I have a question that has been bugging me lately and here it is. Alot of people veiw the word '->-bleeped-<-got' as a bad word. They get very offended when people call them that. I used to get really pissed off too. But in the last year or so, my perception of the word, has drastically changed. I embrace it, and am proud of what my friends and I call our ->-bleeped-<-gotry. This is because when someone calls me a ->-bleeped-<-, I say "Yes, I am. I'm gay and I am proud!" every single time I have said this, It has stripped them of the power of that word. They sort of stare dumbly and then get pissed off that I'm not mad. I don't care how campy a guy is, while some of it may be a bit loud for my taste, I still respect that because I think it takes alot more balls for a man to carry a purse then blend in with the crowd. While I prefer pockets, my boyfriend tottaly rocks his 'man bag' Am I alone in the idea that we can take back this word and make it powerless for those who seek to use it as a weapon?

I think in these times, when homosexuality is slightly more acceptable in mainstream society, its okay, but only if it is in an obviously friendly way. I've known of a lot of gay people, particularly males, who do it already.

When I use it, is a more of a term of endearment in the guise of an insult. Like friendly teasing. Kind of like when you call someone a dork in a endearing way. To me, its like acknowledging someone is fitting into a stereo-type but that you find it charming rather than something negative.

But I tend to tease my friends anyway. I throw around "c-nt" and basically curse like a sailor, so to them it would be obvious I was insincere. I think it definitely depends on the person and the context.

Yeah, I get that sometimes. Especially if I'm with one of my best friends who is MTF and a lesbian. I'll complain about my black nail polish and she'll go. "OMG J, you're such a ->-bleeped-<-." I don't find that offensive.

Quote from: GothTranzboi on May 04, 2010, 12:21:33 AM
Yeah, I get that sometimes. Especially if I'm with one of my best friends who is MTF and a lesbian. I'll complain about my black nail polish and she'll go. "OMG J, you're such a ->-bleeped-<-." I don't find that offensive.

exactly. in that way it can actually be a compliment.

there's definitely a huge difference between someone you know laughing, smiling, and saying it playfully and a red-neck stranger hissing it at you in a public place.

thats why its definitly a friend thing to me. all playful jeering is done between people who know each other well and are comfortable with each other.

I'll say it like if a gay guy likes the same musical as me, or something.

But at the same time, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who feels insulted by the term. Just like a friend who wouldn't want you to playfully mock them about their weight or something. some people havce actually faced hateful prejudice and I don't blame them if its a limit for them. I've just grown up in California, and been blessed enough to be free of those kind of ->-bleeped-<-s.

case by case basis, id say.

I grew up in cali too and was openly trans in school I was lucky to have that. I guess thats also why some of my views are more open and "so what?" like.

Quote from: GothTranzboi on May 04, 2010, 12:34:58 AM
I grew up in cali too and was openly trans in school I was lucky to have that. I guess thats also why some of my views are more open and "so what?" like.

Yeah, same, I actually had to grow up a bit myself and learn that a lot of people didn't have it as easy.

I knew one gay man in a drug recovery program who was raised in the south as a baptist.  He was addicted to crystal meth because his whole family hated him for being gay. He was nearly 40 years old and still felt guilty about it, even though he had a really nice and loving partner who he had been with for over 10 years. He was still actually convinced he was going to Hell and kept relapsing.

As a teenager I would have believed anyone who believed in religion was an idiot. Now I realize how complicated those things can be.   

So, I tend to make friends who have a so-what attitude but now I respect that for some people that is a challenge, just like accepting conformity and convention is a challenge for me. I don't try to force open-mindedness on other people anymore. I just try to lead by example and accept everyone, and only give my opinion when its asked.

I find being called a ->-bleeped-<-got to be a compliment.. because it means that I am being seen as male, and  I AM a ->-bleeped-<-got

now, if i was called a dyke.. I would be VERY angry

while I'm more of a liberal believer in God.... (I think he loves everybody and made then Gay/Trans or whatever)my parents are devout old school christian, and I'm comepletely out to them. It hasn't been pretty. But I am happier and have more faith now then I did when trying to be something I wasn't. Ironic no? I guess thats also why It's taken me some time to understand how hurt people get. I have an attitude of why do you care what some idiot thinks? why should they impact your happiness? but thats just me. I once told my mom that I'd rather be killed for being myself then live a long hellish life as a female....my mom and I don't get along much. My dad is trying alot more.

---

Post Merge: May 04, 2010, 12:53:18 AM

---

Same here. Call me any type of gay ya want. But I do not want to be seen as lesbian because that denotes a woman who likes women. I'm the opposite.

Quote from: Rhalkos on May 04, 2010, 12:56:19 AM
My bf proudly wears a black t-shirt with '->-bleeped-<-goth' on the front in glow-in-the-dark lettering.

