Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Nomenclature - Gay/Homosexual/Lesbia Message-ID: <1529@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 10:28:27 EDT Article-I.D.: bbncca.1529 Posted: Thu Aug 15 10:28:27 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 01:25:54 EDT References: <10900001@ada-uts.UUCP> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 20 That's news to me. My impression was that "Negro" (& similarly "homo- sexual") were objectionable because 1) they were the labels used during the bad old days of near-universal discrimination & thus are inextricably bound up with the benighted attitudes of that period; 2) they were names given by the "oppressor", & since naming affects perception which affects people's sense of what is real, minorities ought to regain control over their identities by renaming themselves. 3) they're misleading or poorly chosen names: "homosexual" was coined in late Victorian times, using a Greek prefix & Latin suffix (the ancient world had no terms for either homo- or heterosexual). Actually, the word "slav" I think derives from the Latin "slavus" or slave, & some Slavs have objected to its use. Regards, Ron Rizzo