Talk:Gay/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Edit request from Kunaluh, 19 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

For the gay reference, I think it's missing something. The term "gay" also applies to a behaviour type. A male person who tries too hard to be a part a girls-group or just act like a girl; they don't have to be homosexual.

As of the word 'faggot' I think it has the same meaning as the word gay, but in a mean way. I'm sure you know the British slang term for cigarettes, but just in case, it's 'fag'. As a reference to cigarettes being foul this might be a 'foul gay person' word.

Also even though most people say "gay" or "faggot" as an insult, in fact it's not an insult at all. Not by definition.

Kunaluh (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This request can't be acted on unless you say specifically what you want changed (like, exactly what sentence). And I'm not sure I or most of the others here agree with your characterization anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The word faggot is in the same category as the word nigger or spic. It is an extremely inappropriate, derogatory slam against a minority group. faggot |ˈfagət| noun 1 informal chiefly offensive a male homosexual. See usage at queer. Bill Heller (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION OF THE ARTICLE'S SUBJECT MATTER. It is (1) a suggestion on how to DISAMBIGUATE the title (something that a number of editors have already discussed as needing fixing), (2) a suggestion about the ARRANGEMENT of the parts geographically to distinguish meanings of the word as used in different parts of the world, e.g., to distinguish the Australian use of the word from the American use. (the editors have already discussed the confusion caused not discriminating what the word means in Australia from what it means in America.) Finally, I would like to add that The current American use of the word "Gay" should be first in the article as The United States has by far the largest Ehglish speaking population. (See the Wiki article on English Speaking Populations.) Also, that the article ought should start with the current usages of the word as this what most people coming to the article will be looking for. This is not about subject matter but about the ARRANGEMENT of the material to make it more accessible to the must readers.

GAY -- The title of the article might be effectively disambiguated by titling the article "Gay." Quotations are the standard punctuation marks used to indicate when a word is being used as a word.

The etymology of the word "gay" should be broken down into the use of the word geographically. Starting with what is now the almost exclusive use of the word in the United States -- "Gay" in America is (1) an adjective meaning homosexual (Gay Pride, Gay Rights, etc.) a usage beginning probably in the 1920s or (2) a noun meaning a gay man (useful, but it sounds an illiterate turning of an adjective into a noun -- ick!) which started in the 1970s when a number of lesbians chose not to identify themselves as gay women. The usage was then "gay men," which devolved into "gays."The Australian use can then be put under its own heading. Etc.

Robert M Dewey (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Robert M Dewey

Robert M Dewey (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidelines "Wikipedia: Your First Article" section 4, subsection titled "And Be Careful About . . ." says:

"Articles are primarily about what something IS, not any term(s). If the article is just about a word or phrase and especially if there are very different ways that term is used then it usually belongs in Wiktionary."

As this exactly describes the article, I suggest the content be shortened and moved to Wictionary.

The current article preempts presenting information about the primary SUBJECT of the word "gay": homosexual men -- this is its meaning as given by the proponents of the acronym LGBT, it is the primary meaning as used by the greatest population of people who speak English.* Also by the greatest number of people using Wikipedia.

• See Wikipedia, "List of countries by English-speaking population"

Robert M Dewey (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Robert M. Dewey

Those are general guidelines for inexperienced editors. Guidelines have exceptions. Some terms are notable in of themselves and deserve articles, and this is one of them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the Sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you,

Pdorion (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

PC

Using the term "gay" as an adjective where the meaning is akin to "related to homosexual people, culture, or homosexuality in general" is a widely accepted use of the word. By contrast, using "gay" in the pejorative sense, to describe something solely as negative, can cause offense.

