Subject: Gay, Lesbian Groups Seek to Expunge Bias They See in Language Date: Published: 5/3/93 (230 lines) Source: Wall Street Journal. Copyright Dow Jones & Co. Inc. Fighting Words: Gay, Lesbian Groups Seek to Expunge Bias They See in Language --- One Focus of Rights Debate Is the Debate Itself; Critics Perceive Orwellian Cant --- Bi, Bisexual, or Omnisexual ---- By Lawrence Ingrassia Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal Do gay people have a sexual "preference" or a sexual "orientation" toward members of the same sex? Do laws that protect homosexuals from discrimination involve "civil" rights or "special" rights? Is there a homosexual "agenda" or are there only gay-lesbian "goals"? What's the difference? Plenty. As America grapples with the role of gay men and lesbians in society -- from the military to the workplace to the family -- a war of words is being waged to shape public perceptions and even public policy. It's not just a matter of semantics. Words repeated hundreds and thousands of times, in the media and in everyday conversations, create indelible images -- even when distinctions aren't always obvious. "Language doesn't shape the campaign -- it is the campaign," says Will Perkins, founder of a conservative Colorado group that last November helped pass a state constitutional amendment barring laws that specifically protect homosexuals from discrimination. In saying that gay people are seeking "special rights" through such legislation, his group suggested that homosexuals were seeking not equal protection, but more protection than other citizens. "Although it may seem subtle, the fact is that the choice of words and phrases definitely influences and shapes public opinion," agrees Robert Bray, spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. The "special rights" tag -- which gay groups insist is inaccurate and unfair -- influenced the outcome in Colorado, he says. Gay activists are seeking to eliminate a small lexicon from public discourse: everything from "sexual preference" (which implies that gay people choose homosexuality) to "homosexual agenda" (which suggests hidden motives) to "acknowledged homosexual" (which suggests a fault to be admitted) to "innocent AIDS victim" (which implies some are guilty) to "homosexual lifestyle" (which evokes the image of promiscuous drag queens). Critics respond that gay and lesbian groups are engaging in Orwellian doublespeak. "It may be an attempt to keep from stigmatizing them, but it's also an attempt to keep people from calling them what they are," contends Barry Gross, a philosophy professor at York College in New York and an official of the National Association of Scholars. "Every time you corrupt language, it's bad." The linguistic battle goes back several decades, starting with the word "gay" itself. As an adjective with sexual overtones, the word actually was first applied to heterosexual men -- "gay Lotharios" -- who led adventurous or immoral lives. The first published use of "gay" to mean homosexual goes back only to 1935, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which cites an American glossary of "Underworld and Prison Slang." By the 1950s, homosexual men had begun using it as a code word. Then, at the beginning of the gay-rights movement some 25 years ago, it was publicly adopted by activists to combat negative connotations of the word "homosexual." "The term was created because the psychology profession, as part of numerous pronouncements, pontificated that homosexuals were perpetually sad and unhappy individuals," says Arthur C. Warner, director of the American Association for Personal Privacy, a group that advocates sexual civil liberties. "So the word `gay' was created to try to surmount that." Within and among homosexual groups, of course, there are disputes and power struggles about acceptable language. Many homosexual women, for example, reject the word "gay" and insist on being called lesbians (from the Greek island Lesbos, where the poetess Sappho wrote verses of love to women). Gay came to stand for men, they say. Having a different name gives lesbians a stronger identity. "The visibility of our part of the community is extremely important," explains Nadine Smith, who helped organize the march on Washington in support of homosexual causes on April 25. "It's not just a matter that we want people to know we exist, it goes beyond that. Being invisible impacts other things. So little is known about lesbians and HIV, for example. When a group is invisible you don't do studies on their health." More contentious is the re-emergence of the word "queer." Some militant gay men proudly use the word as a way of reclaiming it from gay-bashers and signaling their intent to be confrontational in combating bias. Similarly, some lesbians prefer "dyke." Ms. Smith notes that lesbians who call themselves dykes "don't care whether someone is offended with who they are. Dykes are rebellious, strong." Other gay men and lesbians object to these words, saying they are pejorative no matter who uses them and reinforce negative stereotypes. "`Queer' is very hard for me. I wince when I see it or hear it," says Joseph DeCola, a gay New Yorker, "even though I understand it's about denying a weapon to bigots." Bisexuals also have different terms to describe themselves. "Some prefer to be called `omnisexual,' some `bi' instead of `bisexual,' some prefer not to be labeled," says Gerrie Blum, a bisexual activist in New York. The idea of "omnisexual" is that sexuality is fluid, with some people being variously heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual at different periods in their lives. Shrinking "bisexual" to "bi" reduces the focus on people's sexuality. Naturally, gay and lesbian groups keep a sharp eye on the popular press to monitor the progress of their campaign, and they aren't particularly pleased by what they see. "Most publications are either mixed or bad," says Ellen Carton, executive director of the New York chapter of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a media watchdog group. While the media use proportionately less pejorative language than in the past, she says, increased reporting on gay issues means that unwanted phrases appear more often. The New York Times a few years ago changed its style from "homosexual" to "gay," but still sometimes uses the word "homosexual," Ms. Carton says; gay and lesbian groups object that the word places undue emphasis on their sexuality and ignores the rest of their lives. "The Times