Talk:Gay/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Etymology

The Gertrude Stein story cited as the first usage of Gay in the new sense is Miss Furr and Miss Skeene, not Mrs. Skeene. I'm currently editing it for Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreading.

Etymology

One theory is that the term is short for "gay deceiver." "Gay deceiver" was once a familiar phrase, though it began as a Victorian term for a love 'em and leave 'em ladies' man (the second verse of "Dixie," for example, begins: "Ol mistis married Will the Weaver, Will he was a gay deceiver, Look away..."). In the years when gay men stayed "in the closet," deceiving the world as to their real interests, a coded inquiry from one to another was "Are you a gay deceiver?"

The article is out of date (June 2006). It is now common amongst youth in US, UK and Australia to use the term 'gay as a general pejorative term. "That music band is gay (or so gay)..." does not indicate homophobia. Please research this fact and alter. Please consult the new version of the Oxford English Dictionary for confirmation. I think this warrants valid inclusion as may people are unnecessarily offended due to their own ignorance of youth culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.16 (talk • contribs)

Really? Read it properly. Try going all the way to the end. Or does it display "ignorance of youth culture" to expect you to do that? Paul B 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding rather more long-term etymology: I just removed the claim that 'gay' came from Latin gaius - it's not even mentioned in the referenced source (etymonline)!!. Gaius was a personal name in Latin, but I'm not aware of it as an adjective or even common noun, and it's not listed as such in any Latin dictionaries I've looked at. I suppose French gai could have been related to Latin gaudere ('rejoice'), but the fact that more serious etymologists than I don't seem to think so puts me off that idea. garik 11:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

about restricting meanings to majority usage

one of the problems with the article is that it makes it seem like the word "homosexual" has a negative connotation, suggested by its use as a former psychiatric term. it seems like the problem with this assertion is also related to the debate about the perjorative usage of the word "gay." in both cases the article fails to acknowledge that the acceptance of sexual behavior is culture specific, and having sexual relationships with people of the same sex is still viewed as unacceptable by some people, is viewed as weird but tolerable by others, is openly accepted by some and is supported and sympathized with by still another subculture in modern america. the trend toward mainstream acceptance of this behavior is a phenomena of the later half of the 20th century, and as it continues the problems endemic in your article, which includes misleading information about terminology slow this progress. this is because, for instance, in my experience "homosexual" doesn't have a negative connotation any more than the idea it represents does. in fact as a perjorative the usage of the term "homosexual" even parallels that of "gay," both of them are used by certain individuals to express a rejection of something on usually aesthetic but sometimes social grounds. often this relates to steriotypical gender or nongender-related norms of sexual and social behavior. often the perjorative usage embodies a sense that the speaker is either unaware that their labeling is offensive or they themselves genuinely are rejecting or dejecting something they find unacceptable, and whether or not they offend someone isn't something they think about. among some Americans the terms has taken on an extended metaphorical usage, meaning anything which is abnormal. it seems like the article should at least address some of these or related issues instead of merely stating that the term "homosexual" is clinical-sounding, for as a member of the generation which has no memory of this usage, it seems like this would be an attribute of the previous generations issue about the word usage. in conclusion there are so many examples of such biased and non-comprehensive language in the article that one can't begin to address the issues of your statements about the GLBT community. As someone who is "homosexual," i can say i have never felt represented by the "community" and even find it to be a detriment to people who have to particpate in a society where their own identity is still viewed as counter-cultural, and are in favour of progress towards a greater tolerance of sexual and social norms.

the perception of abnormality:stereotype-straightjacket

furthermore, to add to the comments about the perjorative usage of the word gay it seems to parallel certain attitudes widespread in mainstream society even among well educated and tolerant people. for example neither myself nor my roommate has ever sought out female sexual relationships and neither of us display any kind of overtly sexual behavior directed towards others. neither of us actively seeks out other gay men, except only when we meet them in social situations, and yet these attributes are viewed by a female friend of mine, who is a medical student as "abnormal." and yet the connotation of that word isn't just that these attributes are less frequent but acceptable, the connotation is that being "abnormal" means that these attributes are deviant and not as acceptable as her own behavior. what is remarkable to me as a person living in the 21st century is that these attitudes persist so stubbornly. nevermind just acknowledging that if you are different like my roommate and i and both homosexual that this is different anyway from mainstream sexual norms, even if you are known to be gay, and even moreso if you called gay, you are held up to an even more stringent and stereotyped standard of behavior. if you are gay you're not allowed to look not gay, if you're gay you can only dress a certain way, act a certain way, and all of it is stereotypes. and yet its not really just about sexuality...within contemporary society the stereotyping of sexual norms is parallel to the stereotyping of thought on social, occupational and intellectual norms, and these stereotypes are common among but certainly not limited to those who aren't college educated. all of such normalization of thought, in personal exchange and in the media somehow has to do with the intrusion of these ideas upon personal freedom. it is not enough that we don't harm others, and even are trying to help them, if we disobey any of these stereotypes which have been growing more disturbingly rigid under the years of the second George Bush presidency, we are a certain and outright threat to those who hold these perceptions, whether they believe they are conservative about same sex issues or they are indentify themselves with a stereotyped gay identity and political expression of that.----DEV

Protected?

