Loaded words and other gay issues (was: Fanfics with slash & sex...I don't get it)

[Queer as John]

ER <ression at hotmail.com> said:

> Well I certainly see [the issue with 'normal'], but I'm not sure I agree!
> Normal, typical and usage are just similar words as far as I'm concerned.
> Obviously I'm not coming at it from where you are, but it seems a bit of jump
> to consider me homophobic because of it (if that is your thesis). However, if
> it offends you, I will certainly try to  avoid use of the word normal when
> talking to you, strange as it seems to me.

Not when talking *to* me, but when talking *of* me and people like me. ("Me"
in the sense that slash refers to gay people.) Does that clarify?

And, no, I don't consider you homophobic ‹ more "someone I need to explain
my perspective to better". (Sorry, that could sound really patronising; it's
not meant to be.) If I thought you were a homophobe, I wouldn't be replying!
:D

> "Normal" and "good" - my PC normally crashes, it normally rains in
> England, the taxman normally wants money from me - these things I do
> not consider good (except when the garden could do with a drop of
> rain).

Those are fine. However, consider ‹ gay people are not normal ‹ normal
people don't do that ‹ normal behaviour ‹ and so on.

For me, and for many other gay people, words like "normal", "deviate" and so
on have negative connotations which, to many non-gay people, do not have
similar resonances. It's similar to the meaning the word "fundamentalist".
Technically, it has a very admirable meaning of attempting to get to the
fundamentals of a religion. In common use and practice in today's society,
it carries negative implications: "militant", "terrorist", "fanatic", and so
on. Part of me deplores this media-influenced "loading" of words, but on the
other hand language is a living entity, despite what the Academie Française
might say. :D

QAJ:

>> Well, I *refuse* to grin and bear it [snip] the right to not be
>> fired or otherwise discriminated against at
>> work based on my sexual orientation, and so on and so forth.

ER:
 
> You serious? Speak to your lawyer, you may never need to work again.
> This is against the law. Period.

Oh, no, it isn't against the law in the United States, and has only very
recently become illegal in the EU. In the USA, it's a state- and
locality-based legal system. The majority of states and localities do not
have sexual orientation related anti-discrimination laws. I quote:

"In 37 states, it is legal to fire someone based on their sexual
orientation. In 48 states, it is legal to do so based on gender identity."

http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/index.asp

That site, the Human Rights Campaign, has some very informative and
eye-opening stuff.

QAJ:

>> I'm curious ‹ how do you go about finding that majority, and that vote? And
>> who gets to vote? What is the electorate here? Members of a fanfiction site?
>> Anyone who wanders along and clicks? Is the voting tied to IP address or not?

ER:

> Pass - that's why I said they'd be hard to come by. One way to get a
> handle on this might be to trawl a few thousand Fics and see which
> ones got slated for slash content (why 'slash' BTW) and which ones
> got hammered for het content.

What I immediately think of by "slated" and "hammered" is the American
Library Association's "Most Frequently Challenged Books" list ‹ you know,
the one where the ALA tallies the books which are most frequently asked to
be removed from libraries? Guess what's at the top of that one?

Yes, that's right. Harry Potter, beating out "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather
Has Two Mommies", numbers 2 and 11 of the 1990-2000 Most Frequently
Challenged Books List.

http://www.ala.org/bbooks/challeng.html#mfcb

Nimbus Plug! Judith Krug, Director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual
Freedom, will be speaking at Nimbus - 2003 in Florida this July.
http://www.hp2003.org.

QAJ:

>> No, they need responsible parents who monitor their internet usage. See my
>> reply to Diana's post.

ER:

> In an ideal world yes, but it ain't going to happen and we shouldn't (where
> practical) subject the child to the failings of the parent when we can so
> easily (from my POV) avoid it.

Frankly, if Joe and Jane Six-Pack are letting Little Joey and Little Suzie
roam around the Internet unsupervised,  reading slash is the least of our
concerns. 

> You obviously feel this deeply, but at the risk of upsetting you again, I feel
> aggrieved at the thought of being told which perfectly good words I can and
> cannot use.

It's not that I'm telling anyone which words they can and cannot use. I am
simply stating that if you choose to use certain words, they carry a
negative implication and loaded meaning for me and many others on this list.
The end result of these implications is a perception that the people using
these words are homophobic.

> BTW, would you object to me calling you queer, or is that now acceptable?

Ah, now, we get onto a very interesting question of usage of minority
vocabulary. Is it, for instance, acceptable for me to say "I speak fag"
while decrying somebody for calling me a fag as I'm walking down the street?

Let's consider our perceptions in a different context, that of race. I have
had discussions about this with friends of various different minority and
majority backgrounds (from straight white men to gay black women and beyond)
and the question is the same as whether or not a white person can use the
word "nigger" in the same way as a black person can.

Both examples appear to be hypocritical. If one person uses the term to
describe himself, why cannot another person use it to describe him? I think
the answer is in the way that the word is used. Many black people "reclaim"
the word "nigger" and "color" (as in People of Color) in the way that many
Wiccans reclaim "witch" and gay people "reclaim" the words "fag", "queer",
"fruit", and so on. This "reclaiming" is an attempt to remove the abusive
connotations from the word by using it in a positive way in every-day
contexts.

