I ask the question because of a recent dispute I had at Ragan.
As the readers of Corporate Writer and Editor know, I do a regular column in CWE titled, 'The C.R.A.P. Awards.' It stands for Corporate Rhetoric Awards Program, and the 'awards' go to the worst stories, writing, design and photography in the organizational press. We're never short of nominees.
Anyway, in my recent column, I was lampooning a story I found in a Canadian publication that was titled:
'Finding Love and Sharing a Passion for XYZ Corp.'
Here was the lead:
'Thanks to Cupid, XYZ Corp.'s 'family'is, sometimes, really family. With a nod to Valentine's Day, Vision asked three XYZ couples to share their stories of love.'
To make matters worse, each of the three couples profiled is pictured, and the pictures are framed with lacy red hearts—just like the ones you see on bulletin boards at pre-schools everywhere.
One of the profiles talked about how this guy Mike pursued his current wife, Michelle, by sending her flowers and candy, by e-mailing her relentlessly, and asking her out repeatedly until she gave in.
Obviously, there's a lot wrong with this story. Including the fact that people like Sherman, the IT bedwetter who still lives at home, has never had a girlfriend, and always has mysterious stains on his pants, is going to think it's okay to start stalking women in the workplace.
But the other thing wrong with this article, I wrote in the C.R.A.P. Awards, is that in this age of Corporate Diversity, articles like this are exclusionary. Here's what I wrote in my original article:
'What about Sheldon, the homosexual designer? He's been going steady for two years with Doug from legal. But just because they can't get married, they don't get their pictures in lacy red hearts? You think a couple of homosexuals wouldn't like their pictures in a lacy red heart? Think again!'
Well, an editor at Ragan changed 'homosexual' to 'gay,' and wiped out the part about 'You think a couple of homosexuals wouldn't like their pictures in a lacy red heart?. . .' altogether.
I can see a case where the 'You think a couple of homosexuals wouldn't like their pictures . . .' sentence might cause some trouble . . . . but what the hell is wrong with the word homosexual?
I live in the gayest area of Chicago. It's known as Boys Town. I have a lot of homosexual friends. I asked a couple of them, and they weren't offended by the word. But my editor insists that it's now considered derogatory.
I'm asking you, fellow writers and communicators, is this true? Is homosexual now on the bad list?
Comments (22)
Oh good, a nice non-controversial blog for a change.
I wasnt aware the term homosexual was verboten, but thinking about it now, I guess you dont hear it much anymore. Maybe because its too often shortened to "homo," which is well known as a term of derision.
One thing I know for sure is that no matter the term, don't you dare call it a "lifestyle," girlfriend. (sorry, couldnt resist). Its NOT a lifestyle, that implies a choice.
By the way, didnt 'gay' used to be gender agnostic? I mean, it was a more general term, applicable to both sexes. Now, one *has* to use lesbian to specify, right?
At my job, we have a bunch of Business Councils to ensure that various and sundry groups and their concerns are represented. Asian, Black, Women, Latino, and (deep breath...this is a long one...) Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered... the GLBTBC. And you thought Six Sigma had acronyms.
The GLBTBC have it tough - the very raison d etre of the Councils is to raise the profile of the group, but the GLBTBC has to do so in a relatively circumspect way so as to avoid backlash and open hostility. Its a little sad actually. Because anything they do, be it hosting "awareness" training, or marching in a pride parade, results in a slew of inappropriate complaints being filed (rather thinly veiled hostility...and rather embarrasing opinions. Most from self identified christians. I am reminded of the words of late comic Bill Hicks: "Hey buddy, we're christians and we dont like what you said." "Well, forgive me." ).
And i'm off on another tangent.
To colleens point, I believe the terms these days isnt "hetero" - its "breeders". I learn SO much by reading "Savage Love"....
Straight but not narrow,
SN
Posted by S Neruda | June 2, 2005 10:08 AM
Posted on June 2, 2005 10:08
Thanks Phil, et al. I think everybody is right. Homosexual, while not on anybody's "bad" list, is just a stupid word. Why not go with gay?
