Confused? Dont be, let me explain.

Derogatory or put-down language as been common for the longest time, doesnt matter what race, age, ethnicity, sexuality, or gender you are.

How has society handled the evolving trends and usage of language as our understanding and acceptance of new things wear on.



For me...I have to be very careful, because in all the small niche communities I've been it, they've all taken to using these old terms as a describer of oneself rather than get offended. It's a way to celebrate a description of oneself once meant to evoke harm but rather to be proud of what you are. Some less offending and less important examples (seeing as hobbies revolve less around identity and it's silly to hate someone over it or get offended over people hateful enough to hate something so menial) are some fanbases who use put-down terms in their favor to describe themself. Anime fanbases will use the term 'otaku' and 'weeaboo', some people with certain hobbies will take to calling themselves 'X trash', laughing at themselves and the way others put them down over a silly hobby they just happen to like. It's a way not to take the hate seriously.



However, things get a bit more serious when using potential slurs outside of a hobby. Things like race, the age old term of a black person calling another black counterpart a term once deemed a slur against them in a show of companionship and comraderie, you know the word, the big N word.

Same can be said for the gays, I've heard the F word for a burning bundle of sticks thrown around peers, and oddly enough the word evolved outside even meaning gay anymore, kind of like how people throw around retarded.

Transgenders have the 'T' word, you know the one.


Thing is...in all the niche communities I have personally been in we tend to willfully call each others these terms, not in the oppressive hate once used, but in jest among one another, kind of just associating it as what we are. Besides that one, 'Queer' has been a common rather official term among LGBT communities despite originally meaning what could be considered offensive 'strange'.




I'm well aware the rules on this site in particular bar such verbage which is why I'm keeping it to vague discourse, but I'm just curious on the general attitude among others of the larger LGBT community and not just my own. I've learned I should keep a lid on it and be careful where the words are used so as not to offend anyone...even if not meant crudely.


TL;DR Opinions guys, go!


P.S, if the poll is confusing, the 'others' is anyone outside the LGBT spectrum using said term, or outside the term being used.

Words derive their meaning from the intent behind which they were said.  While those on the inside may have no ill intent,  I dislike the use of these words by anyone.  If we use them it sends a signal to those on the outside that the use of these words is acceptable.  So then they feel free to use them under pretense with the intent to degrade and do harm to others.

I used to be completely about intent. As long as you weren't trying to be malicious I didn't mind what words you used.

But now I emotions about the things kind of a lot, so while I won't say anything because I'm conflict avoidant I'll just stop talking to you if you use the terms over much and/or in too callous of a way. Even if you belong to the group for which the slur was originally intended, others of that group may have a hard time hearing it.

Hell, I get hurt on other's behalf these days, which is really the dumbest thing ever, but it's not intentional. And I certainly don't correct anyone on anyone else's behalf, that would be...just, no. But when words that were or are used in a hateful manner start getting thrown around I get pretty uncomfortable.

Sure, there's no law saying you can't be offensive or adopt old words and attempt to give them new meaning, but if the things you say make people feel bad you may find yourself socially isolated or relegated to hanging out with other hurtful, callous people.

As for the poll, I picked "I dislike all uses of it, by members in the community itself and others. It shouldnt be said around me at all", but I'm actually okay with the exceedingly rare use of it just for the sake of outlandish humor. That sort of humor needs terms that are usually not-okay to give the right impact.

But I felt that "I don't mind it used in the right non-hateful context but dont use it myself, I dont mind others using it, but I hate hateful bigotry usage of it" was a little too liberal in what it's okay with for me.

I use slurs to refer to myself, usually making some kind of humorous statement of it.  The main reason I do that is the fact that I think it all the time, and in my mind it is very hurtful.  I like to think I'm taking this potentially harmful word and changing it into something safer for me.

I personally don't want a world where everyone has to walk on eggshells for the chance they might hurt someone's feelings. To me, people can use any words they want whenever they want. I try to only judge those words based on why they are being used. I feel that individuals who want to go around banning words and opinions (even terrible ones) should realize that their view of the world and how it should behave isn't the only point of view. Trying to force beliefs and opinions on others is just as bad as those who would use words to harm people.

