[ SECRET POST #3993 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3993 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 57 secrets from Secret Submission Post #572.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It seems like more and more, when people use the word "gay" to refer to women, they mean something closer to "wlw" rather than "explicitly and exclusively lesbian". so that specific thing seems like it's at least in part a usage / semantics thing, rather than being bi erasure. that's how it seems to me, that's the sense that I get from seeing people talk about it.

I have no comment on OP's secret.

[ibbity]

I think in some cases you're probably right, but as a bi woman myself I've noticed a lot of subtle attempts to exclude bi women from...idk, "full" queerness? "counting" as queer? in wlw spaces that should theoretically be inclusive of us but do kind of have a "lesbians only" vibe to them. I think there's more hostility, overt or covert, and resentment towards the bi contingent among lesbians than there is among gay men. At least such has been my experience and I don't think I'm unique enough to be the only bi woman who's ever felt this way. There's gatekeeping there sometimes---witness the persistence of "gold star lesbians" as a concept. I can't say anything about the specific example in the secret but in general I do think there tends to be a lot of bi erasure among 100% gay women.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I think this is totally a fair point, and I want to be clear that I'm definitely not trying to dismiss, or really even comment on, the broader social dynamics. I want to be very clear that I'm only talking about the specific way that "gay" is used as a descriptor for women and not making any more general arguments whatsoever.

[ibbity]

On tumblr specifically I've definitely seen people use it that way, sometimes they'll kind of alternate gay with wlw in a post that pretty clearly isn't talking about 100% lesbian women/characters/what have you. I just wish people wouldn't say "gay" when what they actually mean is "queer", lol. It'd be less confusing if people would use the word we already have that means "basically just...not straight, in general" when that's the concept they mean instead of using gay, which is supposed to have the "100% only into own sex" meaning.

[(Anonymous)]

Can I ask (in all seriousness) is there is a current generally-accepted definition of 'queer'? Last time I checked, it covered everything that wasn't cishet; is that still it? (So both gender identity as well as orientation?)

[ibbity]

As far as I know, yeah. Which is why it's so annoying when people try to use "gay" to refer to anyone not cishet regardless of nuance.

[cloudtrader]

I know that some people use the term gay to refer to bisexual women rather than the term queer because some people are offended by the term queer based on it being used as a slur against them, even though the term queer has been almost universally reclaimed. Still. *shrugs*

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty much this. I've seen bi people who refer to themselves as gay and say gay is an umbrella term for same gender attracted people, and bi people who insist that being referred to as gay is bi erasure, and gay people who say it's fine to use gay as an umbrella term, and gay people who say that that's taking away their word. Semantics problems are pretty much a given, so I prefer to assume people are speaking in good faith and not trying to erase anyone or do any other nefarious things.

[(Anonymous)]

NA

It happens to men too. A lot of people are refusing to let "gay" be a specific term now. Look at the creator's statements on Ben Daniels' character in The Exorcist: he's bi and it's supposed to be very important that he's bisexual, specifically, but at the same time there's a hell of a lot of use of "gay" to describe him.

It used to be clear that when a bisexual character was described as gay that it was bi erasure. Now it's a coin toss whether it's someone assuming that because they're not straight that they must be gay, and whether it's someone using the word "gay" because it's an ~umbrella term~ and ~basically reclaiming a slur from those nasty monosexual homos who talk about "gay rights" and "gay marriage" when they mean etc etc~ (never mind that almost everyone still using those terms instead of "marriage equality" and "LGBTI rights" is straight...).

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure why you're using ~scare tildes~ here

It seems like a fairly straightforward change in usage of the kind that languages constantly go through

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Because the argument for it is basically "I don't like the way gay people (supposedly) use it* so I'm going to use it the exact same way to Teach Them A Lesson and it's basically the same as reclaiming a slur" and it's homophobic as fuck to pretend that gay people are the ones primarily responsible for biphobia and to take away (yes, I mean this) the only non-slur terminology that gay men have to describe themselves, turn it into an umbrella term, and leave gay men with only shit like "faggot" and "homosexual". It's also biphobic as hell to slap everyone under "gay" as if bisexuality isn't a real and legitimate identity, and the clearest proof of this is how fucking mad the "gay is an umbrella term!" advocates get when you call them gay in a way that could imply they're actually gay. It's also used in a massively homophobic way in that a lot of the time you see people who are not actually gay using it as a joke, in circumstances such as "look at my glittery shoes, I'm so gay today", i.e. associating tired and offensive and specifically homophobic stereotypes with the word "gay" and then claiming it's an umbrella term.

It may be a straightforward change in usage of the kind that languages constantly go through, but so is the use of "retarded" as a casual insult. Doesn't mean it's still not fucking offensive just because it's language change.

*a way that is not actually common

[(Anonymous)]

I don't want to get totally into the weeds here, so I'll just say that generally, I don't think the change really functions the way that you're talking about it here. I don't think it needs to be framed around the idea of "reclaiming" language. I don't think that it erases bisexuality, and I don't think that it takes the word away from homosexual men, either: it adds another meaning to the word, without erasing the previous one, and the meaning that is added is one that consciously includes both specifically bisexual and specifically homosexual identities. That's how it seems to me.

