Is "gay" a pejorative?

[Mother Theresa]

To the OP: Well, if I said that I thought that this thread was totally gay, would you feel insulted?

Not at all. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. If you feel it's gay, so be it. Doesn't bother me the least. But I believe people find gay to be an offensive adjective (when not meant as an honest attempt to simply describe something as being associated with homosexuality) not because the person to whom the adjective is directed might be offended, but because others may be offended, as it mocks and demeans homosexuality.

If someone says "your shirt is gay" it's no big deal if the wearer is offended. "Your shirt is ugly" wouldn't generate similar controversy. The problem is that it (a) perpetuates stereotypes that may or may not be true about homosexuals (that they wear shirts like that) and (b) implies "that shirt makes you look gay, ha ha like a homo, let's all laugh at the homo." That's the problem.

I think fruitloop made a great point.

I think we have (at least) two issues here.

1. Whether it is ok to use 'that's a bit gay' for things that might generally be associated with the effete, effeminate, camp, feminine, or stereotypically (rightly or wrongly) homosexual.
a. In a pejorative manner
b. In a non-pejorative, matter of fact manner.

2. Whether it's ok to use 'a bit gay' as an ironic pejorative for things utterly unrelated with homosexuality, but perhaps not associated with with a rather silly stereotype of red-blooded male virility. Such as going home to the wife and kids after only one pint rather than ten.

But regardless of the different possible uses, which might carry different levels of offensiveness depending on context, tone, speaker, audience, etc., it still seems that most uses of gay as an adjective (except where it is truly meant to express only that something is associated with homosexuality), even where meant to be light-hearted, DO at least implicitly mock homosexuality. After all, it is usually used as a perjorative.

[Satellite TV]

I have friends...

Now, see, right away we got a credibility issue...[/quote]

Shit caught out again am I?

[jimipresley]

Is it OK to say that scooters are gay?

[Dragonbones]

I've seen that license plate on a scooter, yes.

[fruitloop]

But regardless of the different possible uses, which might carry different levels of offensiveness depending on context, tone, speaker, audience, etc., it still seems that most uses of gay as an adjective (except where it is truly meant to express only that something is associated with homosexuality), even where meant to be light-hearted, DO at least implicitly mock homosexuality. After all, it is usually used as a perjorative.

Gay in English is more common as an adjective than as a noun. "He is gay." or "A gay man". Not "He is a gay". Plural noun 'gays' seems to be more common though.

I had a French Canadian friend who sometimes used the form "a gay" and I felt this sounded odd - possibly demeaning or objectifying, without really giving too much thought to why the indefinite article should do that. It was only later that I realised that, for what it's worth, he was using it as a noun, which may be more common in French (I don't know). It feels like using it as a noun (saying 'a gay' rather than 'a gay man') is somehow objectifying someone rather than describing their sexuality - but this is probably bollocks and doesn't matter too much. People can worry about this shit too much.

A Jew or Jewish? An Englishman or English? An American or American? French or a Frenchman? A German or German? A Brit (we don't even have a proper noun) or British? It's a matter of etymology, word structure and history.

Remember "I am the only gay in the village." ?

This issue came up in 2006 through the Radio 1 DJ describing a ring tone as 'gay'.

"The word ‘gay’, in addition to being used to mean ‘homosexual’ or ‘carefree’, was often now used to mean ‘lame’ or ‘rubbish’. This is a widespread current usage of the word amongst young people... The word 'gay' ... need not be offensive... or homophobic [...] The governors said, however, that Moyles was simply keeping up with developments in English usage. [...] The committee... was "familiar with hearing this word in this context." The governors believed that in describing a ring tone as 'gay', the DJ was conveying that he thought it was 'rubbish', rather than 'homosexual'. [...] The panel acknowledged however that this use... in a derogatory sense... could cause offence in some listeners, and counselled caution on its use."
—BBC Board of Governors.

The BBC's ruling was heavily criticised by the Minister for Childen, Kevin Brennan, who stated in response that "the casual use of homophobic language by mainstream radio DJs [is] too often seen as harmless banter instead of the offensive insult that it really represents. [...] To ignore this problem is to collude in it. The blind eye to casual name-calling, looking the other way because it is the easy option, is simply intolerable."

Who are you with, the BBC or the government?

[Mother Theresa]

I agree it's usually an adjective. That's tangential and irrelevant. But your BBC exchange is very interesting and right on point. In fact, the below language you quoted is exactly the point I was sincerely asking earlier in this thread.

This issue came up in 2006 through the Radio 1 DJ describing a ring tone as 'gay'.

"The word ‘gay’, in addition to being used to mean ‘homosexual’ or ‘carefree’, was often now used to mean ‘lame’ or ‘rubbish’. This is a widespread current usage of the word amongst young people... The word 'gay' ... need not be offensive... or homophobic [...]

I asked if gay might have developed a new meaning, exactly as described above, that had nothing to do with homosexuality, but was just slang for "lame", and I was criticized for that suggestion. It seemed plausible at the time.

However, on further reflection, I can understand the opposition because it doesn't seem to be mere coincidence that "gay" means homosexual and may also be a slang term for "lame" or the like, because perhaps the latter use of the word carries its meaning through an implication that there's something inferior, undesirable or laughable about homosexuality.

Do you agree?

Incidentally, I'm not with the BBC or anyone else. And I used to feel "gay" could mean merely "lame" without any connection to homosexuality, but I'm no longer so sure about that.

[fruitloop]

By 'with' I meant disagree. Generally, I'm with Aunty (the Beeb) on this one. Language changes but you have to be careful.

Apparently some, particularly online, spell this ghey, either to avoid offence or to avoid the thought police on some forums.

I think

I asked if gay might have developed a new meaning, exactly as described above, that had nothing to do with homosexuality, but was just slang for "lame", and I was criticized for that suggestion. It seemed plausible at the time.

However, on further reflection, I can understand the opposition because it doesn't seem to be mere coincidence that "gay" means homosexual and may also be a slang term for "lame" or the like, because perhaps the latter use of the word carries its meaning through an implication that there's something inferior, undesirable or laughable about homosexuality.

Evolving language is always tricky. It causes confusion and misunderstanding, often deliberately. Sometimes it's about cliques. Sometimes it's about people deliberately modifying words to clarify meaning or avoid negative connotations (PC - sometimes justifiable and/or harmonious, othertimes unnecessary and/or discordant).

It's no coincidence that gay people (homosexuals?) self-identified using the word gay in the early 20th Century. Aside from the sexual and outsider meaning it had already developed, its original (recent) meaning also fitted an existing stereotype of homosexuality.

As said before, homophobia is gay.

[fruitloop]

When people argue (debate) questions like this or or for example whether we should say spokesman, spokeswoman or spokesperson; are they debating what we mean by the term, what we might be understood to mean by others, or the connotations both in our own thinking and those on the receiving end of the language?

[Satellite TV]

When people argue (debate) questions like this or or for example whether we should say spokesman, spokeswoman or spokesperson; are they debating what we mean by the term, what we might be understood to mean by others, or the connotations both in our own thinking and those on the receiving end of the language?

Usually they are being so PC. This is due the the world being run mostly by men before.

So you should should spokesperson than spokeman so that you don't offend all the women. The term spokesman may be demeaning to women as they feel they are not fairly represented. Gender equality rules.

I would not take spokesman to mean men only, although it can be contrued that way.

[Jack el Tejano]

I'm sorry, but I have to:

What kinda gay question is that?

Ok, I'm done. Sub me out coach. I'll watch the game from the sidelines