It seems that not a day goes by without some bright little 12-year-old getting the ingenious idea of editing this article to say "Gay is a term for [insert name of boy in editor's class whom he doesn't like]". The only really effective way to stop this is to protect the page. Do other Wikipedians think this is necessary? — JIP | Talk 14:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism is minimally harmful. It takes about three seconds for a sysop to revert this and about fifteen for anyone else. If this page starts getting hit ten times per hour like some slashdotted articles have been, I would recommend protection. Guanaco 22:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My first time to ever edit a Wiki page and it's to remove the vandalism to which you are referring. Sad. I agree with the protection. Em75208

My semi-protect of the article was removed. I suspected this article undergoes heavy vandalism, and it became one of the first article to receive the status. -- user:zanimum

Semi protect in looking at March 10, 2006, edits, it's clear where the trouble is coming from. Rklawton 20:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needs permanent semiprotection; the middle-school dipshits and Fundies constantly attacking the article are getting most tiresome. I'm sick of always seeing this article at the very top of my watchlist. E. Sn0 =31337= 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this article has gotten protection. The homophobes out there would gladly lose a wiki account if they can have a page saying "gays r lame" or some other stupid biased comment on wikipedia, if only for a few seconds. 424242 22:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Gay Apparel

I cleaned up some awkward grammar, and added a reference to the line in "Deck the halls" that says "don we now our gay apparel" to show the different meaning of "gay" in the 19th century. This was reversed (unjustly I claim) by Paul Barlow for this reason:

Paul Barlow (→Etymology - remove Deck the Halls ref. It does not illustrate

the evolution from "earlier uses", unless placed next to the later discussion

of "gay attire")

... *sigh* Actually, that is exactly what it illustrates. That Christmas carol has nothing to do with sexuality and even less to do with assless chaps. The line in the song means "Now we're going to put on our happy party clothes because it's Christmas and that's a joyful occasion". This all goes to support the pre-existing text about how the meaning changed during the 20th. It would be laughable to put 'Deck the halls' in the paragraph about 'gay attire'. If nobody minds I'm going to put back my changes. GreatAlfredini 19:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Of course it had nothing to do with sexuality or with "assless chaps", whatever they may be. That's the point. It did not illustrate the evolution of the term from earlier usage, which was the subject of the sentence in which it was placed. It illustrated one of the earlier uses, indeed one of the minor ones ("bright and showy"), not even the major one. As an illustration of a definition it should appear after the definition, as the OED, for example, does. There's no point sticking it in before the definition has been given. That's confusing. The later passage about "gay attire" is about how this usage - "bright and showy" - changed its connotation as the word moved towards its modern meaning. The song Deck the Halls uses the near-identical phrase "gay apparel", which aptly illustrates the usage in its traditional sense, and thus the way that can change to acquire the connotation "camp" as the word comes to be increasingly associated with homsexuality, especially in a context in which public stereotypes of gay men were generally camp/effeminate - hence the later reference to the mainstream usage of the term with the modern meaning in The Producers. Paul B 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But the term has already been defined, so this argument doesn't quite work for me. In the intro paragraph it already says (in the present tense) that the word gay "is most commonly used as a term to identify a man with a homosexual orientation. It can also be used to describe a homosexual woman". That applies to today's usage. So when the next section starts in on the history of the word, you're already talking about its evolution, and that's where the article should illustrate an archaic use of the word. The 19th century reference should be where I put it because right after that the article discusses its usage in the 20th. And in any case, even if that was the concern, then the reference should have been moved and expanded, rather than just outright removed. I think it should stay where it was, maybe be expanded there, not in the unrelated paragraph about attire. Not only that, it's redundant to say that something evolved from earlier usages - with a dash for a pause to point to the significance of the inane observation. Few things evolve backwards from the future. I like the 'Deck the halls' reference because it's something with which most people are familiar. To me, the song line is not about bright, showy, or campy, but happy. Maybe the existing framework isn't very good and that's the fundamental problem. Maybe we can find a nice sequential place to show formerly dominant usages of the word, with a place for the Deck the halls reference. GreatAlfredini 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the definition you were illustrating had not already been given. That's the crucial point. Only its modern meaning had been given. Here's how you placed the illustration - before the definition of the usage you were illustrating:

The primary meaning of the word gay has changed dramatically during the 20th century. The change evolved from earlier usages as exemplified in the line from 19th century song Deck the halls 'don we now our gay apparel'. It derives via the French gai, from the Latin gaius, and originally meant "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" and was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature.