It seems to me that there are many people in Western mainstream culture who would be offended by being told that, for example, their car was "gay" whether it was in the former or latter sense given above. Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

So what? Using a word that means homosexual as a pejorative qualifier is offensive in itself. That's the difference.--94.222.122.61 (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky area. Unless they grow up in an environment where the word gay is used frequently with the non-pejorative homosexual meaning, the first use young children learn for the word IS a pejorative, non-sexual one. The word is common in primary school playgrounds in that form. We hear "This is a gay school", "Car x is gay", "You're gay", long before the kids know anything about sexual practices. So, it is entirely meant to be offensive, but not sexual. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sourcing for this, or is it original research? Doniago (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll confess. It's mostly OR, but I did add a bit of common sense. We are allowed to use that here. Do think about it. There's no point in filling an article with well sourced content that actually makes no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are we trying to get at with this discussion? CTJF83 chat 16:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey all. I think this sentence is plain wrong and may be hurting a lot of people: "In this use the word does not mean "homosexual", so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves." It's just not true. The word does mean homosexual. If you think otherwise please source me. The idiom is disparaging precisely because the word means homosexual. Furthermore users who read that sentence may think that they are free to use this idiom without consequence to disparage almost anything except a person. Again, not true. For obvious reasons many gay people are offended by the implicit equation of the idiom and any use of the term gay in a disparaging way. That's just obvious, who would want that. Suppose the article on Jews included the opinion "In this use the word Jewish does not mean 'from the land of Judaea', so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept one considers cheap." It's just a really bad conclusion. I also have to challenge the articles assessment of the what the idiom really means. It's way more subtle than "disapproval."Shawnatutopiodotcom (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I can now see a problem with the use of the can in there. It could carry a sense of giving permission for it to be used that way. Of course Wikipedia has no authority to tell people what they may or may not do, and I'm sure it wasn't mean that way, but it could be a problem. There is no doubt that some people, particularly young children, do use the word in a pejorative sense. What we need to do is describe what happens, without prescribing. How about "In this use the word does not mean "homosexual", so it sometimes used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves"? HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast edit. It looks great. How would you feel about softening our certainty of what the word means when used this way? "In this use the word may not mean "homosexual", and is sometimes used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves" Shawnatutopiodotcom (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48? Your thoughts? "In this use the word may not consciously reference the status of homosexuality within society, and is sometimes used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproives."Shawnatutopiodotcom (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Still thinking about this, but a couple of comments... It's a bit clumsy describing a word as consciously or not consciously doing something. It's the users of the word we need to describe in that way. And I will just reinforce the point - it's used by 8 year olds!. They know it's a great word to describe something they don't like, but they would have no clue about sex. So it's not exactly "not consciously". It's more a matter of "could not reasonably be expected to know". Just extending this beyond what can be put in the article, I think it's simply sad but true that the word gay now has this additional pejorative meaning, effectively independent of homosexuality in the minds of those using it. Languages do evolve. This is probably the fourth meaning of the word gay that has appeared in my lifetime. It won't disappear any time soon. Nobody owns words in the English language. We cannot prescribe how words will be used. It's time to move on. HiLo48 (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The word cannot not mean 'homosexual' because inanimate objects do not have reproductive organs. We must be trying to say something else, otherwise this would be stating the obvious. I think the real question is whether the word borrows from traits associated with the group: gay people, gay culture, gay life, gays in the military, gays civil rights, the status of gays within society. You are arguing that the word is 'effectively independent' of these meanings when used a certain way. Can you please provide a citation for this conclusion? Children parrot their society a long time before they know what the words mean, whether it's the pledge of allegiance, or the word 'gay', or some other potentially offensive word. I think the sentence before this one says essentially what you are saying, which is that people say this word. Why don't we leave it at that? Why don't we take out the sentence after it, the sentence at issue, which attempts to explain, with a very broad brush, what people mean when they say it. Alternatively, I would also be fine with: "In this use the word may not intentionally reference the status of homosexuality within society, and is sometimes used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves." I think that covers the bases, even for children.Shawnatutopiodotcom (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to look for a citation. Just making an obvious point. It would be silly to have the article saying something that just isn't true, whether or not we have citations. Citations are not required for obvious comments. As for the wording, I note you are still insisting that the newest use of the word still has something to do with homosexuality. I am arguing that it doesn't. The word has changed in meaning several times. When I was a child it never meant homosexual. Now it has at least two distinct meanings, one of which is homosexual, one not. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you HiLo48 that is helpful. Inanimate objects and concepts are neither male nor female and so obviously the word cannot mean 'homosexual' when applied to them. We would ordinarily remove this comment on the grounds that it states the obvious, particularly when doing so can cause confusion about its meaning. But now we are to understand that you intended this confusion precisely to assert, without citation, your personal view that the word has nothing to do with gay people, gay life, gay culture, or to the status of gay people within society. If that is what you believe, it is an interesting theory, but without a citation it is independent research and your personal opinion. Can you please restate your case without resort to confusing ambiguity, and with citation to support your view as required. Thank you.Shawnatutopiodotcom (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea of the purpose of your reference to inanimate objects and concepts. And yes, much of my comments is based on OR, but I know it to be true, so ignore it at your peril. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 I respect your opinion. I would like to embrace all valid and supported ideas. I genuinely would like to find common ground with you. I will take a couple of days to think over your view point. In answer to your question the reference to inanimate objects and concepts is a direct reference to the sentence in question: "In this use the word does not mean "homosexual", so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves." Thanks. Shawnatutopiodotcom (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I was asked by email to comment here)

