Hey on that issue of young kids calling things ‘gay’. My kids picked that term up from school and i had to have a chat with them about why i didn’t think it was fair or appropriate to use.

Compared to the gays killing a fine word that once meant ‘jolly, high-spirited, etc.’? Payback is a bitch.

Personally, I use the term, “gay” as a more technical term (simply replacing “homosexual”). Whereas, I don’t like “poofter”, because to me that is a very phobic word that I grew up hearing the… um… bogans say, all the time. Where I grew up, “poofter bashing” was a sport (you can start to see why I have problems with Bogans, can’t you?!). I do use terminology to differentiate between different “kinds” of gay men, culturally. I use the term, “fag”, to describe what most people call “Queens”. This is because the young generation who came in to the scene in the 90’s started calling each other “fags” - those 100% Oxford Street boys - after “queen” was the popular term of the 80’s. So, to me, I associated those boys with the word, and if my friend says to me, “I met so and so’s boyfriend, the other night - he’s a real fag”, I know they mean he’s probably drinking coffee, every day, at The Californian Cafe, and goes to the Midnight Shift every second night. I know that his sexual identity will be everything to him - he will bring it into absolutely everything he can - and he’ll adore Kylie Minogue. Carson, to me, is a “fag”. But he’s a commercial fag, of course! He’s a fag with a price tag.

There’s a lot of resentment, though, amongst the new gay boys, of the association of their sexuality to femininity. I think that’s a whole article, not a post (but I blur those lines, admittedly!), but one thing I have found interesting is that on gay websites, there’s a clear effort to describe themselves as masculine and not in the “fag/queen/poof” construct. What I find odd is that now, in the gay community, we have the term, “straight acting” - and it’s seen as a really desirable quality. There is nothing more complex, in terms of gender constructs, than the gay scene! And to be honest, one thing that struck me as odd, is that many of these boys who use the term about themselves (and in what they say they’re “looking for”) are actually really camp! I feel like saying, “Straight acting?! Are you kidding me?!” And I think it’s actually about the phobia they grew up with, they long to disassociate themselves from the “figure” who is subject to homophobia - and if you’ve grown up around… um… Bogans, that is most certainly the idea of the overly feminine gay man. They’re trying to remove themselves from the phobia. They can’t change their sexuality, but they try to escape it, in terms of ID constructs and stereotypes. “If what they hate is x,y and z, and I am not x, y or z, then I am not discriminated against”. It’s a bizarre reaction and, in some ways, protection device.

But this is all totally off BB and The Bogan Dilemma, so my apologies. But I do think it’s worthwhile to consider similar dynamics in analogous situations.

Are there parallels between this strange ‘gay’ terminological distinction at all like that between the ‘working class’ and ‘bogans’?

I think it’s pretty clear that social signifiers are especially slippery creatures, and that to think of them (or even use them) as ‘absolute’ markers leaves you floundering on faltering foundations.

Are there parallels between this strange ‘gay’ terminological distinction at all like that between the ‘working class’ and ‘bogans’? ( In that not all working class -whatever the hell that mans these days- would self identify as bogan, many proudly would, and yet what is clear is that many middle class use the term as shorthand term of cultural disparagement to the entire demographic of ‘battlers’).

It actually shows you to what extent this society is yet to deal with homophobia. Not taking anything away from racism, etc, but can you imagine if kids starting saying, “That’s so Negro”? or “That’s so Indigenous”? People would certainly mind if that started to come out of young people’s mouths - even if it’s in that hypocritical way that people prefer their phobia to be less overt than such statements, because they recognise the external pressure that discrimination is “wrong”. But it’s fine to use “gay” as a negative, go right ahead! What do their teachers say when students use it? Nothing, I’d imagine. So there’s no reason why people shouldn’t step in and teach their children what is respectful and disrespectful language. And you know, I’ve found that most of those kids who do say it without thinking, actually can grasp the concept of language having origins beyond the immediate or literal meaning, and are actually fascinated by that - it’s educating them, getting them to think about the language they use. That’s a good thing! I get frustrated when people let their sons flippantly use terms like “woman driver”, or calling someone a “girl” as a derogatory, and when I ask their Mothers, “Don’t you find that offensive that he uses such sexist language, using the idea of femininity as an inferior quality?” they say, “Oh, but he’s just a kid, he doesn’t understand what he’s saying.” Rubbish! Why shouldn’t they stop and recognise what’s wrong with what they’re saying? Kids can learn how to programme computers, but they can’t learn how to understand the language their using? Please. Many of the kids I dealt with over saying “that’s gay” around me would keep saying it, and every time I would call them up on it. In the end, they were “conscious”, and stopped using it. And then, if they still choose to use it, at least they own that meaning. And the couple that did respond with, “But I’m not saying it’s homosexual, I’m just saying it’s bad”, I explained to them that even if they don’t intend that particular meaning, there’s no reason why they can’t understand how it’s offensive and stop saying it out of respect to others (not a bad concept for kids to learn, either!). For many of them (I was dealing with a group of kids who were young graffiti artists) it was the first time they had got to know a gay man, and so it was that whole, “Wow, gay guys can actually be really cool” moment, and the telling factor is that this then made some of them uncomfortable with using the word - so they do at least say the term, because they have no respect for what it’s referencing in origin, anyway. Why would they care what gay men think of the term, if they don’t like or give a hoot about gay men? So, yeah, I think it’s a problematic phrase, to say the least, and perhaps a great tool for teaching kids a few things there’s nothing wrong with them learning? I know many people who say to me, “But how do we have the talk with our kids about homophobia?” It’s like the birds and the bees thing! So maybe leading in with talking about a term they use, and why it’s wrong, is a subtle “easier” way of having that talk.