I don't think it's necessarily *better* to use the word this way but I also don't think that I'm really qualified or needed to sit around and make an argument about what changes in usage are and aren't legitimate. And I don't think "retarded" is a good analogy, because I don't think any of these usages really constitute slurs.

Finally, one specific point:

It's also used in a massively homophobic way in that a lot of the time you see people who are not actually gay using it as a joke, in circumstances such as "look at my glittery shoes, I'm so gay today", i.e. associating tired and offensive and specifically homophobic stereotypes with the word "gay" and then claiming it's an umbrella term.

This is - IMO - an entirely and unambiguously different usage of the word than the one that we're talking about. The difference between these usages is one that's generally clear both conceptually and in usage. Conflating these things is 100% incorrect, and I don't even know how you reach that point.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that it takes the word away from homosexual men, either: it adds another meaning to the word, without erasing the previous one, and the meaning that is added is one that consciously includes both specifically bisexual and specifically homosexual identities. That's how it seems to me.

I wasn't going to bring my own identity into this because for some reason *cough*HOMOPHOBIA*cough* people start discounting what I have to say as soon as I do, but I guess that's not going to work.

As a gay man, let me tell you that when I can no longer say "I'm gay" and have people understand that I'm fucking gay, when I say "I'm gay" and get people asking "so do you mean you're like bisexual or homosexual or homoromantic or something?", the word "gay" has been taken away from me. It's not at the point where it happens every time, but within explicitly queer spaces it happens at least a solid 10% of the times I identify myself as gay. If I want people to understand that I am gay, saying "I'm gay" is not enough any more. I am forced to describe myself with words like "homosexual", which is obnoxiously clinical when used as an adjective and even then never free from the baggage of its status as an outright slur when used as a noun. I can no longer effectively communicate my identity without being forced to identify myself using words that are fucking homophobic slurs.

The previous meaning has not yet been entirely erased, but the two of them can't exist alongside one another.

And I don't think "retarded" is a good analogy, because I don't think any of these usages really constitute slurs.

I never meant to imply that the two were entirely equivalent, just provide a counterpoint to the idea that language change should be considered sacrosanct and that we shouldn't point it out when bigotry is the reason for it.

This is - IMO - an entirely and unambiguously different usage of the word than the one that we're talking about. The difference between these usages is one that's generally clear both conceptually and in usage. Conflating these things is 100% incorrect, and I don't even know how you reach that point.

By seeing multiple bi people make that kind of joke while both championing their right to call themselves gay and also getting furiously angry about the "biphobia" of anyone who took them at their word and believed they were actually gay. The overlap between "happy to call themselves gay but also really hates gay people" and "makes homophobic jokes" is predictably large.

I want to be clear, the vast majority of bi people I know are not assholes and not homophobic (or at least any more homophobic than any person raised in my society, gay people included). But this is a specific form of homophobia nonetheless and it is mostly perpetuated by bisexual people.

[(Anonymous)]

the idea that language change should be considered sacrosanct and that we shouldn't point it out when bigotry is the reason for it.

I definitely don't think that language change is sacrosanct by any means. But I do think that changes in usage are extremely hard to change, and it's very difficult to try to unilaterally redefine words, no matter how sensible the definitions that you propose are.

And I don't think that the change in usage we're talking about here is any different (and I also don't agree that the specific change we're talking about is founded in bigotry).

As a gay man, let me tell you that when I can no longer say "I'm gay" and have people understand that I'm fucking gay, when I say "I'm gay" and get people asking "so do you mean you're like bisexual or homosexual or homoromantic or something?", the word "gay" has been taken away from me. It's not at the point where it happens every time, but within explicitly queer spaces it happens at least a solid 10% of the times I identify myself as gay... The previous meaning has not yet been entirely erased, but the two of them can't exist alongside one another.

I agree that there is ambiguity there. But ambiguity is pretty widespread in language. For whatever reason, this is a way of talking that makes sense to people and which they find useful, for whatever reason, even with the ambiguity. And it also seems to be the case that, despite the ambiguity, 90% of the time it actually is clear what's being said in context. So communication is still possible.

It's not what I would do if I was the dictator of all language who could decide what all words meant. But I don't think it's bad enough to get mad about, and I definitely don't think it's bad enough to get mad at people who use it, who mostly seem like they're using it in good faith.

[(Anonymous)]

the unfortunate part about using it as an umbrella term for men is that there isn't really another term to use for gay men specifically? at least, not one that doesn't sound clunky. like, compared to "gay ladies = wlw, but lesbian = lesbian". "gay men = mlm. ??? = men who only experience same-gender attraction???"

[(Anonymous)]

I'm seeing it a lot where a character is said to be "a gay" which means, despite any subtext or textual other gender relationships, you're now only "allowed" to see them as a man who loves men or a woman who loves women. Once a woman kisses another woman she's a lesbian and no evil man cooties are allowed near her, despite what canon may suggest. The bierasure is goddamn insane. I thought we'd moved past biphobia but it's come back with a vengeance and I so wish there weren't terms like "gold star lesbian/platinum gay".