It is not redundant, nor is it an "inane observation" to say that the modern usage evolved from earlier uses. Of course "few things evolve backward from the future", but the important word in the sentence is "evolve". The point of the term "evolved" is to indicate that the modern meaning arose in stages that can be mapped, that its modern use did not emerge as a subcultural code, for example, with only an arbitrary relation to the original sense. The emphasis on the slow evolution of the modern meaning also helps put in context the ambiguous usages in mainstream literature, movies etc from the 30s and 40s for example. I think the meaning in the song is bright, colorful etc - that's what gay attire/apparel etc usually meant. Paul B 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, "the primary meaning of the word gay has changed dramatically during the 20th century" but who has "tried to recover the original denotion of the word but with limited success?" Gilliamjf 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

People who dislike the loss of the original meaning. It has been quite a common complaint in my experience. Are you asking for citations? Paul B 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well sure I would not mind references to this vague statement. I thought that at least since the 80s, gay has more and more replaced queer, and I don't see anyone trying to recover its previous denotion. Like any modern language, English is a living language which cannot be "controlled." Anyway, I would not object if this passage mentioning this agenda of "recovering" gay were removed. Gilliamjf 02:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Like any modern language, English is a living language which cannot be 'controlled.'" Well put! Thus (I assume) much of Wikipedia will be obsolete in time and those we are trying to educate will have all the more opportunity to argue sematics whilst trying to interpret the interpretations that the interpreters here are interpreting.  : ) Greenbomb101 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See also section

It seems a little inappropriate here that in the see also section "Dyke" and "Fag" appear. I mean, if you go to African-American, in the see also section, you're not going to see the n-word. Gilliamjf 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact an article on Nigger. Dyke and Fag are not - these days - merely insults, as I'm sure you know. Anyway, "Gay" originated as essentially a slang word, so it is reasonably comparable to the other two. "African-American" is not slang, and is only applicable to the U.S. Paul B 13:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a little besides the point, but African-American translates into German as Afro-Amerikaner. I am fairly certain that this term is not unique to American English. Gilliamjf 06:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. The fact that the phrase translates into German, or any other language, does not alter the fact that it only applies to the USA. In German it still refers only to black people who are Americans, not to black people who are Germans. "American" here refers to the USA, not to other countries in the Americas. Paul B 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

Sorry to say this wont be quite as academic as the other comments but here goes.

I kid you not, but I am actually in this picture holding hands with my boyfriend (looking to the left). (I can prove it by sending you addl photos danb912 (at) gmail.com) I was completely oblivious of this until a friend pointed it out. I was unaware our picture was being taken. Needless to say it was rather exciting seeing the picture. I nearly shat my pants.

I've left it up for a few months but am beggining to have second thoughts- for privacy reasons mostly, but also because its a big responsibility being the definition of gay. I'm also on Castro's definition. Do you guys mind switching out the pic with another? Its been fun to show friends, but I think I've served my tenure and its time to bow out.

Thanks, Dan 3/15/06

Seems reasonable to me, but a little sad - it's a great picture! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Okay, I'll take it down now.

-Dan

frustrating, :(((( --tasc 19:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem - The image is still used at The Castro, San Francisco, California. A quick look-see shows it's also on the French wikipedia for two articles, Gay(homosexualité) and Homosexualité. And on the Spanish articles Homosexualidad and Movimiento gay. The image itself is uploaded on most of the main language sites unused. --Kinst 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Photograph Follow-Up

