I typically enjoy AMERICAblog’s gay section. They do good work and provide some activist, realpolitik backbone to what is typically a rather bland gay blogosphere. Yet I think I’ll have to disagree with them on this:
Note the BBC’s use of the rather homophobic and outdated phrase “practising homosexuals” to refer to gay people. Now, I realize that the Brits like to think that they speak “real” English, unlike the rest of us American-speaking wannabes. But for the BBC to be using language that is outdated and bigoted is simply astonishing. Not just “homosexuals,” which is archaic and negative in and of itself, but “practicing”? Has the BBC ever referred to the Queen as a practicing heterosexual? Or does the BBC only choose to refer to gay people that way, thus proving our point?
And before the BBC pulls some of that “it’s proper English” crap, I suggest someone point them to this post I wrote a short while back. It shows how support for gay rights plummets when you use the word “homosexual.” That’s why it’s the word of choice of the religious right, anti-gay conservatives, and now the BBC.
Language matters. And it changes. You don’t refer to black people as negroes or colored any more, even if you once did. And you don’t refer to Asians as “orientals.” So don’t refer to gay people as “homosexuals.” (And the entire “practicing” thing is simply abominable.)
Look, I work for an organization called Queer Networks. Now I’ve had people whine at me for daring to use such a ‘disgusting, derogatory term’ yet I completely disagree. Words only have power over you if you let them. There’s nothing inherently demeaning about the word queer, I find it to be a convenient umbrella term that encompasses all aspects of the LGBTQIAAwhatever community without having to use that ridiculous acronym. Likewise I think it’s important for us as a community to own the words that have historically been used against us. If I self-identify as a queer, or in this instance a homosexual, then you calling me one doesn’t affect me one bit.
Also context, as always is king. The BBC article he’s referencing is one about the Catholic churches policy towards gay people. Specifically that it doesn’t offer communion to people who are actively gay… or y’know a practicing homosexual. How else would the author of the article make that distinction that wouldn’t offend Mr. Aravosis is beyond me. Perhaps the BBC should reword the lede thusly, “Hundreds of Dutch activists have walked out of a Mass in protest at a Roman Catholic policy of denying communion to men who are currently poking other men in the butt”?
Other than being tortuous it’s a ridiculous way to describe the situation. The BBC isn’t doing anything wrong here and they’re specifically reporting on a pro-gay protest against one of Catholicisms most absurd rules. So instead of ranting about how they’re using “outdated and bigoted” language, perhaps we should realize that the author is doing his or her best to fill their readers in on the detail of the situation without resorting to absurd euphemism.
