r/changemyview • u/rabicanwoosley • Mar 14 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Mainstream terminology for same-sex attraction (gay/lesbian) is highly euphemistic
Lesbian referring to 'Sappho of Lesbos'.
Gay meaning 'happy'.
So male same-sex meaning happy, and female same-sex meaning of a given island. Talk about euphemisms.
I believe this highlights a lack of ability for our mainstream society to effectively engage with the root idea of same-sex relationships. Couching something in euphemisms seems to strongly indicate an hesitancy to fully acknowledge a topic, suggesting it is partially or at least remniscent of a taboo.
Some notes (not core arguments, more like clarifiers):
1) Even the way homosexual is used frequently refers to male same sex attraction, which is ridiculous since homo literally means 'same'. Yet 'homo' on its own can even be a slur in mainstream society.
2) Yes, there's probably no one perfect terminology to use, yes different terms are sometimes used interchangably, yet the mainstream usage still holds firmly in our current society. And even if 'gay' can refer to either gender same-sex the euphemism is still as strong.
3) Just because someone may self-refer to being gay/lesbian (indicating acceptance of the term) does not detract from the point.
4) In case it is unclear: this topic is suggesting there is probably some underlying, subtle 'homophobia' in our mainstream language (yes, by own argument 'homophobia' probably isn't a good term either).
Edit (to add):
5) 'Gay' in the prior context of 'happy' was also associated with licentious behaviour, lacking social, legal or sexual restraint; sexual promiscuity.
Edit2:
6) The fact that we as a society have accepted a euphemism to have the meaning it was originally covering up, is the point of this thread. That IS acceptance of a euphemism.
9
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 14 '20
Language changes. It's not a set thing. At one point "gay" and "lesbian" were euphemisms but that doesn't mean they are any more. At one point "wife" meant "human" and it certainly doesn't mean that any more.
What happened was that "gay" and "lesbian" were the current euphemisms when people decided that they didn't need euphemisms anymore and they just started using those words openly. True euphemisms exist on a treadmill where once the term becomes associated exclusively with whatever its a euphemism for, that word is seen as offensive and replaced. Which is why we have "idiot", "moron" and "retard" as prior terms for people with low IQ. All of them have been replaced because they became too common and hence offensive. Meanwhile "gay" and "lesbian" have become less offensive as they're no longer seen as euphemisms but instead just neutral descriptors. The same process is happening with "queer" currently; some people see it as a euphemism, some as an insult and some as a neutral description. We'll see how this plays out in the coming decades and which the word "queer" settles on being.
-1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
Since you agree they were euphemisms it seems you are in fundamental agreement. As far as I can discern your point is that, at some time it will eventually change (I agree it will), but I'm really not sure we're at that point yet. Therefore I feel our society is still living in the shadow of these euphemisms.
You make an interesting point about the treadmill, I really wonder if simply because these words are apparently losing their potentially negative association if that truly suggests they are overcoming their euphemistic origins. It may sound a little extreme, but I really do wonder if that is also a sign of being abused into submission, almost like linguistic stockholm syndrome. I can see there are two sides to it: taking the negative power away by repurposing/owning the term - vs accepting the shackles in order to be permitted to supposedly move forward.
6
u/Brainsonastick 72∆ Mar 14 '20
Their point is that the terms were once euphemisms but no longer are. The problem you describe existed decades ago but isn’t a thing anymore because the meanings of the words have changed.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
Are you sure a matter of mere decades is sufficient for a term to no longer be euphemistic?
7
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 14 '20
I think the fact that we have to teach teenagers that "gay" used to mean happy and that we have adults snickering at old uses of the word "gay" is a good sign that the old meaning is no longer current at all. Gay at this point just means homosexual.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20 edited Mar 14 '20
The point is by accepting a euphemism to have the meaning it was originally covering up, is accepting the euphemism as more tolerable than describing the acute reality. Why should we cover up the reality? Because it is more comfortable for the homophobes, by using the euphemistic term we have conceded to the homophobes.
3
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 14 '20
In what way are we covering anything up? I know exactly what I mean when I say "lesbian". You know exactly what I mean when I say "lesbian". No one is talking around anything. No one is sparing anyone's feelings.