• To all gay wikipedians: I agree that we should honor Dan's request and remove the photo of him. I believe that this article could really use a photo of a gay couple (mm or ff) holding hands, though. So please, someone, upload a pic of you & your mate. Thanks! --M@rēino 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We should probably get an admin to delete the photo Castro-sidewalk-east-cropped.jpg that's here now, too. I have no idea how to do that, so I guess I'm just hoping some admin will wander by, see this, and delete it. -Seth Mahoney 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page of the photo's author. Photo admins can speedy-delete photos at the author's request. --M@rēino 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. -Seth Mahoney 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's fine with me to delete this image to honor Dan's request. Note that this photo was originally taken to illustrate The Castro, San Francisco, California, and there is a larger version at Image:Castro-sidewalk-east.jpg (stored on the Commons). I no longer live in San Francisco, so someone else will need to take a suitable replacement. -- Beland 11:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have deleted the image on the english wikipedia, the image is uploaded to the commons and the polish wikipedia, the uncropped version is also on the commons and most major wikipedias and it is being used in about 16 articles across all languages. [1] This doesn't include any mirrors that may have copied the public domain image. I will watch this page and try to help in any way I can, but I don't know if total removal is possible at this point. - cohesion^t 20:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I left that with a sort of giving up tone which, I didn't intend, I certainly understand your request and will continue to research it and see what I can do. - cohesion^t 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Update #3, I am in the process of removing the image from all projects, It would be nice it we could get another image, but to replace this image would be difficult, It would need to be American men walking in the castro holding hands that were gay to suit all the articles it is currently used in. It may take a little while to get it deleted, but I think that's the right thing to do. - cohesion^t 20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dan but your 'courage' offends us all. Why don't you ASSUME ??? Huster

The image has been removed from everywhere except the Russian version, that page is protected, but the image they are using is the one on the commons. We are now waiting for commons administrators to delete the image. It is very sad that the image will be deleted though, It was used in a variety of articles in many languages on subjects like homosexuality, the gay movement, and US culture. It was even used in a wikibook to teach people the Spanish word for "walking" andando :) It is sad, but at the same time I understand, I'm actually gay also and I don't know how I would feel about being the face on the article "Gay" :D - cohesion^t 02:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Gay CIA

Someone has added the following sentence just after the Bringing Up Baby section - "Gay is slang used among government officials for high ranking CIA field operatives." Is it? Can anyone clarify? Even if true, this is misplaced, since its presumably a recent usage, and should not be placed on a para about the 30s-40s. I have deleted it, provisionally. Paul B 17:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It would definitely need a citation, and clarification if it were to be reincluded. -Seth Mahoney 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of intro statement

"Gay used as an adjective, describes traits associated with gays and lesbians, their culture, or perceived lifestyle." This usage would seem to be less common, since "gay" is usually associated with homosexual men, rather than with lesbians. Isn't this the reason for the increasing usage of "LGBT"? SouthernComfort 16:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think differences in usage are regional (I can check to see if there are any studies to confirm that - it would make an interesting sociolinguistic addition). It wouldn't be unusual here on the northwest coast of the US to hear someone use the phrase "gay woman" to refer to a lesbian, or to hear a lesbian describe herself as gay. Gay as a plural noun is also often used to refer to gay men and lesbians (to me, it would be weird to hear someone say "gays" - a word I'm bothered by anyway - and not mean to include lesbians). However, that brings up another difference - gay used as an adjective is also commonly used to describe people in a way that doesn't specifically reference gay culture, gay traits, or any so-called gay lifestyle. A nearly unreadable lipstick lesbian shopping for new shoes could just as well be called gay as an uberbutch dyke repairing her pickup truck. LGBT, in my understanding, is used not so much to specifically include lesbians (who have been for a long time included under, say, gay rights movements) but to specifically include bisexual people and trans people, and in exceptionally liberal circles has been expanded to LGBTQQI+some other letters I don't remember. LGB was used for a while to specifically include bisexual people, but I don't recall ever seeing LG. -Seth Mahoney 16:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, considering regional differences and so forth (it's been a long while since I've heard the term "gay woman" as a common phrase), how about this version: "Gay, used as an adjective, sometimes describes traits associated with both gay men and lesbians, their culture, or perceived lifestyle"? SouthernComfort 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That works. It sounds a liitle like 'gay' as an adjective only sometimes describes all the things that follow, rather than describing traits of gay men and sometimes women, but I can't think of a way to further clarify. -Seth Mahoney 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of a better phrasing either. SouthernComfort 18:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Glad to see this page is finally (semi)protected. It must have been getting vandalised 5 times a day for the last few weeks. Exploding Boy 06:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Five times an hour, more like. Sceptre ^(Talk) 15:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"The term lesbian, on the other hand, is used exclusively in a gender-specific way to describe women who prefer sexual relations with other women." Sexuality is not a preference. This should be changed to something like "to describe women whose sexual orientation is towards other women."68.6.125.175 17:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)JLS 10 October 2006

Disambiguation neccesary

Disambiguation IS neccesary. The original meaning of the word is joyous and happy, it remains present in many literary texts, it can be found in text and explanation sought that is not given here. In addittion, my elderly relatives often use the term in this sense. By what right can the word be wholly appropriate - it is unacceptable. Further, the word 'gay' is not just used as an insult to homosexuals, it is also a word meaning 'sad' or 'pathetic' or 'uncool' or 'failure' amongst the youth of Britain without a thought to sexual orientation. This is the most common usage of the word by far. If this term should be classified by most common usage, it should be explained as such.