1. Use may vary by country/region, and by cultural/social group;
2. There will be authoritative academic sources from several fields that comment on "gay", pejoratives, slang and significance of the word.

For both these reasons a blanket statement is poor quality information. rather than editors' opinion s on how they see the term, editors might wish to research it and then collaborate to make the article acknowledge the different views held and examples who holds them, the changing use and perception, and by doing so, change this from a dispute point based on "personal views" or "common sense" into encyclopedic coverage that will probably be far more interesting and informative to all, and citable to reliable sources. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected link request

{{editprotected}} In the "Given name" section please link The Gay Byrne Show which has had an article for some time. --86.40.185.175 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from anonymous editor December 19, 2010

This article asserts without authority that gay and straight were established as antonyms by the mid-20th century. My google books search for straight and gay found uses dating back only to 1970. Then their use as antonyms rapidly becomes widespread. Is there some source for the current claim or should it be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.248.245 (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The claim is in a segue sentence from a previous section that provides extensive sourced examples of the use in culture (e.g., The Gay Divorcee). I suppose to be strict about things, we would need to provide a source for straight being used in the described manner, unless there's an article on the term to provide enough history to show its usage. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is pure OR, but I can recall the word Bent being used in Australia in my youth (1960s) as a derogatory descriptor for homosexual men. Now, straight is an obvious antonym for bent..... HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The 'gay' 'straight' opposition referred to by the IP is that between gay = homosexual and straight = heterosexual. The 'gay' 'straight' opposition of the mid-20th century is roughly between 'gay' = wild, uninhibited and 'straight' = honest, respectable. The point is that this later evolves into the modern meaning. Paul B (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the section to make things a bit clearer, and I've added a source. garik (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In reference to gay men

Shouldn't the lead mention how the term is often used to refer to gay men specifically, as the lead used to? I know the Use as a noun section covers this, but it seems like something that should be noted in the lead as well. After all, this is why LGBT has a L in it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. CTJF83 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, after waiting for others to weigh in, I finally tweaked the lead to this:[1][2][3]. It's just a tiny add-in. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems unusual, in any case, that we devote an article to the history of a word rather than the current accepted meaning of that word. It seems out of balance to me. Dan88888 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

How I Remember "Dear Abby" Explaining The Term "Gay" In Relation To Male Homosexuality.