In general, and I'm not entirely convinced by this, because it's a horrible
double-standard, the use of the word "nigger", "queer", "fag", etc. is
restricted solely to the minorities concerned, and people outside that
minority should not use it. I can entirely understand frustration with this,
of course, and I do recognise that it's a double-standard. As you say,
Humpty-Dumpty.

QAJ:

>> Or, alternatively, as our admin files suggest, people could be more
>> selective with their use of overly-loaded language.

ER:

> But only if one knows (or indeed agrees) what is overloaded. Short of
> a direct everybody-would-agree-it's-nasty attack, I still maintain
> the immediate lack of feedback means the aggrieved party should at
> least attempt to seek clarification. If not, we'll reach the point
> where all posts are of the "See Spot run" variety (OK, tell me Spot
> is homosexual slang for something :)

Nope. No slang. And I apologise for assuming that you knew that these words
were loaded.

>>> I do know people who object to (or are at least offended by) descriptions of
>>> homosexual pairings but I don't know anybody who objects to inter- racial
>>> coupling. It's not to say that such bigots don't exist, but I can only speak
>>> from my own experience.
>>> 
>> Right, it's here that I will ask for clarification. Your words make me think
>> that you believe that someone who objects to inter-racial coupling is a
>> bigot, but someone who objects to descriptions of homosexual pairings is not.
>> If that is what you meant, that is an UNBELIEVABLE double- standard. I refuse
>> to pander to such a double standard. Hate is hate. Bigotry is bigotry.
>> 
> Nope, not what I meant, nor what I said. I just said that hatred based on race
> is bigoted. You're (IMHO) being touchy again.

Well, if you'd read your statement as I read your statement, wouldn't you?
:D

>> Once again, it would be very helpful if you refrained from using "normal"
>> rhetoric. Perhaps, instead, "gay people are not in the majority"? But then,
>> unfortunately, you would lose your justification for things not being in the
>> spirit of the story.
> 
> You've lost me here - explain please.

See below.

QAJ:

>> Because society *likes* minorities, and frowns on people who *don't like*
>> minorities.

ER:
 
> Do you think that society as a whole (not just the educated liberal-
> minded portion) likes homosexuals (as in actively likes as opposed to
> doesn't care/never gives it a thought) and frowns on people who don't
> like them?

No, that wasn't my point, and in fact was the opposite of what I was trying
to convey. My point was that, as a rule, society acknowledges the rights of
ethnic and other minorities to be represented and visible as a community.
Sexual orientation, though a minority, does not in general confer those
rights

> By your argument you're preaching love of the BNP (read Klu-Klux clan in
> America). This obviously isn't what you mean, but perhaps you could clarify
> what you do mean.

*blinks* No love for them, but I *will* defend their right to their
opinions, right up until they start inciting hatred or violence. There's a
famous quote about that which I can't be bothered to look up ;)

QAJ:

>> I *don't* feel that fics should be warned simply because they contain gay
>> material. Pairings, yes. But "random gay people in the background", or "male
>> character occasionally has thoughts about other men"? No.

ER: 

> Agreed, if it is adult fic, but not if it is young fic. I guess we
> just must disagree here.

So, are you saying that children shouldn't be exposed to gay people in
stories? If so, how is that different from saying they shouldn't be exposed
to black people? If not, what are you saying?

> I can understand, but you must agree it is very difficult, in a
> practical sense, for me to know in advance what you regard
> as "loaded". 

Absolutely. That's why I'm attempting to explain. :) I've been trying to
find an online list of loaded words, but Google is failing me. If anyone has
one, do shout out.

> Today is the first time I've heard a homosexual object to my language or use
> of the word "normal". Though equally today is the first time that I've ever
> being involved in a written exchange on the subject with a homosexual.

Which is fair enough. Oh, and BTW? Most gay people prefer to be referred to
as "gay people" (or "lesbians", "transgender", etc.) rather than
"homosexuals" or "gays". The BBC News Style Guide
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/radio_newsroom/1099593.stm#g) is
mostly right when it says:

"Some people believe the word "homosexual" has negative overtones, even that
it is demeaning. Most homosexual men and women prefer the words "gay" and
"lesbian". Either word is acceptable as an alternative to homosexual, but
"gay" should be used only as an adjective. "Gay" as a noun - "gays gathered
for a demonstration" - is not acceptable."

> I'd still disagree with your earlier comment that you'd have picked me up on
> these words in face-to-face conversation :)

Well, I do pick up on them in face-to-face conversation, as those listies
who have met me in person will attest. I visualise words, you see, and words
like that sort of throw up a big red flag.

Enjoying the conversation, and happy to clarify or answer any questions.

--John
______________________________________

Queer as John || john at queerasjohn.com

AIM, YM & LJ @ QueerAsJohn || www.queerasjohn.com

"There's nowt as queer as folk."  --English proverb
______________________________________