Shouting at the wind does not change the fact that 'gay' is not a technical term, or that the rainbow flag was appropriated from the hippy movement and the flag of the Cuzco area of Peru and is being reappropriated for that reason. Things change - for or against you, it is fact that should be represented 194.112.58.29 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, disambiguation is not necessary, as it's not an insult anymore but a cultural and sexual description. "The most common usage of the word by far" is to describe homosexual men. FCYTravis 04:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation is provided. See gay (disambiguation), which links to other interwiki disambiguation pages. GilliamJF 12:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

History of same-sex unions

This bit seems to have been inserted at random yesterday and I'm not at all convinced it's necessary. As it is, I've edited it considerably for English and style and stuck it at the end (it was originally just plonked in the middle of etymology). If it's to stay, it still needs work. As this kind of stuff is covered under homosexuality anyway, it seems out of place though. Garik 23:57, 9 May 2006 (BST)

I don't think it should be here at all. This page is about the usage of the word "gay", not about the history of homosexuality. Anyway, I'm moving the whole thing here. Paul B 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you. Garik 11:18, 10 May 2006 (BST)

A Brief History of Same-Sex Unions

Same-sex unions have a long history in all continents (excluding Antarctica) from as early as Ancient Egypt, Classical Rome and Greece. The first recorded male couple in history was Khnumhotep and Niankhknum during the Fifth Dynasty. Same-sex relationships have also been recorded in all of Ancient Asia - from the Middle East to South and East Asia. These unions were usually between men and involved an age-difference. In Fujian in China, sexual relationships occurred between men and male youths. These marriages would last several years and the elder partner was responsible for finding the younger lover a wife in order that a family might be raised. In Classical Europe, same-sex marriages were plentiful, but the practice was claimed unlawful in 342 CE. In Greece, Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were involved in pederastic relationships, in which the younger males were of the age at which women were usually married. Just as in relationships between men and young women, these same-sex unions had to have the approval of the father. In ancient Rome, the Emperors Nero and Diocletian married male couples. The Romans considered dominance an important aspect of sexuality and felt powerful by raping their enemies, a behaviour that led to intolerance of same-sex relationships in Rome. In medieval Europe, same-sex relations were apparently very rare and were kept hidden. Passionate friendships between members of the same sex were celebrated, but these were not assumed to involve a sexual component. In 19th century U.S.A., two women were allowed to make a commitment to each other that was named a “Boston Marriage”, yet involved no forms of sexual activity.

In ancient Chinese culture, the same-sex unions between (ideally) wise elders and younger men were perceived as having educational value for the younger partner. In Native North America, the “Two-Spirit” relationship between certain male members of the tribe was one of cultural importance and forwarded respect towards these couples. In the recent history of the United States, women were allowed to make long-term commitment which was called a “Boston Marriage”.

Protection

I strongly request this article be put on permanent semiprotection. Vandals are drawn to it like flies to three-day-old excrement. Please honor my request. E. Sn0 =31337= 17:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would happily support this. Exploding Boy 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So would I. However, I also think that vandal fighters are doing a great job with reverting the childishness. It usually takes less than a minute for vandalsim to be removed. PrometheusX303 13:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave things open, unless some nut case latches on to the article. Haiduc 13:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? There are already nutcases attacking the article, just not one specific one, and I prefer that we adopt the tactic of defending from attack instead of rebuilding after the attack. Yes, reverts take a couple minutes (or seconds if you're an Admin), but it's not how easy or difficult repair is, it's the principle of the matter. There's also the matter of literally billions of IP addresses an attack can come from. We can't ever expect the ten-times-a-day attacks to ever cease at this rate. Editors will burn out and leave Wikipedia before the attacks stop, and what then? Right now we're reactive when we should be proactive. Protecting this article will show unequivocally to these infantile trolling throwbacks to the Inquisition and Nazi Germany (RING-A-DING! Viva Godwin's Law!) that they're absolutely not welcome at Wikipedia. E. Sn0 =31337= 14:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was not aware of the history. But "permanent" seems a bit excessive. Haiduc 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If too many articles go on permanent protection, Wikipedia ceases to be an resource that anyone can edit.PrometheusX303