Hello! I just tried to log in but it says I don't exist, so nevermind that then. But anyway..... I am not a male homosexual nor am I a female one. But while growing up during the 1970s, I would be insulted and teased as being one, without my knowledge, because the people doing the insulting and the teasing were using slang word rather than the correct word, so I had no idea what they were talking about, and I'd thus set myself up for verbal abuse traps. Thankfully an episode of "CPO Sharkey" came along that explained in terms that I'd understand as a 6th-7th Grader, what bullies meant when they used the terms "pansy", "queer", and "gay". But not "fag"/"faggot" though. I for one was puzzled by the word "gay" meaning the same as "male homosexual", because all of my dictionary sources defined it as being a girl's name, as in "Enola Gay" like the famous B-29 Superfortress, or to be a synonym for "happy". But then also just as thankfully, some woman wrote in to "Dear Abby" and she was just as confused as I had been. Abby had researched that question many times before so she already had the answer. This is what her research came up with. Basically you can blame it on American GIs during World War II for taking a French term and trying to pronounce it and spell it like an American-English term just like they've done with so many other foreaign words corrupted that way. The French term was used as a secret password by certain Frenchmen to get into certain clubs. If I remember how to spell it right, that term was, "es gaye. To American GI ears it was the same as, "is gay", and it was shortened to just "gay" eventually. They apparently didn't care that "gay" already had a different meaning in American-English when they went about corrupting both words. I hope that helps with this article. Leo Star Dragon 1. 70.129.174.55 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Gender Identity Disorder

not sure why this is linked in see-also, seems to be hinting that gay people have this disorder? article is locked, so i can't remove it, but i really think it should be gone. it's not relevant (and maybe slightly offensive)?

thanks 90.196.178.130 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of similar issues that gay people and people with GID may face. The subjects are related, in my opinion. Don't be so easily offended. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 04:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Other languages: Gay vs. geil

In German, the word geil went through similar changes. In earlier centuries, it used to mean happy and careless, just like gay. During the early 20th century, it had shifted to the meaning of horny. Even later, since 1980, things were called geil, which can be translated as hot or awesome, although it retains its defamatory meaning if used with persons. Since the original meaning and spelling are closely related to gay , maybe include it? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say no, as this article is part of the English Language wikipedia and is more about the idea than the etymology of the word. A more appropriate place for that information would probably be the Wiktionary. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Igotmyownstyle, 7 June 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} my request is that the edit option should be there becaise if anyone knows some information about gays thh=en he might want to share with others.

Igotmyownstyle (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Male homosexuality

There's an article whose sole subject is lesbianism, why isn't there one about male homosexuality? Wthwiki (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a damn good question! CTJF83 12:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem with two sections....

"Sociological theory" section:

"While the gay movement has been based on encouraging people to identify themselves as gay and "come out," there have been many who have argued that the approach is self-defeating. Among those are the advocates of labeling theory who argue that gay identity is a stigmatic role created by society to control and limit the behavior.

Strong defense of labeling theory also arose within the gay community. Many advocate dropping the label entirely. While adopted as a strategy for dealing with the oppression, gay identity comes with its own set of problems."

Does this sound pompous, wrongly worded and essentially unnecessary to anyone else besides me? All of it is true, but there is a way to collapse into two intelligent sentences and placed in another section. Discussion?---I'll just do it in a few days if there is no comment. That section looks silly.

What's worse?---the "Cultural relativity of the term" section which is ONE line, and can be added into another major section. Again, I await discussion but I expect little. If no discussion against, I will effect the changes. This article seems a little pretentious to me. Djathinkimacowboy 08:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing is unsourced, and should be sourced or deleted. CTJF83 14:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be done and can be added if someone can cite refs. Djathinkimacowboy 23:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is done, but the rest of this article is a travesty of grammar! Djathinkimacowboy 23:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Harry Houdini even though he weren't gay

Sorry, just asking everyone I can think of to please come and help me with a small editing issue at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Houdini#Exhumation_edit and I respect your views. Djathinkimacowboy 10:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This Topic Missed the Boat!