I recently attended Kate Bornstein's "Trans for the fun of it" talk, where she talks about the origin of the "T" word.  In the context she describes, I can't be offended.  By the end of her talk, it no longer jarred on me when she used it. 

But that was a specific historical context that she lived through.  I could not use it myself, because the context in which it is most often used and understood is one of hate.

It's not the word, but the context it is used in that makes it acceptable or offensive, in my view.

I don't believe only certain types of people should be permitted to say this or that word. I don't find the T word offensive - the intent behind the way it might be said is what is or isn't offensive. Which is why an open minded friend can say it around me as much as they want in jest, because I know their true feelings on the matter and I am able to tolerate a joke. I'm able to tolerate a joke even from people who don't care either way or maybe even dislike trans people. Jokes are jokes. They should be allowed to be made because jokes are ultimately part of free speech. I may not enjoy such a joke, but I very much prefer them to censorship. A world with free speech is far preferable than one in which you can only speak what someone else has sanctioned, even if it makes you uncomfortable from time to time. Sadly we seem to be moving toward the latter, pushed by certain "well-meaning" and "offended" people.

Truly I think the maturer state of affairs is to rise above being offended. Not censor words or statements because they make you feel uncomfortable, or just because you can. Too many offended people are out there crying foul over every little thing because they have recognized that it gets attention and capitulation. It's set some kind of bizarre precedent for it, or the idea we can somehow train or shame all people out of saying anything offensive ever, and I think that's counter-productive to the ultimate goal of just getting on with your life and enjoying it. And freedom, ofc. We argue freedom ends where someone else's rights begin, and I would agree when it comes to physicality. With words, however, I do not agree. I don't think someone can be assaulted "by words". The words might suck, but at the end of the day, they are only words, and more harm comes from not being permitted to use them at all, by not being able to tolerate them, than dealing with them.

A culture of offense, and of being offended, is not the way forward I believe. It's not easy, but it's much better to own words, than be owned by them because you feel victimized by them.

Quote from: Deborah on July 24, 2016, 10:09:46 AM
Words derive their meaning from the intent behind which they were said.  While those on the inside may have no ill intent,  I dislike the use of these words by anyone.  If we use them it sends a signal to those on the outside that the use of these words is acceptable.  So then they feel free to use them under pretense with the intent to degrade and do harm to others.

This.

The censorship on this site is an issue for me (in the sense that it limits my expression to something not natural for me, I recognize that the internet affords exactly as much free speech as one pays for - hence the site host sets the rulesb that's the way it's always been).

To your points, all minority communities take back the words that were hateful and take ownership of them specifically to remove the original hate and remove the power that bigots have previously given them.

I suffer nobody to make gratuitous insult and irrespective of the rules of any given place I'm given to letting people know when they've crossed a boundary. To me while we may share a common set of agreements on what is and isn't acceptably respectful discourse, that has to encompass the idea that ultimately boundaries are individual.

The problem with censoring any Internet property is that when you do that the owner is then taking responsibility for content and choosing people's boundaries for them while limiting  ability for me to express myself.

If using the words remove the hate then why is using the N word objectionable?

That's a rhetorical question.

It doesn't remove the hate at all.  It simply makes the people using the words appear completely irrational and silly.

I'm not sure why you want that question to not be answered, here's my answer. That word is used in the black community exactly the way queer, and a couple of other words I'm pretty sure I can't write or abbreviate on this site are in the lgbtQ community and that use predates these uses.

Which exactly communicates the dilemma, I'm very much part of my local lgbt community and I use those words to convey meaning that 'gay man' and 'lesbian woman' do not capture.

I can give some pretty solid and not disrespectful uses of the word that this thread is about but I can't do so here.

I hope the comments directed towards me are from ignorance because if that is the source they can be educated. You can't fix stupid, so those I tend to ignore.