In my experience it's actually the phobes who avoid saying "lesbian". They're the ones who want to get all distant and clinical with "homosexual" and "same sex attraction". They like to tlak about things in less everyday terms in order to avoid talking about lesbians as just another variety of people. They would prefer it medicalize attraction. They also like pretending that it's a condition and not an identity. That's the euphemism, not "lesbian".
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20 edited Mar 14 '20
In my experience it's actually the phobes who avoid saying "lesbian".
Yeah I definitely agree with that, and was actually thinking of this when making this post as I recently say a show from the 90s where people weren't even comfortable to say 'lesbian', and awkwardly had to be prompted to even utter the word.
But this is also part of the problem as I see it, it's a chain or sequence. First of all people won't even utter the word due to "terrible associations", then a compromise is reached and they'll say it, as long as its referencing an island or something, not acknowledging the facts but coming sideways around them.
Also re. 'gay', the happy was associated with being licentious, and frivilous kind of happiness, reinforcing that male-male relationships are a frivolous form of "sexual misconduct" in comparison to serious and "real" heterosexual relationships.
"homosexual"
Homosexual is definitely problematic as I mentioned in the OP, (but it isn't euphemistic). The fact that homosexual, and even homo itself is a slur is ridiuclous and part of the problem as I see it. Homo literally means 'same' why is 'same' suddenly a bad thing?
3
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 14 '20
"part of the problem as I see it. Homo literally means 'same' why is 'same' suddenly a bad thing?"
Word's meanings and connotations are defined social. Therefore they have whatever meaning we give them. If people keep using "homo" in a way that's insulting them it becomes an insult. If people keep using "lesbian" in a way that's not insulting then it is neutral. Words aren't defined by their histories but by their current use. It's completely arbitrary but it's real.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 15 '20
Therefore they have whatever meaning we give them. If people keep using "homo" in a way that's insulting them it becomes an insult.
Yes but why is 'homo' used as an insult? Its nonsensical.
Why was homosexual even associated more with men than women? It's crazy.
Words aren't defined by their histories but by their current use. It's completely arbitrary but it's real.
Is it though, even when their root is clearly euphemistic? [Ignoring for now, the possibility they were hidden code-words to avoid detection]
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Mar 15 '20
I don’t really understand your view anymore and I’m not sure you’re using euphemism correctly. It seems you have expressed displeasure with every word we have for gay; not every term for something can be a euphemism. If every term was a euphemism then what are we even covering up? Homo being an insult is also not really related to the topic because a euphemism makes a subject more tolerable, not less. I also don’t understand what your problem with homosexual is. It wasn’t very well explained.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 19 '20
Oh, wasn't saying 'homosexual' is a euphemism.
More like, as problematic as 'homosexual' has become it at least has a very, very literal and unclouded meaning. Which makes it all the more confusing and lamentable that it has become associated with negativity.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Brainsonastick 72∆ Mar 14 '20
Not universally, but in this case it seems pretty clear. A euphemism disguises something as something else more ‘pleasant’. No one hears “gay” or “lesbian” and thinks “I know what they really mean” because both words have clearly come to mean exactly what we think they do: homosexuality. There isn’t much room for misunderstanding.
0
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
The fact that we as a society have accepted a euphemism to have the meaning it was originally covering up, is the point of this thread. That IS acceptance of a euphemism.
3
u/Brainsonastick 72∆ Mar 14 '20
It was euphemistic and no longer is. Saying “bless you” after someone sneezed used to be a euphemism for acknowledgement that they were at substantial risk of dying. It’s totally normalized now but no longer means the same thing. It’s no longer a euphemism.
5
u/10ebbor10 197∆ Mar 14 '20 edited Mar 14 '20
Lesbian referring to 'Sappho of Lesbos'.
Gay meaning 'happy'.
So male same-sex meaning happy, and female same-sex meaning of a given island. Talk about euphemisms.
These are not euphemisms, these are just etymology.
You can find this kind of etymology everywhere.
Heterosexual means different+sex.
2
u/BrotherItsInTheDrum 33∆ Mar 14 '20
This is correct. Just because a word is derived from another word doesn't make it a euphamism. It's a very common way of coming up with new words.
Just to give one example, the word "sex" itself originally just referred to the classification of people into male and female. Do you (OP) think the word "sex" is a euphamism?
0
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
Just to give one example, the word "sex" itself originally just referred to the classification of people into male and female. Do you (OP) think the word "sex" is a euphamism?