This topic does a good job, but it stops in 1969. I remember the Number 1 pop song, Alone Again, Naturally by Gilbert O Sullivan in 1971. "...we were cheerful, bright and gay." The term "gay" was used in a happy sense, not a sexual one. If it had, the radio would have banned the song.While I do not disbelieve what I read about the usage of the term "gay" by homosexuals, as they were known back in the 1960s and 70s, amongst themselves or perhaps progressive types, what I wanted to know is when and how did the term begin to be used by everyone, even nightly news announcers on TV. mid 1980s? late 1980s? 1990s? Where and who... That sort of thing

Talking about the usage of a word as a code for something else is not the same as it beign a mainstream usage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.96.210 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for change

While most of this article is pretty good, I think the "Sexual orientation, identity, behavior" section which states the following, while well-intentiones, is both confusing (generally), as well as just plain wrong about asexuality in particular:

If a person engages in same-sex sexual encounters but does not self-identify as gay, terms such as 'closeted', 'discreet', or 'bi-curious' may be applied. Conversely, a person may identify as gay without engaging in homosexual sex. Possible choices include identifying as gay socially while choosing to be celibate or while anticipating a first homosexual experience. Further, a bisexual person can also identify as "gay" but others might consider gay and bisexual to be mutually exclusive. There are some who are drawn to the same-sex, and may not have sex, and also not identify as gay; these could have the term 'asexual' applied, even though an 'asexual' generally can mean no attraction, and includes heterosexual attraction that is not sufficient to engage in sex, or where the sex act is not desirable, even though titillation may occur.

I would like to see it changed to this:

If a person engages in same-sex sexual encounters but does not self-identify as gay, such a person may identify or be referred to by others as 'closeted', 'discreet', 'bi-curious' or a 'man who has sex with men'. Conversely, a person may identify as gay without necessarily engaging in sex with people of the same sex. Examples of this include identifying as gay while choosing to be celibate, or identifying as gay while anticipating a first homosexual experience. Further, a bisexual person might identify as "gay", though some might consider gay and bisexual to be mutually exclusive. There are also people who are drawn to people of the same sex, yet who may not experience sexual attraction towards people of the same sex, but who may identify as gay. In the case of asexuality, an asexual person, while not being sexually attracted to people of any sex, may experience romantic attraction to people of the same sex, and may therefore identify as gay as well as asexual. Similarly, people whose primary romantic attraction is towards people of the same sex (or both sexes), but whose sexual attraction is largely confined to people of the opposite sex, may choose to identify as gay, regardless of their sexual attraction or behavior.

123.3.169.214 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition

I'm not sure what sources were actually used in the first paragraph where the writer claims that the "other," negative meaning of "gay" is equivelant to rubbish, as in "that's so gay". But clearly the negative connotation of the word "gay" is the direct result of it's homosexual association. It is an absolute reflection of homophobic attitudes towards homosexuals and has it's roots in bigotry. It is absolutely incorrect to suggest that "that's so gay" was NOT referring to things of a (percieved) homosexual nature. It's derogatory use had and still has everything to do with social attitudes towards homosexuals. While it reflects negative attitudes towards homosexuals, it is clearly rooted in the same meaning. I hope that someone addresses this confused definition soon. Gay never meant "rubbish". EyePhoenix (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I spend chunks of my time with kids aged below ten, who have little understanding of sex and homosexuality. It's 100% clear that the rubbish meaning of gay is used among those kids. It is used by the kids BEFORE the kids learn the homosexual meaning. Yes, it may have it's roots in negative attitudes towards homosexuals, but that's not in the meaning those kids give it. It's a reality. Not sure how we best deal with it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds as though we need sources establishing both that this defintion originally had and perhaps still has homophobic connections, but currently may be used in a non-homophobic context. Doniago (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"That's so gay" is definitely said by many youths who don't mean it any homophobic way, similar to those who say "That's so retarded" and don't mean it as an offense to mentally-challenged people, but I suppose it's safe to say that negative connotations with regard to the terms' original meanings still exists when used. Flyer22 (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2012

112.205.182.16 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Gay is a word (a noun or an adjective) that primarily refers to a homosexual person. The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637.[1] The term's use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1] In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and occasionally as a noun, referring to the people, especially to men, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex1st example is lyster villaruel.[2][3] At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay."). In this use, the word does not mean "homosexual", so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves. This usage can also refer to weakness or unmanliness. When used in this way, the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized.[4][5]

Not done: Please phrase your request in a 'please change X to Y' manner. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Bringing Up Baby" (1938 film)