Okay, lesson learned. Of course, I'll never tell my editor that I now agree with him, the son of a bitch.
Steve
Posted by Steve C. | June 8, 2005 12:39 PM
Posted on June 8, 2005 12:39
Thank you, Charles. You have always been one of, if not my number one, favorite person of gay sensibilities.
Steve C.
Posted by steve c. | June 16, 2005 11:05 AM
Posted on June 16, 2005 11:05
Hey hoser (in an internet loving way) ... not to be picky, but there was another error in your original column eh.
Perhaps your editor missed it as well. Sheldon and Doug CAN get married in Canada.
Assuming the article you were lampooning was from within the last couple years, virtually every province in Canada now permits gay marriage and the Federal government is voting in legislation this week to approve it (from their perspective).
Posted by G Warten | June 27, 2005 12:57 PM
Posted on June 27, 2005 12:57
DATE: 06/02/2005 41:61:2P PM
I think that is ridiculous, now maybe if you would have said, "Sheldon, the cocksucking designer"- i could understand their concerns -since I would never use such language.
Posted by Cathy | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/02/2005 68:03:4P PM
What Cathy said.
Wonder if "heterosexual couple" would have been changed to "straight couple?" And if not, why not?
Posted by Colleen | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/02/2005 72:90:9P PM
Oh . . . .oh . . . . Cathy, I just fell in love with you. Right NOW, this very instant.
And you too, Colleen, for agreeing with her.
Steve
Posted by Steve C. | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 10:30:4P AM
From a grammar geek perspective, I think another problem is that "homosexual" may be considered an adjective that requires a noun, and is not preferable when used as a noun itself -- like ethnic identifiers. It's not wrong, per se, but it's trying to avoid a potential problem. You wouldn't say "two Asians" but rather "two Asian men/women/children/people" so therefore you don't say "two homosexuals."
Thin line, but grammatically valid, since the adjective alone is perhaps dismissive of the other elements of a person. Also goes for "blondes," "Catholics" and "Trekkies."
Well, okay, maybe not Trekkies.
Posted by sarah Stanek | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 10:31:3P AM
I think the term is Queer now isn’t it? I believe that if the general public is using a single word to describe (homosexuality) then it is deemed offensive. Write about gay people for a while and the editor will soon substitute gay with homosexual.
I once had a “Silver Salute”, you know a quarter stick of dynamite go off way to close and it put me on “queer street”. I think for now on when I tell this story I’ll say it put me in “Boys Town”.
Andy
Posted by Andy | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 13:14:7P PM
I agree with David Murray, who mentioned the 'detached' feeling of the word. It's got a formal, antiquated feel, like if you were calling your PJs 'night attire.'
Posted by Valarie | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 18:73:0P PM
Speaking of exclusionary stories! Where is the couple working through the night who is caught on camera making use of the company bathrooms for a quick rendezvous? I remember reading just such a story, (complete with security camera photo of what appeared to be a man and a woman entering the restroom) from one of the United Kingdom utilities, as I recall.
You could include that couple's photo, with them facing away from the camera, the back of their heads visible only in the little red heart, so their secret rendezvous wouldn't be totally exposed, so to speak.
Who thinks of these story ideas, anyway? No wonder communicators aren't taken seriously.
Posted by Kevin | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 22:40:9P PM
"Homosexual" is so Reefer Madness. My advice is to avoid all health professional words when addressing issues of identity.
Posted by Daryl | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 22:93:7P PM
Cathy, I internet love you...what a fabulous first reply to this post.
Indeed I think the homosexual word has ALWAYS been taboo. The only people who call gays 'homosexual' are radio sex talk hosts. I've been, dare I say it, a fag hag ever since I can remember. I don't think I've ever used the word homosexual. I think ever since Queer Eye came out in their credits with the street signs Straight St. and Gay St., all bets are off.
Think of Heathers: "I love my dead gay son!"
Posted by Rebecca, Julie's friend | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 68:24:2A PM
"Homosexual" is a clinical term that a writer chooses over "gay" for a reason, and vice-versa.
