The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Conan O'Brien introduces the new Chick-Fil-A mascot, Chaz the Intolerant Chicken:

Kind of NSFW, shall we say.

is it really offensive now to refer to gay people as gay people and not LGBTQ people? I was attacked by someone by not using the right terminology and promoting hate because I refer to gay people broadly when talking about marriage equality.

Ulairi wrote:

is it really offensive now to refer to gay people as gay people and not LGBTQ people? I was attacked by someone by not using the right terminology and promoting hate because I refer to gay people broadly when talking about marriage equality.

Nah, barring you saying something rude in the process, it just sounds like that person had a stick up their ass.

I've heard recently that the "in vogue" term is now queer. Didn't that used to be derogatory?

It used to be, but it's been undergoing the whole "reclaiming the word" thing. *shrug* Don't ask me, I'm over here trying to puzzle my way through a video game.

I usually say "those gays", just to see who laughs at how absurd it sounds and who nods in solidarity with my apparent annoyance.

But I think I've mentioned that before.

Ulairi wrote:

is it really offensive now to refer to gay people as gay people and not LGBTQ people? I was attacked by someone by not using the right terminology and promoting hate because I refer to gay people broadly when talking about marriage equality.

Not really, that person was probably just a little overly touchy

Something to keep in mind; however, that the LBTQ part of LGBTQ is often very under represented. Gay cis (born the same sex as their gender) males are usually the most represented (especially on the internet).

It isn't an evil thing to just shorthand it as "gay" but it's nice to remember the full inclusion.

Rubb Ed wrote:

It used to be, but it's been undergoing the whole "reclaiming the word" thing. *shrug*

Naturally, I'm immediately thinking of Randall's efforts to reclaim "porchmonkey".

Farscry wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

It used to be, but it's been undergoing the whole "reclaiming the word" thing. *shrug*

Naturally, I'm immediately thinking of Randall's efforts to reclaim "porchmonkey".

Man, the mileage I've gotten out of "No, it's okay. I'm taking it back!"

Tanglebones wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

is it really offensive now to refer to gay people as gay people and not LGBTQ people? I was attacked by someone by not using the right terminology and promoting hate because I refer to gay people broadly when talking about marriage equality.

Nah, barring you saying something rude in the process, it just sounds like that person had a stick up their ass.

Wait...

CheezePavilion wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

is it really offensive now to refer to gay people as gay people and not LGBTQ people? I was attacked by someone by not using the right terminology and promoting hate because I refer to gay people broadly when talking about marriage equality.

Nah, barring you saying something rude in the process, it just sounds like that person had a stick up their ass.

Wait...

Ulairi wrote:

is it really offensive now to refer to gay people as gay people and not LGBTQ people? I was attacked by someone by not using the right terminology and promoting hate because I refer to gay people broadly when talking about marriage equality.

Stick-up-assery aside, I think it varies from person to person. Even among my friends who can legitimately lay claim to one or more letters from LGBTQ - some use 'queer' as a catch-all, some use 'gay', some use the acronym itself.

Forgive my ignorance, but I haven't seen "Q" before, what does that stand for? I thought LGBT covered all bases.

I think it's Questioning.

Queer or Questioning both. I've seen it even spill out to LGBTQQIA (Intersex, Ally/Asexual), but usually LGBTQ is about as far as it goes.

I don't know if it's the same down in the states, but up here in Canada we usually include the term "two spirit" now as well: LGBTT

LGBTQ...Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer? But doesn't queer essentially mean the same thing as gay (or lesbian, to be gender neutral). In fact, maybe it should be QBT since queer kind of is gender neutral.

Fun fact: When I was heading up the pride committee here in Winnipeg in the late 90s I got a LOT of flack for using the tagline "Winnipeg: One Queer City". I liked the term queer 'cause I thought it was a perfect umbrella term, but a LOT of older gay folk still have bad associations with that word

Nevin73 wrote:

LGBTQ...Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer? But doesn't queer essentially mean the same thing as gay (or lesbian, to be gender neutral). In fact, maybe it should be QBT since queer kind of is gender neutral.

The only time I hear the word "queer" used in a way that specifically means "gay" is when it's meant as a pejorative.

Current usage means all sexuality that differs from the mainstream norms. Those that identify as queer generally don't 100% identify with the labels lesbian, gay, bi, or transgender. I have a female friend here that I'd describe as mostly straight, homo-flexible with a penchant for gender-bending. Queer is less of a mouthful.

For some reason I find the cis stuff quite annoying. Feels like a classification too far, especially since the goal is just to get to 'people'. I'm a person, you're a person.

1Dgaf wrote:

For some reason I find the cis stuff quite annoying. Feels like a classification too far, especially since the goal is just to get to 'people'. I'm a person, you're a person.

If you're going to have a trans- classification, I think it's a fairly neutral way of referring to the opposite.

EDIT: Now that I think about it more, the other ways that it is traditionally referred to are very non-neutral. I agree that we want to get to "people" someday, but we have a lot to talk about before that happens. It helps to have more neutral words to describe it.

I'm with 1Dgaf on this one. Personally, every time I see someone has typed something like "cis" I start automatically skimming the post just as I would as if they typed "according to the scripture" or "The Singularity". It feels forced and definitely a step too far.

bnpederson wrote:

I'm with 1Dgaf on this one. Personally, every time I see someone has typed something like "cis" I start automatically skimming the post just as I would as if they typed "according to the scripture" or "The Singularity". It feels forced and definitely a step too far.

The idea behind 'cis' is that it provides definition within the context of discussing transgender issues. If you're not then there's no reason to use it, but when you are, there has to be a simple way of making the distinction.

To be honest, I have seen cis used very hatefully in LGBT discussions. I have not really seen it used much around the stuff I read nowadays but when I did see it I saw it in a negative context more often than a neutral one.

It's meaning; however, is just being of the same gender as your birth sex.
Keep in mind the usage is often used in discussion of transgender issues which understandably can involve a lot of bitter emotions, particularly on the internet.
There is no problem with it as a descriptive term in a polite discussion.

edit: removed pointless afterthought that was not meant as a debate starter but could be interpreted as one.

FedoraMcQuaid wrote:

To be honest, I have seen cis used very hatefully in LGBT discussions. I have not really seen it used much around the stuff I read nowadays but when I did see it I saw it in a negative context more often than a neutral one.

It's the most neutral one I can think of when devoid of context. "Non-trans" starts with a negative and is a double modifier. "Normal" and "Regular" are awful and incorrect. "Straight" also has negative implications to its opposite, and doesn't fit properly when talking about gender as opposed to sexuality.

LouZiffer wrote:
FedoraMcQuaid wrote:

To be honest, I have seen cis used very hatefully in LGBT discussions. I have not really seen it used much around the stuff I read nowadays but when I did see it I saw it in a negative context more often than a neutral one.

It's the most neutral one I can think of when devoid of context. "Non-trans" starts with a negative and is a double modifier. "Normal" and "Regular" are awful and incorrect. "Straight" also has negative implications to its opposite, and doesn't fit properly when talking about gender as opposed to sexuality.

Which is why I said it is no problem with it in a polite discussion as a descriptive term.

What you quoted was not an argument against using it, it was a perspective.

FedoraMcQuaid wrote:

What you quoted was not an argument against using it, it was a perspective.

Same.

FedoraMcQuaid wrote:

To be honest, I have seen cis used very hatefully in LGBT discussions. I have not really seen it used much around the stuff I read nowadays but when I did see it I saw it in a negative context more often than a neutral one.

It's meaning; however, is just being of the same gender as your birth sex.
Keep in mind the usage is often used in discussion of transgender issues which understandably can involve a lot of bitter emotions, particularly on the internet.
There is no problem with it as a descriptive term in a polite discussion.

edit: removed pointless afterthought that was not meant as a debate starter but could be interpreted as one.

My first introduction to the term has in a hateful way, which really blew me away. Which is a shame, because it's a useful term.

"Cis male" should always be followed by the word "scum".

LouZiffer wrote:
FedoraMcQuaid wrote:

To be honest, I have seen cis used very hatefully in LGBT discussions. I have not really seen it used much around the stuff I read nowadays but when I did see it I saw it in a negative context more often than a neutral one.

It's the most neutral one I can think of when devoid of context. "Non-trans" starts with a negative and is a double modifier. "Normal" and "Regular" are awful and incorrect. "Straight" also has negative implications to its opposite, and doesn't fit properly when talking about gender as opposed to sexuality.

I don't know if this helps, but a friend and I came up with "Euclidean" and "Non-Euclidean" as a descriptions to try for a non-negative alternative. The biggest problem with it is you have to explain it every time. But it does make people think, at least.