The quotation in the Sexualization section about the film "Bringing Up Baby" (1938) is incorrect. Cary Grant's character says "Because I've just gone gay all of a sudden!" I viewed the film tonight (2011-12-17) and wrote down the line immediately after it was spoken. He does not say "went" and there is no hint of a pause such as that indicated by the use of an ellipsis by the editor of this section (and there are certainly no missing words). Grant's character sounds as though he means "gay" in the modern sense of the term, not "frivolous"; after all, he is wearing a woman's robe. Since the line is known to have been an ad lib by Grant, it is understandable that he might have used a Hollywood "insider" term without thinking. Gdthayer (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I just watched the movie tonight, and double checked if it was "gone" or "went". It is indeed "went". However as stated above, there is no pause in the line, so no ellipsis is needed: "Because I just went gay, all of a sudden!". Millifoo (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. Two different editors watch the same movie a little over a year apart and hear two different things. I think I own a copy, so I guess I could provide a third opinion at some point in the near future. In the meantime, I've moved the citation in that paragraph to the end, since it does support the last sentence. As for the ellipsis, it's present in the cited source, which is probably why it's here as well. Let me see if I hear a pause after either "went" or "gone"; if not, I'll be happy to remove the ellipsis. (Speaking of absent-minded professors, feel free to remind me if I don't get around to this soon. Just don't send any leopards after me.) Rivertorch (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's easily found on youtube in several different locations [4] [5]. He certainly says "went". As for the pause - I guess it depends on how you interpret the way he says the line. He changes his intonation at that point, shouting the word "gay" in a sort of intense manic tone. This certainly seems like a parody of the traditional meaning - i.e. "light-hearted", since he's clearly not feeling at all gay in this sense, but rather frustrated. He also jumps in the air and waves his arms about in a pastiche of the "I'm having fun" pose. The woman he's talking to does not at any time hint that his clothing suggests anything about his sexuality. She just says he looks "idiotic". BTW, I see men dressed in women's clothes regularly on Friday and Saturday nights. They are out drinking with their sporty mates, not off to pick up men in "gay bars". They are, in fact being "gay" in the traditional meaning - light-heartedly mischievous and exhibitionistic. I see absolutely no reason why this scene should not be interpreted in the same way. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Damn, now I have no excuse for watching the whole movie for the fifth time. Yep, it's certainly "went", and there is no pause. Ellipsis removed. Do you thing "gay" ought to be in italics to reflect the "intense manic tone"? Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You need no excuse surely. Yes we need manic italics. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1857 Punch cartoon discussion