Give me! I want that shirt!!!!! That is freakin awesome!

Darn! well he gets major props for that. I would pay for that kind of stuff lol.

I use ->-bleeped-<-got as a bit of a playful, almost friendly term. I've never used it to display someone I am not fond of. If I use the word, I am fond of the person and I like him to an extent. My friend has called me a 'poof' and '->-bleeped-<-got' on multiple occasions, be we've been pals for ten years and it's all in jest. If someone I do not know uses it, I am offended but I affirm that I am and proud (but I'm also pleased because they think of me as a male, to some extent. Funny how things work.)

However, if someone calls me a lesbian, even just asking if I am... My anger just sparks right up and I have to control myself quite a bit. I hate being called a dyke or a lesbian. and worst of all, if I say I'm not they'll ask what I am (people at school) and I'll have to just respond, "It's a long story," or "It's complicated," And I feel like I'm destroying myself rather than just saying, "I'm a gay man." Problem is, they will ask too many questions I'm not comfortable fully with answering. I'm still in a bit of denial. Not to mention they have SEEN me be girly and wear dresses and now I'm quite butch because I'm insecure, unfortunately :/. It sucks being around people in school.

Yeah that can be rough. But stand up for yourdelf and who you are. The guys in school took me alot more seriously if I spoke up for myself and didn't back down, although there were times when I wanted to shrink back.

To me, it depends completely on the context and the nature of how the word is being used. But generally I don't agree with '->-bleeped-<-' or 'gay' being used pejoratively, it doesn't sit right with me; if it's used fondly I don't really mind, but 'in general', I frown upon it somewhat. For example, if my bud looks over at me fussing with some... I don't know, nail buffer, and calls me a ->-bleeped-<-. Well, yeah, sure, I am, but it begs the question how taking care of myself is 'gay'. There's too much of a stigma surrounding 'gayness', and the more we label things 'gay', the more people will avoid those things. I actually think the fact that painting your nails is 'so gay' is part of the reason why men generally avoid doing that sort of thing like the plague. Because it's gay, and most of them are not, therefore they don't want to be seen as gay because it isn't correct. I've known a bunch of guys who NEVER USED CONDITIONER on their hair because taking care of their hair is 'so gay' and '->-bleeped-<-gy', therefore if they do that they're being femme/gay, so instead they just have ratty ->-bleeped-<-ty hair instead! If they weren't scared of being seen as 'gay' (and can we really blame them for not wanting to be seen as gay when they aren't? We get pretty offended when people call us lesbians, don't we? Even though we have nothing against lesbos. It's just not 'us'.) it wouldn't be an issue, but it is, therefore, so long as there are 'gay' things, people will avoid them, and there will be a stigma surrounding those things and we'll keep perpetuating these cycles of repression.

The less 'gay' things there are, the more things can just be themselves and neither 'gay' nor 'straight', and people can just do them without it persuading others about their orientation. If stereotypes didn't exist and everyone was less inhibited, this wouldn't be a concern of mine, but alas. So yes. Even if someone calling me 'gay' or a '->-bleeped-<-' counts as recognition as a man, no, I don't think it's 'cool', because... Blah blah, see above.

And when it's used hurtfully, yeah, it still hurts. It makes me sad that people are so ignorant and have so much hate in their hearts. I was being driven home one day by a friend when another transfellow calls up and says, 'tell that ->-bleeped-<-got he can walk(referring to me)' I found it pretty hurtful. It's true that I'm not straight, but meant as an insult, yes, it is insulting- because of how it's being used.

It's like 'hey nubian princess' versus 'get away from me, you ->-bleeped-<-ing ->-bleeped-<-.'  It may be true the girl's black, but the latter statement is pretty hurtful and horrible, isn't it?

yeah that was pretty rude of him to talk to myou like that. I suppose its all about context. You've given me alot to think about. Now I'm off to bed. Btw...love silent hill XD. Do you cosplay PH?

"->-bleeped-<-" (and its much more potentially-offensive big brother, "->-bleeped-<-got") originate as derogatory slurs. They're just now, over the past couple of decades, in the process of being reclaimed (just like the 'n' word is being reclaimed by young black people). That means that the only people who have any business using them are members of the groups they've been used against.

That includes:
- Gay cis men
- Gay trans men who pass and sleep with cis men or other trans men who pass
- Straight trans women, if they so choose
- Male-bodied crossdressers and visibly effeminate men
- Non-gay people who identify as a part of gay male culture ('->-bleeped-<- hags', '->-bleeped-<- stags', and 'girl->-bleeped-<-s'), on the condition that they take care not to offend members of the above groups

It does not include:
- Pansexual-identified people who don't sleep with cis men or passable trans men
- Female-bodied genderqueers or androgynes who are usually read as female
- Lesbians in boi/boi or butch/butch relationships
- Lesbian-identified people of any sex/gender/body
- Anybody who sleeps exclusively with either women-identified people or female-bodied people
- Any female-bodied person who doesn't identify primarily as male and a boy or man.