is also mixed on using `preference' versus `orientation,'" Ms. Carton adds. Allan M. Siegal, an assistant managing editor of the Times, responds that "our style is considerably more to the liking of gay organizations than they realize." While some reporters under the pressure of deadlines may occasionally make stylistic "slip-ups," he says, the Times's policy is to use "gay" when referring to social and political issues and "homosexual" when referring to clinical or psychological issues. He adds, "We don't have a formal style, but lately have been urging people to use `orientation' instead of `preference.'" The Wall Street Journal several years ago began allowing "gay" as an adjective meaning homosexual, but reporters still aren't supposed to use "gay" as a noun. The Journal doesn't have a specific style for "preference" versus "orientation," but in practice uses "orientation" far more often. Language evolves politically in many areas, of course. In the early years of the civil rights movement, blacks debated whether to say the goal was "integration" or "desegregation"; some feared that "integration" would be too scary a concept for white people to handle. In the abortion wars, abortion-rights advocates object to the label "pro-abortion" and ask to be called "pro-choice"; similarly, their opponents describe themselves not at "antiabortion" but as "pro-life." In debates about environmental policy, an often touchy issue is whether a particular piece of real estate should be called a "swamp" or a "wetland." Does it make a difference? Sometimes. One linguistic battle that gay-rights groups largely have won -- and that shows the link between language and policy -- was over the term "innocent AIDS victim." By making distinctions among the ways people contracted AIDS, the phrase reinforced antihomosexual attitudes and shaped policies, Mr. Bray says. Circle K Corp., before coming under sharp public criticism, in 1988 limited health-care coverage for new employees who contracted AIDS as a result of "personal lifestyle decisions" but not for others. Similarly, members of Congress citing "innocent victims" in the late 1980s used their influence to block some funding of AIDS education for groups that "promote" homosexual activity. "The `innocent victim' mentality set up this dichotomy.... When we were able to educate the press not to use `innocent victims,' we saw Congress back off," Mr. Bray says. Perhaps the newest term of contention is "special rights." Whether it becomes mainstream usage could help decide the fate of so-called gay rights measures being considered in a growing number of cities and states. Critics of such laws argue that "special rights" is a fair expression because it is true. Homosexuals already have the same rights as all other Americans, they say, and are seeking something more. Such laws would make gay people "the only group of individuals in the country that would receive minority status based on sexual behavior and preference. Adulterers would not, people who have sex before marriage would not, polygamists would not, people who engage in sadomasochism would not," says Ralph Reed Jr., executive director of the Christian Coalition. Even some minority group leaders have defended use of the term, saying that gay and lesbian groups are indeed seeking a special status under civil rights laws. Gay and lesbian activists counter that the phrase is misleading because it implies that they want preferential treatment, when in fact all they want is equal protection from discrimination -- just as other minority groups have been granted such protection; thus, what they are seeking are "civil rights." To their dismay, they haven't persuaded the media to stop using "special rights." "This is the single most destructive use of biased language at this moment," asserts Mr. Bray. "Far-right opponents are exploiting the fears of Americans by implying `you will lose your jobs to gays who have special rights.'" As for the distinction between "sexual preference" and "sexual orientation," while it may be lost on some, gay groups say it isn't simply linguistic: Far more people who think homosexuality is a choice disapprove of homosexuals and gay-rights laws than do people who believe homosexuality is innate. Gay activists say there is some scientific evidence that sexuality is determined biologically. Others add that it also may be influenced by one's environment in early childhood. Either way, an individual has no choice; thus, the use of "sexual preference" perpetuates discrimination. "If it is a matter of choice, that naturally exposes gay people to the charge that these sinful people deliberately choose sinful ways," explains Dr. Warner, of the privacy association. "If it's an orientation, it's no different than left-handedness." Critics respond that researchers haven't determined whether homosexuality is innate. Absent proof, they add, the effort to ban "sexual preference" is an attempt to influence public opinion. Gay groups also object that "homosexual lifestyle" fails to recognize that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have a variety of lifestyles. "I see that in mainstream press regularly.... What does that mean? That all gays dress up in drag at Halloween and parade around?" asks Mr. Bray. Similarly, activists insist "homosexual agenda" is unfair. It suggests "something suspicious or nefarious about people with hidden plans," says Wayne Dynes, a professor at Hunter College in New York and an expert on the lexicon of homosexuality. Ridiculous, critics contend. They say there is an agenda -- and cite use of the word by a gay activist in a 1987 speech to the National Press Club to describe goals that included laws recognizing homosexual relationships and legalizing gay people in the military. So how can gay groups object to the word "agenda"? "When I say agenda, I'm talking serious, well-reasoned goals where people want to go," explains William Leap, an anthropology professor and language expert at American University. "When the right uses it," he contends, "it means people at night dressed in black robes who sodomize four-year-olds. They have no right to call my goals a homosexual agenda given what it means to them. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of ownership." [This article is made available here by Dow Jones Co. for the personal and non-commercial use of callers to this bbs, in the hope that it will be of some help to those who are suffering from the disease and others who are seeking to help them.]