As I write this, the caption for the 1857 Punch cartoon reads: Cartoon from Punch magazine in 1857 illustrating the use of 'gay' as a euphemism for being a prostitute. Question/challenge: What proof is there that the cartoon is about prostitution and thus "gay" was an early word for "prostitution"? The cartoon's title: "The Great Social Evil" could have referred to women who visited pubs and drank, partying, and alcoholism (Ah! Fanny! How long have you been gay!). I've found the page in the actual 1857 issue and it appears to have been a stand-alone cartoon not accompanied by any article, much the same way The New Yorker magazine has stand-alone editorial cartoons. See Punch, Volume 33, 1857, page 390. See also these early dictionary entries for "gay," neither of which link the word to prostitution: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828). I am not gay myself, but this appears to be a derogatory position for the article to take and an analysis that violates Wikipedia:No original research and possibly WP:CIRCULAR. I tried to tag the line with an "according to whom?" but an editor reverted it, so I want to initiate a discussion here for regular editors here to decide what to do about this. 5Q5 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a specialist on Victorian culture, so I guess it's easier for me to read this cartoon than for most people, but I have to say there is no doubt what it is about and there never has been. It would have been obvious to Victorian readers what Leech's joke was. Your personal speculation about what phrases could have meant are the only original research that's involved. "The Great Social Evil" meant prostitution and 'gay' was a euphemism for it, like 'working girl' is today. It's preposterous to consider that 'derogatory'. That's just what it meant. It's utter fantasy No one ever thought that women drinking was "The great social evil". There's even a book by James Igoe called The great social evil: a study of prostitution in Victorian England. See also the chapter "Science and the Great Social Evil" in Judith R. Walkowitz's Prostitution in Victorian England [6] which discusses the cartoon. See also Asa Briggs' discussion in Cap and Bell. The cartoon is also widely discussing in literature on Victorian prostitution [7] [8]. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you've established with convincing evidence that the cartoonist intended "The Great Social Evil" to mean prostitution. However, this was an editorial cartoon in 1857 intended to amuse the reader, in a magazine filled with other such stand-alone cartoons. For that reason, the cartoonist could have captioned the woman saying naïvely or with delicate curiosity to her friend/relative "How long have you been gay!" rather than blurting out an accusation of her being a prostitute. The readership in 1857 would have gotten the joke because of the cartoon's title. How is it funny otherwise? Some of the references you give could be the result of WP:CIRCULAR or opinion. Considering the lack of support from period dictionaries equating gay with prostitution, and for the reasons above, I still think there could be an alternative explanation and that is why I am throwing this out for discussion. I'd like to see a more convincing high quality source than an ambiguous cartoon caption, which by its nature of course is fiction, not fact. I stand ready to eat my hat in the future if you can ever find one. 5Q5 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't noticed this reply until now. Frankly, I haven't a clue what you are saying. The joke is obvious. A seriously pissed prostitute is standing around in the rain waiting for a client. Another floozie turns up and says to this clearly miserable girl, "how long have you been gay". Joke: "gay" = having fun; "gay" = prostitute; scenario: being a prostitute is no fun. Thge expression "gay life" as a euphemism for prostitution is referred to in the sources I've already given. Paul B (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll conceed the point based on the limited sources, as I do not wish to pursue this further. However, I'd like you to know that I've had professional entymology etymology experience and my name appears on the covers of dictionaries. "Gay" is a contentious word with factions on both sides wanting its historical origin to fit their particular agenda, whether positive or negative. Religious evidence has been faked throughout history to create official "origins" and "meanings." My experience has taught me to not be so trusting of etymological evidence at first glance. History is often reinterpreted. Thanks. I'll be moving on now. 5Q5 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how experience with insects is relevant. garik (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but he did not actually say entomological; nevertheless your point about polyvalence is well taken, despite my preference for the adorable Poly Styrene. Paul B (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, meant etymology, and I even made sure Wiki had the article first. I haven't worked on a dictionary in 12 years. I'm getting old and will take a nap now. Zzzzzzz :) 5Q5 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I often mistype things. Was just poking fun:) garik (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 October 2012

The picture of "Two girls kissing" near the bottom of the page can be edited in one of two ways. At the very least, drop the "girl" description and instead label the photo as "two women kissing" - the word "girl" implies immaturity, especially in regards to two grown, adult women kissing.

However, given that this is the "gay" page, and as gay is usually seen as the "male" version of homosexuality, opposite of lesbianism which is the "female" form of homosexuality, either: remove the caption and image all together, or provide a picture of two males kissing.

I would edit this if I could but, given its semi protected status and my limited history on Wikipedia, I cannot do so just yet. Please make changes accordingly or provide a reason why it's better off as it is. Thanks! Nthill (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. The picture should stay as it is. Gay is seen as homosexuality without regards to gender. Also, without the picture, the section would be kind of weird. I will, however, defer to another editor on the girl/woman issue, as this is a toughie. Personally, I am leaning toward keeping it as girl, because woman implies maturity, which is not exactly what we'd like to do with the picture. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 On hold. About the issue girl/woman. Deferring to another editor, this one's hard. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: They look like women to me, and I have changed the caption accordingly. I agree that the other change shouldn't be made; the image accompanies a section dealing with terminology and gender. Rivertorch (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If we're keeping the picture, we should at least add one of two men kissing as well. Otherwise it looks biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.164.5 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Biased? Because there's room in the section for one image, and the image happens to be of women? Rivertorch (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, IP, Kiss#Kiss_of_affection has 2 gay men kissing and no lesbians. CTF83! 05:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)