Don't be so gay!

I witnessed a good old Twitter spat a week or two ago about the use of the word "gay" in the sense of something being rubbish or naff.  It actually really got me rethinking my own position on the subject - which I'll try to set out below.

The Word Gay

Let's kick off with the definitions.  There are according to the Oxford Dictionary four distinct meanings of the word as an adjective:

The use of the word to mean homosexual has, I believe, come directly from the second and more specifically the third meaning.  This is quite a recent usage: the Telegraph was until recently insistent on the use of "gay" in inverted commas in a vain attempt to keep the original Enid Blyton type meanings.  I imagine it was originally a euphemism which from the 1950s which somehow connects to the alleged camp, flouncy, queeny nature of homosexual men.  If I'm correct in that, it is not exactly a neutral term in its origin.

Yay, Noddy is Gay!

This lack of neutrality is worth just noting for a second of course: unlike say the word "blind" we do have a problem with a completely neutral word for men who are predominantly attracted to their own sex.  Homosexual can make us sound a bit like exhibits at the zoo or scientific specimens, though I personally certainly wouldn't get as precious and agitated about it as as this writer criticising the Guardian for its occasional use of the term. 

Gay as an Insult

Much more recently the fourth meaning has come about.  I missed this at school: it is something of the 90s and 00s - but it is used in a negative way, that without doubt can be pejorative or insulting eg. "Don't be so gay" when condemning someone's behaviour.

The question is, does this matter?  My view was yes, of course.  If a word relates to sexuality and then used as an insult, this is a bit of a non-brainer isn't it?  However, I was surprised to see a 17 year old, backed up by his gay friends, saying that the use of the word in no way had homophobic overtones.  A Guardian article was produced in which a Brunel University sociologist Mark McCormack indeed confirmed that the phrase "so gay", used to rubbish things, is unrecognisable to teens as homophobic.  Do please click on the link and read it.

This is interesting stuff.  It started me thinking about the comparison with the word "black".  Black has a long history of incredibly negative usage.  Think of "Black Death", "Black Mark", "Black Wednesday", a "Blacklist", "Black Magic" etc.  If we were trying to come up with a neutral term to describe those of a darker skin tone than my pink colour, we would so demonstrably not use black and white to distinguish us.  However, English clearly has the space to maintain multiple meanings of the word - one inherently negative and one (at least in British usage) that is now quite neutral.  In the US many of course use "African American"; we do not use "African European" or "African British" here: as well as being horribly contrived, it would imply to me the person were less than 100% European or British if we did.

Has "gay" rapidly moved from its original 50s meaning, through to meaning homosexual, and then on to splitting between that usage and developing a non-homophobic one (that like black, was negative in origin)?  If the gay kids speaking on Twitter and Mark McCormack are to be believed, yes it has.

Twitter Discussion

Lots of people weighed in with their thoughts on the original Twitter conversation.  Many were friends I respect a huge amount, all condemned the use of "gay" in the sense of something lame.  One for example said that the use of the word in this way contributes to a low-level persistent negativity around the way homosexuality is viewed.  A teacher friend said she picks students up on this every time and tries to explain to them why it is objectionable.  I understand both and very much see where they are coming from.

I also know these people are motivated by a genuine concern about homophobia and specifically the bullying of gay teens.  From what I know anecdotally the situation for gay teens is far better than it was when I was at school, but it is still a long way from rosy.  Gay teenagers still are routinely bullied, self harm, and even commit suicide.  It is absolutely no joking matter and I obviously appreciate their concern in countering the issue.

Jonah Mowry: amazing brave gay teen who spoke out about bullying

The question is, however, are the gay teens who defended the use of the word, and the sociologist Mark McCormack correct - and in which case, is their concern actually misplaced and unnecessary?

My Perspective

I have to confess to never personally actually having overheard the expression "that's so gay" or "don't be so gay" in real life.  It is being used in schools: it is not something I would ever use myself as a 40 year old.  I have to ask myself as a gay man, if it would bother me if I heard it.  The answer is, of course, it depends on context and intent.  I've been called a cunt many a time in really a quite affectionate, loving way; being called an idiot, if said in a spiteful, insulting way could hurt me a lot more.  If you can be bothered, read my thoughts on the C-word here.  My conclusion is essentially "meh, it's just a word".  There is therefore no way I can answer that question on how I'd perceive "gay" said with this meaning in my presence without the absolutely necessary ingredients of context and intent.

