listeners who jump to the conclusion that the word "gay" refers to men only will understand your meaning.
Basically, the words "and lesbian" give your "gay" enough context to ensure that you communicate the proper meaning effectively.
The same goes for "drugs and alcohol". "Drugs" can refer to all mind- or body-altering chemicals, or it can refer specifically to illegal substances. People who jump to the latter definition will not immediately grasp that you are referring to alcohol, too, unless you articulate it.
But I understand your point. When I first heard those phrases, I thought the same thing
PS: Silly proscriptivists! You do realize that words are completely arbitrary collections of sounds that have no intrinsic meaning, right? So if the word "gay" becomes accepted as a euphemism for "homosexual" in the English language, then that's what the word means. The fact that it also means something else, and has had that other meaning for longer, doesn't mean that that meaning is the only "right" one, and that the modern definition somehow violates it.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the need for the two separate words arises from the traditional, present, and regrettable hostility between male and female homosexuals. The "and lesbian" addon is necessary because otherwise it is not obvious it is true.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the "gays and lesbians" I know get along fine with each other. Many (quite likely most, with some I just don't know) are co-supportive members of GLBT support groups.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on the way it is absorbed by the body or something, isn't alcohol technically a poison? I thought I'd heard that somewhere.... I don't have the time to find evidence right now, so I'm phrasing it as a question rather than a statement.
posted
Also, in the starfish story, the man said, "Why are you doing this? You can't possibly make a difference." And the little boy (although it was a girl when I heard it) said, " It made a diffrence to that one." It's a lot more poignant that way. Although, I'm not at all sure what relevance it has to this thread.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes it’s redundant. I think it evolved from the unfortunate sexism that grew inside the gay culture (gay meaning here the homosexual culture, or sub-culture) and from the need to delineate between if you liked men or women. How did a word that meant happy and carefree come to mean homosexual? Who knows. Lesbian is obvious. Isle of Lesbos. Queer makes more sense as a word… strange and unusual. But in any event… Being gay doesn’t automatically make you smart or more evolved. Just as there is reverse racism there is hypocritical prejudice in the gay community, such as sexism. The gals don’t want to be lumped in with the boys and the boys don’t want to be with the ladies. The other cause of the two names comes from the fact that not all homosexuals like the same sex, the boys like the boys and the girls like the girls. I’ve always thought that since I’m part of a minority and have felt bigotry I have no right to give it back to anyone. But not all folk are as smart as me. Now gay can mean either all homosexuals or just men. Lesbian can mean only gay women. And let's not forget the transgendered peeps...
[ September 05, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, on the subject, the word "gay" can mean "homosexual" regardless of gender, OR it can mean "male homosexual", and a little thing called context tells us which definition is applicable in any given sentence.
But can it, though? The only instance I can think of when "gay" has the specific meaning of male homosexual is in the set phrase "gay and lesbian". Otherwise, it's just an adjective meaning "homosexual". If "lesbian" gets specified more often, that's only because the word exists, while there is no male equivalent. If we had a word for the males specifically, we'd probably hear it as often as "lesbian". We're more likely to say "She's a lesbian", because we have the word, but it would not be incorrect and would create no confusion to say "She's gay."
I think the only reason "gay" is coming to be thought of as a male-specific term is that there is no male-specific term to use otherwise. "Gay" itself is gender-neutral in all cases except when saying "gay and lesbian". But simply drop the "and lesbian" portion, and you're left with a gender-neutral description that covers the entire concept and renders the "and lesbian" qualifier unnecessary.
quote:Without the "gay and lesbian" distinctions, how would the clerk at the video store know which type of porn I wanted?
Again, that's not what I'm talking about. I never said there shouldn't be a word to specify homosexual females. I said that the set phrase "gay and lesbian" is a redundancy. Go ahead and ask for your lesbian porn. I have no objections to that. But if you wanted to say, "There needs to be more porn that gay and lesbian couples can enjoy together," my answer would be, "Well, lesbians are gay, so you kind of just repeated yourself." That, and only that is my objection. Not to the word "lesbian" itself. Just to the set phrase "gay and lesbian".
quote:Based on the way it is absorbed by the body or something, isn't alcohol technically a poison? I thought I'd heard that somewhere....
Well, since a drug is any substance that chemically alters the functions of the body, a poison would be a type of drug. Whether alcohol qualifies as a poison, I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole problem I have with the whole "gay and lesbian" redundancy...is that it just doesn't seem to matter. I guess I'm just not the english nitpicker I should be .
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What? One thread deals with the question of homosexuality being condemned by the Bible, one is a satire of the proposed Constitutional ban on gay marriage, and one is a bit of linguistic nitpicking about certain phrases. Three different threads, three different topics. That's not redundancy.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, much of Greece in ancient times was predominantly inhabited by gay men . . . or at least bisexuals. The Lesbos/homosexuality connection came from Sappho, a female poet who wrote some of her love poems to women.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gay has come to be accepted as refering to both men and women, at least in a casual inviroment. Sort of like saying "hey, do you guys want to go get lunch?" to a group that has females, even though guys is masculen. If you happen to only be addressing females most people would say lesbians.
Simmeler things arise in other languages too like spanish where you will always use the masculen form if there is even one guy in the group
But in a formal context, such as the name of an organization in suport of gays, one would use the more formal "gays and lesbians."
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe alcohol is considered a poison, although I have no time to look up a reference.
That people do not immediately grasp I am referring to alcohol when I say "drugs" is why I say "drugs". I am attempting to get them to remove any moral distinctions they have between legal and illegal drugs.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would consider that as pushing too far in the other direction. I think "moral distinctions" should be drawn among different types of drugs, albeit based on genuine risks rather than the arbitrary fact of which ones the government has opted to criminalize.
Ibuprofen and heroin are both drugs, but there is a world of difference between them. Caffeine and cocaine. THC and arsenic. They all have different effects, and I think distinctions should and must be drawn based upon that.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Verily, I completely agree with you. This has been a topic that has bothered me for years, and I also have had trouble getting people to see my point.
It also bothers me that I can have brothers and sisters or siblings, a mom and dad or parents, but “aunt and uncle” has no gender neutral plural, and cousin has no gender specific term. (there might be a different masculine/feminine way to spell “cousin” but I’m not sure, and in English gender differences in spelling has become irrelevant.)
Posts: 48 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
