You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Heteroflexible Language
2004-02-16
The San Francisco Chronicle informs us that the term "homosexual" is not appropriate when referring to gay people anymore ("too pathological and clinical") and that a whole host of new words are popping up to describe Bay Area folks who don't fit into the whole "binary male-female system."

"Genderqueer" is someone who thinks there are more than two sexes and doesn't consider himself or herself male or female. Someone who is "pansexual" is attracted to anything that walks people of multiple genders. In the transgender (someone with a "gender identity different from the one assigned at birth") community, a "trannydyke" is a transgender person attracted to people "with a more feminine gender" and a "trannyfag" is someone attracted to people with "a more masculine gender." A "boi" is usually a "biological female" with a boyish manner. She might feel like a boy with a "y," but since she doesn't have the "boy parts" then boi with an "i" is preferable. And among people of color, the Chronicle says, the term "queer" sounds too white so they prefer the terms "same-gender-loving people" or "men who sleep with men."

The list goes on: "boydyke," "trannyboy, " "multigendered," "polygendered," "queerboi," "transboi," "transguy," "transman," "half-dyke," "bi-dyke," "stud," "stem," "trisexual," "omnisexual," and "multisexual."

Hours of fun!
Ummm... What's the term for a black lesbian dwarf with a preference for circus midgets and baby green peas with pearl onions again?

Is this really the same language that Shakespear, Jonson and Spencer used to speak?
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#13  Is it gay newspeak or is it a sign of the gay movement fracturing? Think of the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea...
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-2-16 6:29:14 PM  

#12  Honestly, it would be interesting to have Oscar Wilde's take on the omnisexual idea. Kind of gives a whole new meaning to the phase:

Marge, pass the chicken and mashed potatos when your done with them.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-2-16 4:26:17 PM  

#11  Steve: You hit the nail on the head with that comment about Newspeak.
Posted by: Korora   2004-2-16 3:07:05 PM  

#10  I thought the magi were Zoroastrian wise men, kind of a cross between a philosopher and a mullah. Sir Percy Sykes, who's, of course, probably too dead, white, and European to be trusted, describes them as the "Levites of the Zoroastrians," who slew the sacrificial victims and were deeply versed in astrology. I can't recall ever reading anywhere that the Zoroastrians had priestesses. So I think your original opinion was correct, Aris.
Posted by: Fred   2004-2-16 2:45:13 PM  

#9  Power to the transmetrosexuals!
Posted by: Hyper   2004-2-16 2:24:55 PM  

#8  Aris--

Thanks, wasn't trying to be pedantic, just wanted to know. I'm an atheist myself but I sure think the gospels are an interesting artifact--prose fiction describing rather unlikely characters ("losers" even) like publicans, tax collectors, non-heroic centurions, even Jesus himself, is thin on the ground among Greek speakers. I really don't know to what else we ought to compare them.
Posted by: BMN   2004-2-16 1:07:24 PM  

#7  Hmm... it *could* be so used, but that seemed to me to be seriously stretching it.

But I admit that in my mind was the traditional idea of three magi, in which case if we had two female ones and one male, or two males and one female, anyone would clarify rather than use a masculine plural as default.

But true, if we are also contemplating the possibility of a larger group, like 10 or 20, people could use the masculine plural even if there existed women among them. So I concede the point.

Mind you personally I don't believe any such magi ever existed, so for me it all goes to what the original authors of the text intended, rather than what "actually" happened.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-2-16 12:41:10 PM  

#6  Aris--

I rather doubt that any of the magi were female, but the word in koine was "magoi" right (don't have time to check it from here at work)? Is not the masculine plural used for a mixed group? Be interested to know.
Posted by: BMN   2004-2-16 11:59:01 AM  

#5  "People are now supposed to use the gender-neutral term "magi" instead. The possibility that one or more of the magi were female cannot be excluded completely," said the committee that issued the new guidelines. "

Um, No. "Magi" may be a gender-neutral term in English, but it's definitely a masculine word in the original Greek of the New Testament -- there's no gender ambiguity at all in the original text.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-2-16 11:17:50 AM  

#4  Gah! Gay community Newspeak!
Posted by: Steve from Relto   2004-2-16 11:15:55 AM  

#3  Watch out for those trisexuals. They'll "tri" anything!
Posted by: Dar   2004-2-16 10:59:06 AM  

#2  Donna Brazile?
Posted by: Frank G   2004-2-16 10:41:17 AM  

#1  Think they do this on purpose because they know it drives us nuts? But being a "breeder", what do I know...
Posted by: tu3031   2004-2-16 10:38:07 AM  

00:00