Having said that, many parents quite like the idea that their children use homophobic terms, because it’s a way they “know” their children must not be gay, themselves. Sad, but true.

Funnily enough in my googling last night i came across a gay (2nd meaning) website where (2nd meaning ) gay people made the distinction between identifying as “gay” and “straight” within the samesex community.

It appears the concept ‘gay’ was being used to refer to camp, polyamourous, flamboyant, bitchy people in the same sex community and ’straight’ pertained to the more mainstream, conservative, monogamous samesex couples.

Thus it appears to me as an onlooker, the word ‘gay’ is actually taking on an, arguably, more negative connation within the northern hemisphere samesex community itself.

i must ask a friend of mine ‘in the scene’ what he reckons.

Anyone else noticed this?

To put it another way, “that’s so gay/homo” were fightin’ words in my school playground and first workplaces. Now it gets laughed off and with in similar circumstances. Maybe that’s progress.

Evolution takes generations, whether biological or social. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

‘That’s So Gay’: A Contemporary Use of Gay in Australian English

Authors: Lalor, Therese1; Rendle-Short, Johanna1

Source: Australian Journal of Linguistics, Volume 27, Number 2, October 2007 , pp. 147-173(27)

Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Abstract:
Recently, a different usage of the word gay has appeared in Australian English. In addition to the earlier meaning of gay being ‘happy’, ‘carefree’ and ‘frivolous’ (1st meaning), and to a later meaning of gay being synonymous with ‘homosexual’ (2nd meaning), it appears that gay is now being understood by young people to mean ’stupid’, ‘lame’ or ‘boring’, as in ‘That shirt is so gay’, or ‘How gay is that?’ (3rd meaning). Two studies were performed to ascertain who is aware of this new meaning of gay within contemporary Australian society (Study 1) and to examine the 3rd meaning in more detail, by focussing on how young people from Canberra (Australia), aged 18-30, currently understand the word gay (Study 2). The results of Study 1 showed that the word gay functions as a sociolinguistic variable with older people (60+) being more likely to interpret gay as having the 1st meaning, whereas younger people (18-30 year olds) were more likely to interpret gay as having the 3rd meaning. The results of Study 2 showed that young people (18-30 year olds) understand the meaning of gay differently depending upon whether the subject is animate (e.g. ‘he’, ’she’) or inanimate (e.g. ‘that film’); whether it is used with the verb ‘to look’ or the copula ‘to be’; and whether the word gay is used in conjunction with the intensifier so (e.g. ‘They’re gay’ compared to ‘They’re so gay’). Gay was more likely to be interpreted in the negative 3rd meaning in sentences with an inanimate subject. Studying this new meaning of the word gay is important for understanding semantic change and discovering current language trends in contemporary Australian English.

And yes ’spastic’ was the number one slur there for a while. Amongst kids at least. Later, of course, it was a badge of honor. “Got so spastic last night.”

Interesting.

And I tend to agree - ‘lame’ has lost its association.

When do words cross over into generic (not necesssarily) negative meaning devoid of specific slur?

Once I got to know to him better, I pointed out it was clearly an Anglo-Imperial slur against my Irish forefathers, probably for having the hide to be the first since 1776 to tip the soap-dodging bastards out.

It’d clearly never occurred to him. Just heard his dad saying it, never worked out it was a slur. What a bogue!

However, i have been privately wondering if it really is worse than the word “lame” which ‘gay’ now substitutes? Is it possible that “lame” was highly offensive to disabled people when used in a post war, polio ravaged context, yet we think nothing of it now?

Or perhaps its just the next incarnation of the word that formally meant happy, then homosexual, and now just lame?

I’m not trying to justify the transition which no doubt had its roots in denigration, but wonder if its now becoming so ubiquitous its rapidly losing this connotation? Or is like song “Eeny Meeny Miney Moe catch a N*gg*r by the toe..” aussie kids always sang in the seventies utterly oblivious as to what a n*gg*r was (i figured it was something like a Minnow ), that really wasn’t ever going to morph into mainstream language?

Bogans don’t really call each other Bogans

Not true. The other day I was in the City Library and a young man was complaining about the Asians sleeping in the chairs. The chairs are quite comfortable and often readers nod off. He didn’t seem to mind people of European descent nodding off. But Asians, no. He was sporting a t-shirt that proudly proclaimed himself to be a ‘bogan’ with some attendant neo-fascist connection.
>
He was a bogan too - spitting image of Col’n Carpenter only younger, angrier and (if possible) stupider.
>
Damn those Asians. If they weren’t here learning to read, working hard, dressing well, being polite, having their hair cut with something not used for the maintainence of lawns and refarining from inhaling industrial solvents on a daily basis then he’d have a job. .
>
It’s all their fault y’see. It always is.

But still, your “allergic reaction” is projecting it unfairly onto every situation.

Fair point, I guess it was something I was aware of when I first commented.

So what is it that we’re not willing to admit ? I think Bogan does have a specific meaning for me, yes, but I’m not sure what it is I’m not willing to admit.

I think the light-hearted attitude to Bogans, where people refer to their own Bogan tendencies as a way of playing down the more serious side of the term is in contrast to the assumption that the BB producers are not Bogans.

It’s slightly too easy for some people to chuckle about how ‘I’m just as Bogan as the next man!’(Similiar to, ‘Some of my best friends are Bogans!’ while ignoring the downside of being a real Bogan, that it limits your career opportunities because of a lack of education and cultural capital, and the social disadvantage that goes with these things. I find it hard to believe that many of the LP ‘Bogans’ suffer from those things to any major degree.

Admittedly, the way I originally phrased that was snide and unhelpful.