okay then, i'll bite.... how was it?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

It went well. :)

I talked a little bit about sexism in language in general, but specifically some of the ways that it's related to homophobia and how the language of the GLBT community still exhibits sexism specifically because the word "gay" is has very strong male connotations yet it's still used to encompass both gay and lesbian.

It's cool radio show run by two women who are engaged... it was fun!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"the word "gay" is has very strong male connotations yet it's still used to encompass both gay and lesbian."

Oooo, excellent. This is a pet peeve of mine. Go you!

I would love to see you post about this more in-depth, in all that free time you have when you're not jetting off to France and the like. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

My pet peeve is the phrase, seen used in serious public health context:

"Men who have sex with men, and heterosexual women."

Wrong on so very many levels... :P

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

That's ... interesting.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Hm. What is it that you don't like about it... I have an idea, but it's not obvious enough to me to know for sure.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Hm. I wasn't trying to be oblique -- I thought the egregiousness was plain but maybe my brain works a little differently than most.

The phrase "men who have sex with men" is used in a health context to separate sexual identity from behaviour. "Gay" is inappropriate because on one side you may have celibate gay men, and on another side you may have non-gay men who have sex with men due to their particular life circumstance. All well and good, but then "heterosexual women" shows a lack of understanding. There may be celibate heterosexual women, or non-heterosexual women who have sex with me. What you really want here is "women who have sex with men" to get at the behaviour rather than the identity.

And once you've gone that far, lump them together and just use "people who have sex with men".

I believe that many people don't really parse the grouping labels that they use in language. Every five years or so they will be told that a new label is now politically correct and they will update their mental pointers but it's clear from this particular example that little thought goes into the meaning of the new words.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

non-heterosexual women who have sex with me.

nice typo there. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Good Lord. They don't get much more Freudian than that, do they? :P

It's a typo, honest!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nope, we're totally on the same wave-length there... The "so-many levels" confused me... I kinda lumped it as just one. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, I do have a powerpoint here: http://www.shaav.com/professional/linguistics/gaysexism.html

Hold you over for a little while anyway! :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I have to say that the 3-D model of "guy" is a (mistress/master)-piece of graphic-making :).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Thank you! I did enjoy that one. No other linguistics talks have pretty pictures than mine. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)