h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What makes you so sure? Just kidding. Oh well, I'll age like everyone else.

Wow, I'd forgotten I even STARTED this conversation. Should I read the backlog since my last post (April 11, 2000) or can someone catch me up?

Don't look at me! I can't remember it all!

Being nice to people good, homophobia bad was the general gist of it I think though. In short we're all for loving our fellow man. (Geddit?)

it seems strange to be trying to resume a conversation I last posted in over three years ago (april 4th, 2000)

Yeah, it's strange, but it popped up and I STARTED the whole thing, so I guess I kinda have to participate

Okay, love your fellow person. Got it. Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for a while. As a heterosexual male, if I wanted to communicate that I had a friend who was homosexual, without having to actually use a five syllable word, and without appearing insensitive, how would I do so? Does anybody know if there is an non-offensive term I can use? Does it completely depend on who I'm talking to? Or is any lable automatically essentializing and offensive?

In the UK, gay works just fine for most people.

Those who take offence are usually right on for the sake ofbeing right on.

I remember the first Pride March I went way way back and the banner read, 'Gay and Lesbian' something or other. Now it is Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgeneder, Transseaxual'.

I stopped going on the marches when the banners got too long

Seriously though in a desperate attempt to integrate, the community has managed to segregate itself into mini-hierarchies. Anyone know of a good catch word that can include everyone?

>> Does anybody know if there is an non-offensive term I can use? Does it completely depend on who I'm talking to?

I don't think there's any universally inoffensive term, since some straight people would take offence at the subject even being mentioned, and on the other hand, I suppose there are probably a handful of gay blokes who would object to some term or other on principle.
In general, I guess 'gay' is probably the best word at present.

>> Or is any lable automatically essentializing and offensive?

A word doesn't have to be offensive for someone determined enough to take offence at it. Equally, a normal neutral word can be made to sound offensive depending on how it is spoken (just think of a male chauvinist using the word 'woman', or a man-hating woman using the word 'man').

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by essentialising, but guessing a little, if the only or main piece of information given about a person relates to their sexuality, that could be rather minimising, since it could be taken to imply that's the most defining thing about them.

If there was someone of whatever orientation who spent most of their time chasing potential partners of the appropriate gender or indulging in behaviour typical of one or other stereotype of their particular gender and sexual orientation then possibly 'gay' or 'straight' might be important facts to describe them, but most people are so much more than their sexuality that it often doesn't merit much mention.
One *possible* exception is the case where people about to be introduced would benefit from knowing who is or isn't available, but in that case someone's sexuality is still no more important than whether or not they already have a partner.

"I stopped going on the marches when the banners got too long..." It's how they think they'll fit all of that on a t-shirt that bewilders me...

I think the labelling is only a problem (for me anyway) when people are making assumptions about a persons lifestyle by doing so. I would also object if someone was suggesting that that was the most defining thing about me, but I don't encounter that so much. Is that a widely encountered problem?

"...but in that case someone's sexuality is still no more important than whether or not they already have a partner."
True.

Thanks, that's been helpfull.

I wouldn't use it, I can imagine people could be, but I'm not personally offended by the term 'fruit'. The one unfortunate side effect being the old gag 'How do you make a fruit cordial?'...

I think it also depends on the context. If it follows an expletive, loucly, any term is likely to be considered offensive. Not that anyone here would do that, just contributing out loud/whatever the online equivalent of out loud is.

Good thread, glad it has resurfaced.
Btw. etymology of 'faggot'; that explanation is a little too cute, to ring true. AFAIK homosexuals were not burned at the stake, it was a punishment reserved *only* for traitors- the offences generally being forgery, and women who killed their husbands (counted as treason.)- and heretics. Witches were actually strangled before being burned. Plus, it would take an awful lot of faggots to consume someone.
http://www.etymonline.com/f1etym.htm

There's probably a joke in there somewhere...

Interesting - so where does it come from?

The link says:
"male homosexual," 1914, Amer.Eng. slang (shortened form fag is from 1921), probably from earlier contemptuous term for "woman" (1591), especially an old and unpleasant one, in reference to faggot (1) "bundle of sticks," as something awkward that has to be carried (cf. baggage). It was used in this sense in 20c. by D.H. Lawrence and James Joyce, among others. It may also be reinforced by Yiddish faygele "homosexual," lit. "little bird." It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.
"He [the prefect] used to fag me to blow the chapel organ for him." ["Boy's Own Paper," 1889]
Other obsolete senses of faggot were "man hired into military service simply to fill out the ranks at muster" (1700) and "vote manufactured for party purposes" (1817).

(from Online Etymology Dictionary)

*thumps head* Always read the links...

Interesting.

It's very tempting to make a joke about blowing the chapel organ.