Quote from: Deborah on July 27, 2016, 04:20:27 PM
If using the words remove the hate then why is using the N word objectionable?

That's a rhetorical question.

It doesn't remove the hate at all.  It simply makes the people using the words appear completely irrational and silly.

I think it's envy. Those that are told using the N word is objectionable and then they see the homey's calling each other the N word. With the attitude, if they can say it, why can't I.  They fail to understand the history of the word or it's derogatory use because that's what Dad always called them. Dad was from another era. Time to grow up.

Quote from: SadieBlake on July 27, 2016, 03:05:10 PM
The censorship on this site is an issue for me (in the sense that it limits my expression to something not natural for me, I recognize that the internet affords exactly as much free speech as one pays for - hence the site host sets the rulesb that's the way it's always been).

To your points, all minority communities take back the words that were hateful and take ownership of them specifically to remove the original hate and remove the power that bigots have previously given them.

I suffer nobody to make gratuitous insult and irrespective of the rules of any given place I'm given to letting people know when they've crossed a boundary. To me while we may share a common set of agreements on what is and isn't acceptably respectful discourse, that has to encompass the idea that ultimately boundaries are individual.

The problem with censoring any Internet property is that when you do that the owner is then taking responsibility for content and choosing people's boundaries for them while limiting  ability for me to express myself.

I speak very matter-of-factly and intellectually on this sitex whereas other sites I speak casually and playfully. Thats mainly because other sites may involve slang, less professional outlook, and satirical cussing to invoke a sense of casual community discourse.

I do fondly respect the rules here which is why I have not gone out of my way to say the words Ive listed in the OP, while I dont particularly find them rude in certain context (especially since I am part of said minorities) I respect others rights to not like them and dont always go around making blanket use of these words. Besides this forum has every right to ban certain word usage and keep a kind of environment fitting to this forum

I don't know about others but I absolutely HATE when an LGBT person describes someone or a group of people as "queer". Do not call me that. Do not call others you have never spoken to that. Do not call someone who is gay or trans that and assume they identify with that word just because some other people do. If people want to call themselves that then fine, they can call themselves whatever they want. But I absolutely hate the assumption that all LGBT folks are okay with this "reclaimed" word. I wish both people I know and people in general would stop assuming that this is okay

Quote from: groudon18 on July 28, 2016, 06:03:41 PM
I don't know about others but I absolutely HATE when an LGBT person describes someone or a group of people as "queer". Do not call me that. Do not call others you have never spoken to that. Do not call someone who is gay or trans that and assume they identify with that word just because some other people do. If people want to call themselves that then fine, they can call themselves whatever they want. But I absolutely hate the assumption that all LGBT folks are okay with this "reclaimed" word. I wish both people I know and people in general would stop assuming that this is okay

"Queer" is a huge example of a reclaimed word, its funny how this became the norm but the others have not quite,

I personally never use queer in seriousness myself, I prefer genderfluid

Doesn't really bother me much. Ignorance is ignorance, it doesn't need to have malice behind it. If it does, then that is something else.

As a joke, I don't care. Jokes sometimes don't look attractive in unstructured form.

What really does bother me is the intellectual strand (that has access to funding, lawmakers, the next generation of students, and should know better) saying things about privilege and rapists and pantomime dames. The 'transsexuals rape women' is particularly offensive and something I've never got over since I first read it.

The violence - and the privilege - of those words expressing that sentiment is breathtaking. That is more than derogatory, it is genuinely violent (and I say this as someone who's been on the end of a sex crime) - if the term rape can be broadened to that degree, then it's broad enough to include those flinging it at transsexuals, seemingly without the slightest awareness or care of who is on the receiving end.

There are at least two very prominent intellectuals who are known for saying it, one of whom I admire generally and have bought some of her other work, but that is a red line. And they have become known for saying it, and standing by it. The first time I heard it was October 1999 (remember it vividly - including the debate in school the following day after it was broadcast - during which I remained, unusually, completely silent) and I was astonished. I've since heard several people defend those sentiments on the grounds that the two in question have done lots of other great work, and therefore have earned their voice.