True, PrometheusX303, but we're talking about semiprotection of an article that has had constant vandalism issues. A four-day waiting period is not a big deal for this particular new user, nor should it be for anyone seriously interested in contributing to Wikipedia. I'm fine with the permanent semiprotection - I can wait a day or two!  :-) -Droman 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to read WP:SPP. Protection shouldn't be used to prevent anonymous editing in general. Also defeats the purpose of an open wiki, which some people around here take very seriously. -- Steel 11:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That argument falls flat when literally 100% of anon editing to the article is pure vandalism. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not literally 100%, but damn close to it. I'd support semiprotection on this article, too. -Smahoney 20:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Point conceded. I appreciate your support. I said '100%' because I don't remember one single anon edit being constructive. It's not to say they weren't there, that just goes to show what a gargantuan mountain of vandalism and vitriol they were absolutely swamped by. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling error in Pejorative usage section

Could somebody who is allowed to amend please correct the spelling of 'connetations' to 'connotations'? MichaelMaggs 10:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Done. Paul B 10:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientific markers

If we're going to put links to "scientific" articles (which I believe are closer to pseuo-science) which purport to identify markers of homosexuality, we should also include scientific research on markers of heterosexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikipediaExpert (talk • contribs) .

That would belong in our Biology and sexual orientation article, not the Gay article. FCYTravis 18:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why homosexuals are "GAY"

I think the development of this word's usage to mean "homosexual" has little to do with it's connection to "carefree" and "happy."

After WWI, social clubs for men pooped up all over metropolitan America, and Greenwich Village was booming. Lawyers, bankers, actors, writers, academics all formed private clubs in New York City. In the Village, there were alot of homosexuals, and they wanted a social club as well. They bought a building on Gay St. and called their club The Gay St. Social Club (because they obviously couldn't call it the homosexual's social club).

In order to avoid discrimination, the members began to refer to themselves as the "gays."

Interesting claim. Do you have any references for it? --FOo 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I can find no references to a "gay st social club". The notion that the sexual meaning was influenced by Gay St because of its association with bohemian culture is already mentioned in the article. In fact, it was a largely black community, the home of a number of black musicians. I suspect it's just that Gay St is in the West Village, and so people have assumed that there must have been a "gay" hang out there at some point, so assert that there actually was, and so the modern meaning emerged. Anyway, I haven't yet seen good evidence for this theory. See Gay Street (Manhattan) Paul B 11:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a gay man, it's always been my belief that a homosexual refers to someone's sexual orientation and that the term gay refers to an active homosexual. In other words, someone can be homosexual all their life but never act on it- they are homosexual but not gay. A gay person is someone who has acted on their homosexuality. I realize that may be too simplistic, but it has certainly simplified the difference in terms for me.Novatom 23:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Novatom 23:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've put this comment in the right place, but I like it. It's a very unprovable thing, but the words have certainly acquired such baggage each that your distinction is a pleasing one:) garik 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pejorative names for people

I find this category to be disruptive trolling. Indeed, the so-called pejorative use of the word gay is documented, but for gay to be considered a pejorative name for someone as a category is POV. I want to remove this category, which is being misused. GilliamJF 20:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. As a label for people it is not pejorative. As a prejorative term, it is not a label for people. Paul B 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Labelling gay as such in a general sense is inappropriate and misleading. GilliamJF 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok... sounds reasonable if we are trying to remove the category. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reservations about removing the category from the article, as it is certainly used as a general pejorative term in everyday parlance. However, I believe these concerns are assuaged by the fairly well-developed "Pejorative non-sexualized usage" section. This said, I disagree wholeheartedly with Gilliam's claim that this is disruptive trolling. I think a legtimate argument can be made for gay to be in the category of pejorative terms for someone--it is used that way, after all. Zenosparadox 05:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution? Anyone care to create gay (pejorative)? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually yes, it is a label of people when used in the context of considering someone to "act" sterotypically gay who is actually gay. The term is pejorative. Homosexual itself is a neutral and descriptive word for what it is, gay however is widely used as a pejorative to people, events or even the behavoir itself. Editor18 08:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, you are confusing a pejorative term with a stereotype. The pejorative usage oroginates with the connotations of "camp" and "kitsch" but is not used as a pejorative label for a category of people. Paul B 08:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is. When people at my college know or see someone obviously gay they will point towards them and say eww he's gay, and in an obviously pejorative tone. Editor18 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reply indicates that you miss the point entirely. If your friends don't like the French, then they might see someone French and say "he's French" in a "pejorative tone". That does not make "French" a pejorative label for French people. Likwise "Jew" is not a pejorative label for Jews, just because it is used pejoratively by people who don't like Jews. If an anti-semite called a non-Jew "Jewish" then he would be using the term as a pejorative label, but that precisely because it is used for connotation, not denotation. Paul B 08:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Gay and Queer

