Honestly...For myself, and I speak ONLY for myself. I dont care about the word. When people try use it in a hurtfull fashion and note I say try. I really don't care. I'm proud to be gay. I'll throw it back in the persons face and say have a nice day regardless of who uses it toward me.

However, this is NOT to say that people havent been hurt by the word, havent suffered and that it was and or is negative. People are not going to stop using the word however any more then you can tell every African american to not use the word "nigga". So I want to turn it into something positive, rather then let myself be offened by ignorant people who's only use of the word is to try and be offensive. The only time people stop doing something is when they see it no longer has an effect.

Quote from: Cowboi on May 04, 2010, 06:36:53 PM
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.

Well, it's in the process of being reclaimed. Whether or not a word can ever be fully reclaimed, I'm not 100% sure, but it seems to have mostly worked with "queer" (hardly ever used as derogatory anymore). Of course, some people still don't like it, especially those older folks who experienced it as a slur. But for young people it's generally considered a positive term.

As far as allies using words in the reclamation process, "->-bleeped-<-" is still in the "close friends who identify as part of the community only please, and be careful" stage. "->-bleeped-<-got" isn't even there yet. That doesn't mean they'll never be available to a wider group of allies, just that a lot of people aren't ready to hear them from people they don't already know and trust. They're still in active use as derogatory terms. When we get to the point where most young gay men identify with them positively enough to throw them back in the face of those who use them that way ("Yeah, I'm a ->-bleeped-<-, so what?") then they might work their way into more general use.

You can't 'reclaim' something that was never yours. The term comes from sticks used to burn people. It has always been meant as a negative thing. Claim it if you want but you can not reclaim it.

Now, I would never want to claim this word and not sure why anyone would really want to.

Thank you, LordKAT, for putting that in better words than I could.  That's exactly why I don't like "reclaiming" the word.

However, reclaiming of the n-word by black people, I don't mind at all.  The word has an actual history that would make it appropriate to reclaim.  Queer is a somewhat the same way, and I don't mind using it to describe myself if nothing else fits sometimes.

Quote from: LordKAT on May 05, 2010, 02:08:51 AM
The term comes from sticks used to burn people.

I hate to be pedantic, but... no, it probably doesn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/->-bleeped-<-got_(slang)#Etymology

The reason I bring this up is that I believe a word being used in a poisonous way doesn't mean it always has been or always should be. The best way to disarm a word like that is to take the hatred out of its usage-- acknowledge that it was there, but that you won't let it have power. I would not use it like this around people for whom "->-bleeped-<-" or "->-bleeped-<-got" is a painful word.

That said, I am comfortable with people who I KNOW are allies using it around people who know it isn't being used as an insult. I actually enjoy being called a ->-bleeped-<- by my friends or boyfriend, because it reaffirms my identity and these are people I trust.

Being as that is wiki and mutable by anyone, I will look up my source, which may take a bit.

Right now I will say either could be correct.

I guess common meaning is usually what is refered to and as far as I have seen it used, it means to take back.


As one wishes.

---

Post Merge: May 06, 2010, 03:35:18 PM

---

Quote from: GothTranzboi on May 04, 2010, 12:01:06 AM
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?

Especially as this is how it was used in the original posting.

Well La, apprently I made a grammar mistake. My apologies. I find the deffinition interesting though. Thanks.

GothTranzboi, no, I don't but some day I'll get around to it. (I've been told to 'just be the fey PH, you'll totally own it' but I'd SO rather get some more tone first.) And on the topic of sexual orientation... WHAT IS THIS? Is pansexual now becoming the blank slate word where people are just using it as an 'insert your own meaning here'? RAAAGE!!

Kyril, I read in one of the blogs you linked from Not Aiden a few lines talking about this. He mentions that the word 'pansexual' is offensive because it tucks trans people into the category of 'other', implying that if the 'pansexuals' respected us as 'just men' and 'just women' there would be no need for such a word, as the term 'bisexual' would suffice. The thing is, we may be 'just men' and 'just women'- but some people aren't. There are androgynes, genderqueer people, people who DON'T identify as either 'men' or 'women', 'male' or 'female'; transguys and girls aren't the be all end all of atypical gender vs sex assignations. I think our culture is too dualistic in its thinking; i.e., 'rich/poor', 'men/women', 'US/THEM'- and terms like 'bisexual', bi, as in, 'BOTH', as in, 'THERE ARE ONLY TWO', reaffirms that, and I'd really like the see the concept unravel. (Because there is no 'them', only 'us'. Srs.)

I can't believe people are trying to use 'pansexual' as a way of saying 'transguys and women only'. It's like, 'Welp, no one knows what this word means, so I'll just write whatever I want into its definition, hee hee!'   Um, NO. Not understanding what it means does *not* mean it means whatever you frickin want.

'Hey I was wondering if you wanted to go iceskating sometime.'
'I'm pansexual!'
'What?'
'It means that you have to give me the last cookie.'
'Snap! Here I thought it meant you were hot for pans.'

That said, I consider myself pansexual because I WANT TO SLEEP WITH EVERYONEuh, that is, if the moment is right, and they're AWESOME, which has a lot to do with integrity and other concepts that don't have genitalia, rubber or not, flapping in their midst... (at least, last time I checked. Oh God good humor and open mindedness are growing appendages now? Say it ain't so!)

This bad rep makes me gnar gnar.

I've always presumed pansexual to mean one is attracted to people nonexclusive of gender.
Or a more elevated term for bisexuality in that it liberates itself from gender.
I'm not sure about it.

I would consider myself pansexual in the sense that there are circumstances where I am attracted to men, even though it is rare.
I don't consider myself bisexual, because aesthetically only women appeal to me. Strangely, I am attracted to gay men, but only as a top, so I sometimes wonder if I would be bisexual if I was born a man.


This whole discussion of the term ->-bleeped-<-got is fascinating.
If you consider that an insult is defined by social connotation, then it would make sense that people using it in a different context could eventually redefine it. 
I think what is an equally, if not more powerful, method is dismissing the word as an insult altogether, in such a way that it would be absurd to use it that way any longer.
The 'n' word is a great example to me because of the way it utterly shocks me to hear someone use it in a genuinely hateful way.

Quote from: Kvall on May 08, 2010, 05:38:51 AM
This may depend on where you live, whether you are read as male, and of course your race.

Big West coast city, perceived as either gender: almost never heard it negatively.
Small Midwest city, perceived as male: hear it used negatively with relative frequency.

I'm white, btw (the avatar is indeed me!). White guys here try to include other white guys in their boy's club of white supremacy. I don't hear the same language nearly as often if women are around.

i more meant the absurdity that the term holds now to generally educated and open-minded people.