And anyone who uses it is responsible for ensuring that their use of it isn't painful for someone who's been hurt by it. There are a lot of older gay men (and some younger) with extraordinarily painful memories associated with the word. So if you want to give/take it as a compliment, that's fine, but don't assume that it will always be taken in that spirit.

Quote from: Kvall on May 04, 2010, 05:31:32 AM
I disagree with the part that I've put in bold, and to an extent the male-bodied crossdressers part. Having a term used against you does not on its own make it okay for you to reclaim it, if it is not actually about you. I don't believe a straight woman should attempt to reclaim "dyke" just because it has been used against her, for example. I feel that trans men have no place in reclaiming "dyke" and trans women have no place in reclaiming "->-bleeped-<-got." I realize the reason you're listing them (because the slinger of the insult makes no distinction between non-passing trans women and effeminate cis men), but I would be uncomfortable with any woman, cis or trans, reclaiming this word. Equally I would be uncomfortable with a straight effeminate man doing the same.

Just my opinion.


ETA: I feel that non-passing gay trans men and gay trans men who are not sexually active also have reason to reclaim this word. Even if you don't pass, if you are a gay trans man then any time you encounter someone saying "->-bleeped-<-got" in a derogatory way, there's not much room for you to not take it personally. It's about you, about your orientation, and it's a negative remark about it. That's going to sting even if other people don't realize that you are a gay man.

I don't think you were meaning to separate sexually active vs. sexually inactive in your post, though -- just an oversight?

I take your first point, although I'm not sure I entirely agree. Trans girls get stuck with this word from early childhood, and many continue to hear it throughout their lives until they begin to pass - and even after, if they are at all open about their trans history outside of safe spaces and support groups, or if they are sexually active as pre- or non-op women. I think it's their word at least as much as it's mine.

But I'll concede your point on non-passing trans guys. It's just as much a slur even if the speaker doesn't know they're slurring you.

On sexually-active vs. not, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough - I was talking about people's proclivities rather than their experiences. There are men who have had sex with men who are not gay and have no right to the word, and there are men and boys who have never had sex but who identify as gay and have every right to own it.

Quote from: kyril on May 04, 2010, 04:57:08 AM
It does not include:
- Pansexual-identified people who don't sleep with cis men or passable trans men

Quote from: kyril on May 04, 2010, 05:56:57 AM
On sexually-active vs. not, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough - I was talking about people's proclivities rather than their experiences. There are men who have had sex with men who are not gay and have no right to the word, and there are men and boys who have never had sex but who identify as gay and have every right to own it.

Thank you for clearing that up, as that one was a bit..well, it didn't make any sense to me.

My sexual orientation is pansexual.  I sometimes say "->-bleeped-<-."  Sometimes it's about me, sometimes it's about someone else.  I have used it in a negative way, both about gay men and non-gay persons.

But I hate when I say it.  I think it sounds fake and put-on.  It also can be very hurtful to hear it said back to me by my friends.  So, that being said, I can't stand the term.  And I agree with Cairus (except I don't like reclaiming at all).  Nothing else to be said, really.

Interesting Interesting...see this is why I brought it up, because I felt that there was more to it. Thank you guys for really being so honest about this. Sometimes I get frustrated that I can't discuss things like this in RL without it falling apart into a petty shouting match. It's nice to see the broad spectrum of thoughts.

When I call people a ->-bleeped-<-...I mean it in the most endearing way. Some people take it the wrong way, but I explain it. We can definitely take it back. Words all depend on how a person uses them...wish they werent' defined by popular opinion.

I'm curious, considering the discussion about it being appropriate when used by people who fit the identity and have had it used against them, how you guys feel about people who are allies using it? I personally find it to be a very mixed subject in general to reclaim a word and then expect only the people who it applies to to use it. Both in the idea that it simply isn't going to work that way (for example the white friend who thinks it's okay to use the term "nigga") and in the idea that what is the point of reclaiming a word, being proud of the word, and then not allowing others to use the term to identify you. If you are truly proud of this identity and this word then why should it bother you to have someone who is not gay to use the term (assuming they are not intending to insult you)?

I personally find that there seems to be no point in reclaiming a word just to limit who can use it, the point of reclaiming a word is to take away it's negative meaning and to show that you are proud of who you are. So why are we the only ones allowed to use a word that is full of pride for us?

Honestly I don't stand on one side of this or the other, just something I've been thinking about and am curious what others think the reasoning and logic is behind this act.