What's the difference between gay and queer? --Yancyfry jr 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Gay" applies specifically to homosexual men, while "queer" applies to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people (it's an attempt to reclaim the word).--Archangel127 02:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gay can apply to bi men too actually.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that queer implyes everything that is not a hetero-normative, so even str8 persons who don't accept patriarchy, standard values....--Marko Jurcic 11:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think gay has multiple meanings - just like 'man;' (i.e. man & mankind) gay means both non-heterosexual and a homosexual man. For me, the specific meaning is deduced from context. I do think that the meaning of 'gay' is narrowing as the different identities within the 'gay' movement are becoming understood and visible. In fact, Queer feels to me like it is taking on a broader meaning for non-heterosexual. However, gay still has that same connotation. Jcf608 19:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Jim Freeman

If you look at the Queer article, it also points out that Queer has more of a radical, activist tone, which some who identify themselves as gay don't agree with or endorse. Jeffpw 14:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In other languages

could someone please put hr:gej

Page is looking good (21 Oct 06)

This page is looking great, good work people JayKeaton 10:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Preference

The term lesbian, on the other hand, is used exclusively in a gender-specific way to describe women who prefer sexual relations with other women. This statement will lead some to assume that all lesbians have a choice in their sexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.90.124 (talk • contribs)

I prefer apples to pears, but I don't have a choice about it. My preference is what my experience tells me. It's not a choice that I freely make. I don't decide to dislike pears, I just experience the fact that I do. I would much rather like them, but I just don't. Choice follows on from experiential preference. Stating that lesbians "prefer sexual relations with other women" is stating a fact about desire, not about choice. Paul B 10:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Try stewing the pears in water with sugar until they start to go a little brown. Drain the water, sprinkle some cinnamon on top and serve right away with a scoop of good quality vanilla ice cream JayKeaton 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds even more revolting. Paul B 08:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence.

I have removed the following sentence:

"Grant's Hollywood background should leave little doubt as to what he meant--he knew the connotation of the term, even if the audience did not."

The sentence was about actor Cary Grant's ad-lib that he just "went gay" in the film Bringing Up Baby. Whoever added this can not presume to know what Cary Grant knew or did not know or make assertions that his "Hollywood background" would have somehow entitled him to know more than the average citizen. We can assume lots of things, but that doesn't make them worthy of encyclopedia entries. ExRat 18:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

I have found that there has been repeated vandalism by new users and unregistered users. Please semi-protect this page to help reduce the constant vandalism.

It's nothing overwhelming. -- Steel 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's actually been semi-protected since November, and this still has not solved the problem entirely. -- Beland 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion the sprotect is working splendidly. It cut out the vast majority of morons, idiots, and POV-pushers. The small residue left is easily fixed.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

... or "the Santorum is wiped away." Joie de Vivre 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay only refers to men

Gay refers to men, lesbian refers to women, homosexual could be both. Women are not "gay", they are either lesbian or homosexual. Can someone registered change that on the page?

I see no problem with the current terminology.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know plenty of lesbians who call themselves gay from time to time (or at least happy for others to do so). garik 13:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

type "gay woman" into google and see how many hits you get. A great many. Paul B 13:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There are regional variations as well. 'Gay' is rarely used to refer to women in the UK, but is more common in the US. However, I don't think the term 'Gay Women', would ever be seen as an inappropriate way to refer to Lesbians, even in English speaking countries where that usage is unusual. Indisciplined 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are "homosexual" and "gay" two separate articles?

I understand the history of both the terms, but don't they mean the same thing at this point? Do they each need their own article? (Asking at Homosexual as well.) Joie de Vivre 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Response here. As you've posted this question twice, I think it's probably best to keep all responses in Talk:Homosexuality to avoid two discussions of the same issue. garik 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that does make sense. Sorry. Joie de Vivre 01:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it pejorative to call someone 'too gay' or 'too straight'?

Sky TV's May 2004 show 'How Gay are You?', channel4.com's 'Gay-O-Meter' and similar put forward the idea that certain (heavily stereotyped) traits are 'gay' or 'straight' and therefore lead on the idea of being 'too gay' or 'too straight'. Is this usage pejorative? At least it may be an interesting subject for discussion and possible inclusion in the article?

In fact 'How Gay are You?' drew a few complaints about whether it's use of the phrase 'too gay' was pejorative or not - this was ruled 'not in breach' of standards by OFCOM later that year in its September Program Complaints Bulletin.

Pault69 00:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While it's an interesting question, I'm not sure if it can really be incorporated in this article. Of course, some of the other contributors may have some better ideas. :) Justin Eiler 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Query

The word "respectable" occurs in two places, in both cases the context could be construed that gay people aren't "respectable". The first, under the sub-header of "Development of modern usage" states "...implying a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores." The second is in the same section a few paragraphs down that begins with this (partial) sentence, "By the mid-century 'gay' was well-established as an antonym for 'straight' (respectable sexual behaviour)..."

