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