Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!john
From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Nomenclature - Gay/Homosexual/Lesbia
Message-ID: <271@frog.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 11:58:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: frog.271
Posted: Fri Aug 16 11:58:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:32:47 EDT
References: <3486@decwrl.UUCP> <10900001@ada-uts.UUCP>
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 37

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the term, "Negro", is considered
> to be insulting because its actual meaning is "slave".
>
"Negro" is from the Latin for "black".  It is considered insulting because
most of the people who used the word considered the sets of {All Negroes} and
{All Slaves} to be identical.  Any arbitrary word used would have gained the
same negative connotation (see "connotation" and "denotation" in your
dictionary).

> (I don't know what "Nazi" originally meant, 
> 
From "National Sozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei" (National Socialist
German Workers Party).  Nowadays, typically the American Nazi Party (whose
formal name I don't recall). Rather a different case, in that true Nazis do
not object to being called Nazis, and some who object to being called Nazis
(such as the Klan) object only because they don't want the bad press, or
because of a brand-loyalty thing (much like Goodyear/Goodrich, I suppose),
not so much because of abhorrence.

> If that's the case, I see nothing wrong with "homosexual" as an adjective;
> I don't mind being referred to as a heterosexual man, and if I were gay,
> I don't think I'd mind being called a homosexual man.  After all,
> "homosexual" means, in my own terms, "sexually prefers persons of the
> same gender," right?
> 
Connotation and denotation again.  Some gay/homosexual people feel that the
term "homosexual" has gained too much perjorative use, and prefer to be
labelled with a word which is still neutral or even positive.  (Some feel that
the word is too clinical, much like being referred to as a "humanoid" might
grate on one's ears after a while).  Others don't feel so.

Most of the people I know to whom it would matter prefer to be called by name,
so I do. :-)

--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA