I read a book that claimed that the word gay was first used for homosexuals by a lesbian publication called the gay gals or something. But I can't find anything on the Internet about this so who knows? I don't even remember which book I read it in. It was a while ago.
Like you I don't really like the word queer, and I say that as a gay man. The reasons I don't like it are because when I was younger I was bullied badly and the word queer was often directed my way and it will forever be associated in my mind with prejudice and abuse. As with you, my mind associates the word with weirdness, and I don't believe that homosexuality is at all weird. I also don't like it because of its connection with Queer theory which I really don't like. As for the word gay, I might be totally wrong, but I believe it was used to refer to homosexuality in the early 20th century gay slang called Polari, though I'm not sure how it came about. I agree that it is a real stretch to say that a recognition of biological, intrinsic impairments, including hereditary causal features, is the same as a Galtonian eugenicist paradigm. Eugenics also requires a belief that it is a) possible and b) right to aim for a pure population that is absent disability etc as well as plenty of other pseudoscientific nonsense. We know that conditions such as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's to name a few have some heritable causes, but no one suggests recognising that fact is some how eugenics, so I don't see why that shouldn't be the same for conditions such as OCD, Autism, ADHD etc which also have some heritable causes. The problem only arises, as you pointed out, when we attach value judgments to conditions - judging people with them as inferior, dispensable and so on. This can be and has been challenged, especially in the post-war period with the rise of human rights, without the need to deny the biology and objective reality of disorders.
Some people with autism are saying that just like gay people were pathologized unfairly that autistic people are being pathologized unfairly. It goes along with the whole idea that autism is a difference not a disorder. I disagree. Being gay is not a disorder but autism is. I am disabled by autism not by being gay.
![A Day To Remember: Feedback [OFFICIAL VIDEO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iXVnysmQ4e0/mqdefault.jpg)
Queer is a useful umbrella term. But another term would also be fine by me.
Gay = "good as you", a very clever play on words and emphasising equality.
Never knew this, thanks for clarifying :)
I read a book that claimed that the word gay was first used for homosexuals by a lesbian publication called the gay gals or something. But I can't find anything on the Internet about this so who knows?
I don't even remember which book I read it in. It was a while ago.
Like you I don't really like the word queer, and I say that as a gay man. The reasons I don't like it are because when I was younger I was bullied badly and the word queer was often directed my way and it will forever be associated in my mind with prejudice and abuse. As with you, my mind associates the word with weirdness, and I don't believe that homosexuality is at all weird. I also don't like it because of its connection with Queer theory which I really don't like. As for the word gay, I might be totally wrong, but I believe it was used to refer to homosexuality in the early 20th century gay slang called Polari, though I'm not sure how it came about.
I agree that it is a real stretch to say that a recognition of biological, intrinsic impairments, including hereditary causal features, is the same as a Galtonian eugenicist paradigm. Eugenics also requires a belief that it is a) possible and b) right to aim for a pure population that is absent disability etc as well as plenty of other pseudoscientific nonsense. We know that conditions such as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's to name a few have some heritable causes, but no one suggests recognising that fact is some how eugenics, so I don't see why that shouldn't be the same for conditions such as OCD, Autism, ADHD etc which also have some heritable causes. The problem only arises, as you pointed out, when we attach value judgments to conditions - judging people with them as inferior, dispensable and so on. This can be and has been challenged, especially in the post-war period with the rise of human rights, without the need to deny the biology and objective reality of disorders.
Some people with autism are saying that just like gay people were pathologized unfairly that autistic people are being pathologized unfairly. It goes along with the whole idea that autism is a difference not a disorder.
I disagree. Being gay is not a disorder but autism is. I am disabled by autism not by being gay.