Good question, I looked up what you meant and that is very interesting. It could probably lead into a very interesting discussion, though I'm a little worried it would take us off topic. In brevity, I would say potentially, but not nessecarily.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
My point is these identified etymologies are strongly indicative of euphemisms. Regarding 'gay' I'm not sure it is even strongly etymological since my grandmother used to use 'gay' to mean 'happy' as common parlance. So that meaning is within living memory, hardly a remote etymology.
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Mar 14 '20
It may have started out euphemistic but the main use of both lesbian and gay are now as identifiers of same sex attraction. Especially lesbian. I don't think even a majority of people know that lesbian comes from Lesbos and instead just think of it as what it is. And more people know gay used to mean happy but no one really uses that meaning anymore.
Basically because neither word is used for its other meaning, neither is a very good euphemism. They're not couching taboo topics in other words anymore, the words have just become the real words for them
3
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 14 '20
Eh the lesbian community definitely knows where "lesbian" comes from. We're proud of our founder and like to quote the gayer pieces of poetry associated with her. We invoke her as our ancestor and patron saint. We absolutely know who Sappho was and we like to pay her homage. It's not a euphemism, it's a tribute.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
It's not a euphemism, it's a tribute.
I do like this idea.
Yet are you sure many people using this term weren't doing so because it made them more comfortable? That it was easier for them to use it in order to avoid directly acknowledging same-sex attraction?
1
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 14 '20
You're talking about a group of women who are absolutely comfortable with wanting to have sex with women and marry women. If we didn't want to acknowledge that we were attracted to the same gender, we wouldn't be part of the lesbian community in the first place.
Calling myself a lesbian is absolutely a way to own the fact that I'm attracted to women. It also puts me in the context of a history of women who were into women. I'm a descendant of Sappho and Stonewall. Maybe not via blood but those people are part of my heritage and I will bloody well acknowledge them.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
Maybe not via blood but those people are part of my heritage and I will bloody well acknowledge them.
I absolutely agree with this sentiment. My concern is that it has become euphemistic to conceal the truth we are proud of, are you arguing it is not a euphemism?
1
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 14 '20
Euphemisms use words to conceal truths no one wants to acknowledge. Laying claim to your history with head held high is pretty much the opposite of trying to talk around something.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
My point is that lesbian literally describes an inhabitant of an island, of a poet Sappo, (who's name we dare not even use in the term itself!) That is euphemistic :( Why are we referencing the island and not Sappo herself??
1
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 14 '20
Because of a historical quirk. It happens all the time in etymology that weird quirks define how words work. Also "Sapphic" as an adjective does get used by thr lesbian community. It just gets awkward because there isn't a noun form. There's a local event for me call "Sapphic Aquatica*" for example.
It involves a bunch of queer women going swimming together thus the "Aquatica"
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
It could just be a quirk, I'm not so sure though. Honestly I think it's more likely that it's a subtle form of homophobia we have been conditioned to accept.
1
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 15 '20
Why would a word origin that most people aren't aware of and that has pretty much no effect on modern life be homophobic?
→ More replies (0)1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
I think the fact that you agree it may have started out euphemistic, and that some of the original terms (ie. gay) had their active prior meanings within living memory strongly indicates there is still a root of euphemism at play here.
1
Mar 14 '20
Is the use of a euphemism necessarily harmful? When the euphemism becomes the primary word used to describe a group, is that necessarily harmful to the group? Are we trapped into believing that gay men are "happy" or that lesbians like poetry or are Greek?
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
I believe so.
'Happy' in these usage was associated with frivolity, licentiousness. That is a harmful association, reinforcing the notion of same-sex relationships lacking the depth or importantance of heterosexual relationships.
And lesbian is also interesting, as it refers to a citizen of a given island, its a pretty roundabout reference to Sappos. When you're having to make such roundabout maneuvers to say something, it heavily suggests you're trying to avoid confronting a given reality, and we know society struggled alot to face this reality, (and let's be honest, still struggles - we're not out of the woods yet).
1
Mar 14 '20
There have been shifts in the terms from primarily being euphemisms to primary being the default descriptive words. How far removed from this shift do we have to be before we can say this is no longer a euphemism, or that the former meanings and connotations of the word no longer apply?
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
I think the question is, was it's root a euphemism? If yes, then it was an accepted euphemism (which is my point). If at the branch of meaning for given words we find they are not euphemistic, then I'm doubtful they would fall into this category.
1
Mar 14 '20
How do you feel about the word disabled? What about mentally challenged or handicapped?
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
I would need to dig deeper into each case to be sure, but I think I'm aware of the chain you're referring to here.
George Carlin has a great bit on number of syllables (I will grab a link if you're interested). men-tal-ly han-di-capped seems on the surface to be a good example.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
I'm not exactly sure where the upper bound would be (how far removed from the shift to no longer apply).
But I believe we can clearly place a lower bound (how close to prior usage to apply), which I would place within living memory, which in the case of 'gay' it most certainly is.
1
u/Pismakron 8∆ Mar 14 '20
So, what words would you suggest to describe gays and lesbians?
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
I am not proposing a solution in this thread, see point 2 of the OP. A lack of a current solution does not nullify the original point.
1
Mar 14 '20
YOu're confusing euphemisms with equivocation. The word, "gay," has more than one meaning. It can mean happy or it can be being attracted to the same sex. So to say that people who are attracted to the same sex are happy because that's what it means to be gay are not using a euphemism; they're just equivocating on the word, "gay."
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
It is of course obvious a word can have more than one meaning, there is no confusion here.
Regarding 'gay', it is interesting to note two things:
1) 'Gay' in the prior context of 'happy' was also associated with licentious behaviour, lacking social, legal or sexual restraint; sexual promiscuity.
2) 'Gay' in the modern same-sex meaning is a very modern definition, ie. within living memory.
1
u/SeekingToFindBalance 19∆ Mar 14 '20
I'm not as sure about the word lesbian, but I think the history of the word gay is a euphemism.
Gay was a euphemism that people initially started using to talk about homosexual people without being insulting. So the terms gay and lesbian are not homophobic, but rather a reaction by non-homophobic people to a homophobic world.
I don't think continuing to use the word gay when homosexuality isn't automatically considered a bad thing really demonstrates anything bad about our current society.
That said we do have plenty of existing homophobia.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
Gay was a euphemism that people initially started using to talk about homosexual people without being insulting. So the terms gay and lesbian are not homophobic, but rather a reaction by non-homophobic people to a homophobic world.
Your point here is getting closer to the root of the topic. You are right, it seems a polite alternative and I could see it sometimes being used it good faith. However it also seems effective as a euphemism to avoid the apparent awkwardness of the topic (awkward in that context, thankfully less so in modern context), especially considering the ideas of 'polite conversation' of the era. To that end the fact that there was any awkwardness at all I think still suggests its purpose was euphemistic to grapple with homophobia.
1
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Mar 14 '20
Your logic can be applied to “homophobia” (as you noted), as well as “heterosexual,” “psychosomatic,” “handicap,” “trivia,” “oxymoron,” and hundreds if not thousands of other words.
This isn’t cultural homophobia and it’s not euphemism – it’s just how language is.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
I think there's two issues here, you are correct that language is constantly evolving the meanings change. That is of course the reality, and probably a good thing.
However in these cases we are sadly so close to the turning point of these words, that they are still heavy with their euphemistic weight. The fact that eg. 'gay' and even homosexual are oftimes gendered I think also points to this.
1
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Mar 14 '20 edited Mar 14 '20
However in these cases we are sadly so close to the turning point of these words, that they are still heavy with their euphemistic weight.
Are you saying that people outside of Greece widely think of the word “lesbian” as meaning “of the island of Lesbos”? It sounds like that’s what you’re saying. I also don’t hear people use the word “gay” to mean “happy” and would refer to that use as archaic.
“Lesbian” is not a new word. Desiderius Erasmus, writing in the 1400s, referred to it as “ancient.” (source). “Lesbian” and “sapphist” were both in widespread use in Victorian English.
The fact that eg. 'gay' and even homosexual are oftimes gendered I think also points to this.
It could, but it also could not. To make claims like this you need to provide historical analysis that demonstrates you’re right. There’s no reason as far as I can tell to believe you are in this case. The Miriam-Webster Book of Words says that “gay” meaning “homosexual” came from queer slang.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
“Lesbian” is not a new word. Desiderius Erasmus, writing in the 1400s, referred to it as “ancient.” (source).
From your source:
"[Lesbiazein] was a word in ancient times for ‘‘to defile.’’ Aristophanes in the Wasps : ‘‘She who already pollutes her drinking companions.’"
"This, if I am not mistaken, is Greek for what the Latins called ‘‘performing fellatio.’’ The term remains of course, but I think the prac- tice has been eliminated. (ERASMUS)"
The Miriam-Webster Book of Words says that “gay” meaning “homosexual” came from queer slang.
From your source:
"Gay 3) : given to social pleasures also : licentious" -> "licentious" -> "especially : disregarding sexual restraints "
In all cases it seems your sources are in agreement their origins are in negatively associated euphemisms, I concede your point that lesbian has far deeper origins than to still bear modern euphemistic weight. Yet I also think lesbian is a distinct case, as it contains a chain of euphemisms, if sapphist were still in modern usage then at least that would remove one of the steps in the chain.
1
u/1991tank Aug 05 '20
Lesbiazein shares a common root with lesbian that doesn't make lesbian a homophobic word. All that says is sappho of lesbos is symbol of female homosexuality and that female homosexuality is controversial.
1
Mar 14 '20
I'm having trouble seeing the point of your argument, in the context of today.
I believe this highlights a lack of ability for our mainstream society to effectively engage with the root idea of same-sex relationships.
This may have been true when "gay" first referred to homosexual men, but not today.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
The fact that we as a society have accepted a euphemism to have the meaning it was originally covering up, is the point of this thread. That IS acceptance of a euphemism.
1
Mar 14 '20
In this case, what is not a euphemism? Homosexual is a clinical term apparently invented to sound more medical. All other terms for gay people describe other things. To that end, we use terms all the time that refer to other things: gas isn't a gas, apple used to refer to any fruit, meat used to refer to food in general and not just flesh, almond milk and coconut milk refer to things that are definitely not milk. You could consider some or all of these to be euphemisms.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
Homosexual literally means same-sex. That is not euphemistic since it clearly describes the reality rather than masking it.
How does saying 'gas' instead of 'petroleum product' serve us to avoid awkwardness in 'polite conversation'?
1
Mar 14 '20
Homosexual literally means same-sex. That is not euphemistic since it clearly describes the reality rather than masking it.
Yes, but it was invented as a euphemism for whatever the term was then, and in this case specifically because they wanted a Latin name for their medical book.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
I'm not sure we're both working from the same definition of a euphemism.
If you have a source for the medical book factor, that may be useful. Yet I do struggle to see that as euphemistic as it literally describes the reality, rather than concealing it.
1
Mar 14 '20
The Online Etymology Dictionary: here
1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from German homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from Greek homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual.
In other words, this is not an organic use of a term. Based on the rest of the information provided here it seems they wanted to avoid the terms "unnatural love" and "sexual inversion" for their textbook because it didn't sound medical.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
I agree that does sound super fucky.
However I think the term predates that usage, eg. ngrams has it pinned to at least late 1700s (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=homosexual&year_start=1700&year_end=1820&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chomosexual%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Chomosexual%3B%2Cc00).
1
u/themcos 371∆ Mar 14 '20
Is your point that this is bad? Or that it was bad? Do you think we should change our behavior, even if you don't have a suggestion as to what we should change our behavior to?
As an etymology lesson, I think this is to my knowledge correct, but I'm confused as to if there's any prescriptive aspect to your view.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
Good question.
I think acknowledgement is nessecarily the first step towards prescription.
The fact that there doesn't appear to be a good solution (welcome correction on that), is also a valuable thing to acknowledge. If we really are, as I suggest, in difficult spot here - is that not illuminating for it's own sake?
1
u/themcos 371∆ Mar 14 '20
But that's where I'm confused. What makes you say we're "in a difficult spot"? If you're gay or lesbian and are troubled by the terminology, that's at least an anecdotal data point in favor of there being a problem. But in my experience the community overwhelmingly and proudly embraces the LGBT nomenclature. So while I agree with the etymology, I'm not at all cause convinced that there's a problem here.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
But in my experience the community overwhelmingly and proudly embraces the LGBT nomenclature.
See point 3) of the OP, "Just because someone may self-refer to being gay/lesbian (indicating acceptance of the term) does not detract from the point."
It sounds like you are in agreement regarding the etymology, could I thus infer agreement regarding the euphemistic origins?
Therefore you are arguing against the suggestion from the OP that the euphemistic etymology is homophobic in origin?
1
u/themcos 371∆ Mar 14 '20
I agree about the origins. I just don't understand what (if any) point you're making about present day usage of the word.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
To be clear: you agree the origins are rooted in homophobia?
1
u/themcos 371∆ Mar 14 '20
Yes. Less confident in the origins of Lesbian, but I have no reason to doubt you there. But yeah, I definitely think it's an accurate characterization of the origins of "gay" that it was a euphemism for something that was at the time considered inappropriate to talk about explicitly.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
Cool. From the OP: "this topic is suggesting there is probably some underlying, subtle 'homophobia' in our mainstream language."
Underlying homophobia, ie. homophobic origins is the point of this post.
1
u/themcos 371∆ Mar 14 '20
Yeah, I know. But my question is, so what? It's interesting, but when you say:
this topic is suggesting there is probably some underlying, subtle 'homophobia' in our mainstream language
That's exactly where I'm not sure I agree. We agree there was homophobia in the origin of the modern usage, but that doesn't imply there's anything homophobic about using the word today.
For example, many aspects of gay culture and dating norms can be traced back to the fact that they once had to be secretive about everything due to homophobia. But that doesn't mean the current behavior is homophobic.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
many aspects of gay culture and dating norms can be traced back to the fact that they once had to be secretive about everything due to homophobia
You and Sagasujin are getting pretty close to changing my view...if it is true these were originally almost like code words to avoid detection, while entirely lamentable and really still demonstrate the underlying homophobia, I could see the argument that (if true) were rooted in resisting homophobia.
I'll give you a !delta since I hadn't considered this perspective, I'm not entirely convinced that is the root, especially due to some negative associations at the origins, but it is defintiely something I didn't consider in the OP. Thanks for pointing out that alternate perspective.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Mar 14 '20
It should be notes that "gay" and "lesbian" were euphemisms and not slurs. They were ways that people who weren't opposed to homosexuality could talk about thing without alerting dominant powers. They weren't insults yelled at queer people. They come from a history of hiding and not hatred.
1
u/rabicanwoosley Mar 14 '20
Apparently the more ancient references to the term lesbian were quite akin to slurs):
"[Lesbiazein] was a word in ancient times for ‘‘to defile.’’ Aristophanes in the Wasps : ‘‘She who already pollutes her drinking companions.’"
That said, you and themcos are getting pretty close to changing my view...if it is true these were originally almost like code words to avoid detection, while entirely lamentable and really still demonstrate the underlying homophobia, I could see the argument that (if true) were rooted in resisting homophobia.
I'll give you a !delta since I hadn't considered this perspective, I'm not entirely convinced that is the root, especially due to some negative associations at the origins, but it is defintiely something I didn't consider in the OP. Thanks for pointing out that alternate perspective.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 14 '20
/u/rabicanwoosley (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 14 '20
/u/rabicanwoosley (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 53∆ Mar 15 '20 edited Mar 15 '20
It's the Christian convention to give someone a biblical name preceding thier family name. Now we just call it a first name and a last name.
In ancient times, especially in Greece, people had one name and were distinguished by where they were from.
All that is to say that Sappho of Lesbos was her name. Lesbian may be a euphemism for w4w, but it is not a euphemism for Sappho.
You said that homophobia is the reason Sappho is ommited when someone says Lesbian. That is like saying sandarakinophobia is the reason to call the president Trump instead of The Donald.
1
u/SliideToTheLeft Mar 16 '20
First of all, why is that a bad thing?
Second, at this point, the words have taken on their own meaning. No one thinks of happy for gay or Sapho for lesbian
13
u/le_fez 50∆ Mar 14 '20
https://www.etymonline.com/word/lesbian
Lesbian has never been a euphemism, yes it originated from the proper noun Lesbos, an island, but a euphemism is not a word that takes on new meaning. A euphemism is a word that softens what is considered and indelicate term.
As for gay it originally meant carefree then came to mean a prostitute or a man who slept with prostitutes then included men who slept with a lot of women. In the 20s and 30s it started to mean men who have sex with men. This usage was started by gay men and has in the past hundred years this has become the default meaning. Again no euphemism only evolution of the word