I am of course not a gay teen however - I cannot say whether the use of the word in this sense at school around me would bother and disturb me.  It is their perception that matters, not mine.  For precisely this reason I am hesitant to join in the condemnation of the use of the word.  If gay teens are telling me they don't regard this as homophobic I really owe them a duty to listen to that.  Of course, they cannot speak for every teen that has been bullied or feels despairing and miserable about his/her sexuality - but they really are in a far better position to comment than I or my well-meaning friends.

Pulling People up on Language

The next point to mention is that the teen who used the word in the first place was obviously quite upset about the way that a group of adults weighed in on him and condemned his usage of "gay" - despite their being polite and (as I've stressed) well-meaning.  I know the guy and can genuinely not attribute any homophobic sentiments to him.  This brings us to a much wider subject, which is the way in which people can be the subject of having their language pulled up on Twitter.

We all know about Ricky Gervais' use of the word "mong" and the upset it caused.  I've seen people attacked for using "cunt" and being accused on Twitter of being misogynists for doing so.  I was also amazed I got away with posting the above recent tweet about the horse fountain in Salzburg without someone saying it is non-PC to use "retarded" in this light-hearted way.  (Now I've highlighted it on the blog it is of course bound to happen and someone will take offence.  I will just note in passing that the term MR (Mental Retardation) was invented specifically in the mid 20th century because the previous terms were considered offensive and this was neutral.  It is still an officially used medical term.)

The point here is surely that if you do not like the language someone uses, yes, of course you have the right to pull them up on it.  Do not be surprised however if their reaction is hostile and they view you as being controlling.  Perhaps also consider that if their continued use of particular language is offensive to you, you can easily and quietly remedy this by unfollowing.  I don't follow Ricky Gervais and might well have unfollowed him if I'd seen a "mong" tweet on my feed, but I honestly don't feel like getting all worked up about it and joining the ranks of the indignant and outraged Twitter users who condemned him en masse  I don't ever use the word myself, understand that it's very difficult to see in a neutral way, and that's good enough for me.

I genuinely do think twice on Twitter about what I say and find myself from time to time limiting my self-expression because I'm concerned about being picked on for saying something that someone won't like regardless of my intent and the context of light-heartedness, humour or flippancy.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I repeat, the 17 year old who used "gay" as "naff" has never said anything vaguely homophobic that I have seen.  Should he have to spend the afternoon having to defend himself to a group of people much older than himself on Twitter for an innocently intentioned comment that his own gay friends say isn't insulting to them?  My friends meant well in engaging with him, but I don't think he'll censor himself in the slightest in the future on the use of "gay" and several people just seemed to come away from the fractious atmosphere not having had a particularly pleasant half an hour.

Summary

Gay bullying exists in schools: it destroys lives and makes people miserable.  I'd genuinely like to know the views of other gay teens on whether they personally perceive the fourth meaning of gay to be offensive to them, whether they consider it contributes to an uncomfortable atmosphere for them, and whether they recognise it as homophobic.  I don't know the answer to this question and don't purport to answer it here: I have just revised my position from the one of seeing it automatically in the same light as something like "mong" and think the situation is a lot more nuanced than it first appears.

Holding Back Tide of Language: Quite the Task

Trying to hold back language usage and development, particularly amongst young people, also strikes me as a bit like trying to wash back a tide on a beach with a broom.  Actual individual taunts, intentioned hurtful verbal and physical attacks are what I believe deserve much more attention than trying to control a general use of language in this way.  Stop a kid from using actual homophobic abuse against another, most definitely - but what is the point in trying to censor an entire dictionary accepted meaning of a word if everyone is using it and (most importantly) if it does indeed no longer have a homophobic connotation?

We don't try to stamp out the use of "black" to describe race at school: what matters is kids behaving in a racist way through language or acts.  The real and overwhelming issue here for me therefore has to be the continuance of gay bullying, and whether schools and teachers are adopting and implementing effective policies in countering it.  This matters to me, not trying to stamp out a word that appears to have a rapidly changing meaning and history.

Please leave a comment - I'd genuinely be fascinated to read your views on this.