In a coversation with a gay friend, you wouldn't say--unless you were making a joke--"Oh, you should also meet Tim. Tim is also a homosexual." You'd say, "Tim's gay."
So, why did you choose "homosexual" over "gay"? And why do you prefer it over "gay" in the context of your piece?
Posted by David Murray | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 68:61:8A PM
Steve,
I, too, learn a lot from Savage Love. Sometimes, too much. But I'm always seeking to broaden my horizons.
David: Honestly, I didn't really think about it that much. Gay versus homosexual. I don't think the piece loses anything if you say, "You think a couple of gay guys wouldn't like their pictures in a lacy red heart? Think again!"
So it's not like I think the word was vital to the piece . . . I was just very curious about why it was taken out, and wanted to make sure I wasn't five years behind the times, when it comes to labeling people.
Steve
Posted by Steve C. | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 69:10:4A PM
Wow - I didn't expect to read the word c*cksucker on here! Who needs a second cup of coffee after that!?
Anyway, you could always rewrite it this way:
“What about Sheldon, the designer, who has been in a committed relationship with Doug from legal for two years? Just because they can’t get married, they don’t get their pictures in lacy red hearts? Wouldn’t any couple in love enjoy seeing their pictures in a lacy red heart?”
I agree with SN's point about homosexual sounding too much like "homo," which indeed is derogitory. If people are reading carefully and the names in the example sound gender specific enough, you don't need to point out that they are a same sex couple. Oh, and I took "going steady" out because I don't think people go steady anymore. (or do they??)
One of my closest pals is a lesbian, and though she may refer to "the lesbian lifestyle" when she talks about it in general terms, she refers to herself and others as gay, not homosexual.
My two cents on this worthwhile topic. I'll go back to reading instead of posting now...
Posted by Sporadic poster | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 70:92:4A PM
Well, I don't think anything has changed in five years.
I think the choice of "homosexual" in this context makes the writer sound detached from THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY, and possibly contemptuous it--rather than, as I know you to be, chummy and loving toward your gay pals.
The item is funny ether way--it's even funny in "sporadic poster's" mild-mannered way (maybe even funnier)--which is a good test of the item.
Posted by David Murray | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/03/2005 80:24:4A PM
There's another issue here -- who "owns" your column, Steve? Your irreverent voice gives your message personality, edge, and credibility.
As an editor, I can understand the urge to remove anything potentially offensive to my subscribers, but in the bigger picture, I wouldn't want to water-down one of my most popular features.
If you don't understand editorial decisions being made to your column, maybe question your editor and agree upon some objective guidelines, just like you encourage us to challenge CEOs on corporate speak.
Posted by Carmen | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/07/2005 11:60:1P AM
OK - take it from a gay guy here: "homosexual" is so 1969 Stonewall riot. "Gay" is 2005. And I admit, reading the word "homosexual" in your context gave me a slight twinge of anxiety. I think it's the relation to "homo," as was stated before by others. "A couple of homosexuals" just sounds frothy.
Simply put, you could have just said, "You think a gay couple wouldn’t like their picture in a lacy red heart? Think again!"
Posted by Phil | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/13/2005 59:44:7P PM
Here's a resource guide from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Assn. (of which I am a member). It has been prepared to inform professional writers about proper usage:
How to Cover LGBT People
Education and Resources for Journalists
By Randy Dotinga
No journalist would cover a professional tennis match without getting an education in backhands, foot faults, player rankings and grand slams. But some reporters step into the world of lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people without taking the time to know what they're reporting about.
http://www.nlgja.org/pubs/toolbox_intro.htm
Posted by Charles Pizzo | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
DATE: 06/27/2005 09:10:1P PM
Regardless of everything else said, why use a 5-syllable word when a 1 syllable word will do?
Posted by Stephi | October 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Posted on October 16, 2006 16:31
"Homosexual" isn't offensive but it sounds clueless. Plus religous right types prefer it, because they won't use the word gay. So it's just a bad choice, I think.
Posted by John | October 17, 2006 1:06 PM
Posted on October 17, 2006 13:06