I'm not a fan of 'no platforming', not in this case either, but to me that's not academic debate - it's not up for debate by people who aren't on the end of it, the same as racism isn't - it's hate speech, and it should be dealt with as such. I don't think no platforming does deal with it, it just gives the perpetrator an excuse to claim victimhood and say 'what are you scared of? come and debate with me then' - frankly no, you don't deserve to demand that someone shares their deepest feelings about their identity on a stage - nobody else is ever granted that right, how dare you demand it with such a straight face.

For instance, just like a racist, a racist can speak on a variety of topics - let's say the environment for the sake of an example - and be debated with, and expect to be debated with. Providing they don't cross that line, beyond which there is only ever going to a very hurt group of people, listening to a steam of violent garbage about themselves, voiced by someone who hasn't got a blind clue.

I use the word queer for my sexuality; as no other word fits and that word encompasses everything. I feel empowered using it becsuse it used to be a deragotory word but I'm now reclaiming it for myself; it's like saying to the world I don't care what you think; this is me. I'd never use the word around anyone until I'm sure they wouldn't find it offensive. I understand it may have been used as a deragotory wird to an LGBTQ person recently and it might trigger them.

For the same reason I use the word d*yke. I called my ex gf that often as a joke because she was quite masculine. She never took offence of that word. Though again i would never use it until I know a person.

The T word is just a no for me. It is not accurate. I am not a ->-bleeped-<-. I am a person who happens to be trans or a person with trans experience.

I don't think using these words will make a person think it's more ok to call people that in a derogatory way; more likely it will be used without realising it should only be said with people who you know won't find it offensive or a person would have used that word regardless of its recent popularity in LGBTQ spaces in order to cause offence.

Quote from: groudon18 on July 28, 2016, 06:03:41 PM
I don't know about others but I absolutely HATE when an LGBT person describes someone or a group of people as "queer". Do not call me that. Do not call others you have never spoken to that. Do not call someone who is gay or trans that and assume they identify with that word just because some other people do. If people want to call themselves that then fine, they can call themselves whatever they want. But I absolutely hate the assumption that all LGBT folks are okay with this "reclaimed" word. I wish both people I know and people in general would stop assuming that this is okay

I don't *ever* characterise others as queer or really as anything. So being respectful by my definition means I don't verbalize terms for others at all in the sense of 'calling them that' whatever *that* might be.

I would certainly use any of these terms to discuss concepts and I'd rather know that someone identifies as 'x' than wonder whether they identify as x, y, z ... and then I might ask someone "you've said you're gender queer, what does that mean to you?".

And I've been around long enough that my natural acronym for community is lgbt. I'm comfortable with q and many other letters appended and I also know what my typing habit is. I further remember when GLB was the most common acronym and when some (most?) people in the gay community were railing against the addition of T and still uncomfortable with having added 'B' and even complaining about having admitted 'L' to 'their' movement.

So for me, very much the specific word isn't the issue rather using it as a label or assumption about someone's life. I try to make as few assumptions as possible whether the terms at PC or not in a given context.

To some others' comments, I think I was clear that I understand and respect the right of an internet property owner to set standards for behavior. I'm also clear that I'm not comfortable when those standards limit discussion that I think is pretty clearly germain and focuses on pure censorship of specific words or ideas rather than the underlying respectful behavior.

Yeah, off topic, but as silly as it is I dont even like using 'sir' or 'ma'am' at all, especially if I suspect the person may not be what they seem. If I notice females that look vaguely masculine, I consider the possibility that they are male so I slip in a dude now and again, which might make them feel good if they are, and its still neutral if they arent. I did see someone who looked very much like a transwoman once, clearly she looked as she was a woman she was quite pretty but of course I kept my assumptions to myself.

I dont like making assumptions on people's gender all that much so I tend to just assume they are as they present and if theyre androgynous or ambiguous quite possibly LGBT. If I ever got a correction Id gladly change it to a more accurate pronoun