If the use of "respectable" in these two cases merely cites what was respectable during the evolution of the word "gay" from its origins to present day usage I'd be fine with that: but the context isn't at all clear, in my opinion and could be seen as POV. Thank you. Rob Pommer 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It obviously isn't POV and isn't intended to imply that a gay lifestyle isn't respectable, merely that it wasn't perceived as such. But I suppose it could have been worded better, so I've changed it so that "respectable" appears only in past-tense sentences. garik 12:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

The following sentence was removed from the start of the article as "false and unencyclopedic". Then it was put back. I've removed it again, because it clearly isn't very accurate:

In contemporary usage, the adjective gay usually refers to people.

There are two issues: first, the word gay is very frequently not used of people (think gay bar, gay club, gay magazine, gay newspaper, gay sex, gay style, gay mannerisms, gay pride, gay march, gay mardi gras etc). In its very recent pejorative use (as in "these shoes are gay") it's actually probably more often used of non-human objects. Now, some people will argue that when we talk about gay clubs or gay pride, we're talking about people indirectly. But that's beside the point; and, importantly, the same could be said of the word gay in its pre-sexual meaning. Second, what's the point of this sentence anyway? Even if it were true that the adjective usually referred to people, would it really be worth starting the article by saying so?

And finally, contemporary with what? The article? Well, hopefully the article will be updated successfully enough that it's always up-to-date. Or do we just mean modern usage? garik 11:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think we need to discuss this and come up with a much better first sentence for this article. Sorry if I seemed to be treading on toes. garik 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Contemporary" in this context means "modern". When used in this was it's usually intended to distinguish very recent usage from a broader sense of the modern era (as in modern art and contemporary art). The examples you give do in fact refer to people. A gay club is not a club that is gay; it is a club for gay people. Gay pride is not a type of pride that is gay; it is people being proud of being gay...and so on. The same could not be said of the word in its pre-sexual meaning; a "gay hat" would be a brightly coloured hat, not necessarily a hat worn by a carefree person. It is quite different. The pejorative modern usage is - in an odd way - a return to the earlier meaning with reversed connotations. Paul B 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I certainly see your point about contemporary, and I sort of see your point about reference to people, although I'm not entirely convinced: your hat is gay because it has certain of the characteristics of a gay person: it's jolly. It seems to me that its application to objects was essentially metaphorical. And, really, it doesn't matter whether the pejorative usage can be seen as a return to the earlier meaning (and I think that's disputable): it's an important aspect of the word in contemporary usage.

I was tempted to bring up the issue of gay non-human animals, but I admit that this depends on whether you accept even homosexual as a term that can be reasonably applied to non-human animals. I'm in two minds about that.

In any case, can't we come up with a better, more striking, less empty opening sentence for this article? garik 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not defending the opening line as perfection incarnate. Contemporary could be replaced by "current" or some other clearer word. Gay animals? That usage is not unknown, but it is rather rather rare. We could replace people with "sexuality". I think the sexuality meaning is still the dominant one. I do, however, think that the fact that people are normally being referred to is significant. Earlier usage tended to emphasise emotion or atmosphere - a person might have the emotion (be gay) or an object might elicit it ("gay hat"). The pejorative meaning returns, in reverse, to earlier usages. The phrase "gay club" could once have meant a club that had bright decor, or a cheerful atmosphere. It would not primarily refer to the people who used it, but to the the club itself. Now it might mean a club that has bad decor or a dreary atmosphere: in other words a club that is gay, not a club for gay people. Paul B 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These are good points, and I see what you're getting at. I think replacing "people" with "sexuality" is a good idea though, at least for the opening line. garik 12:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the dimension of sexuality to the lead-in, but left in 'contemporary,' which is in fact more accurate than 'modern'. 'Contemporary' refers to now, whereas modern refers to the period from approximately 1700 to present (whereas the early modern period goes from about 1400-1700).--Agnaramasi 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, quite right. garik 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a go, tried to summarise the main points of the article, but I think I made it worse than better. X.X

In contemporary usage, the adjective gay is commonly used to associate someone or something with prominent aspects of the culture of homosexual individuals in society. For example; "gay marriage" or "gay rights" However the word can have several meanings dependent on context. The word's meaning has changed dramatically since the late 19th century. Originally the word meant "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy", though this usage is infrequent today. The word is also used in the pejorative sense, as a form of insult.

For what it's worth, it may at the least form a starting point for discussion. The word prominent should probably be replaced with something like obvious or popularly believed but not necessarily correct. If you follow. --Monotonehell 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)