Thursday 11 September 2008

Being Told What To Think

I know that there are many causes in this world which need to be fought for. The greatest cause for which any group can ever fight is that of equality. No matter what someone's position is on a matter, equality is essential to ensure all humans are given the respect they deserve by virtue of the the fact that they exist.

But just because a cause names equality as its essential motive, there is never an excuse to try and limit people's thought, to police their opinions or to fence in their facilities to express themselves. I don't care who you are, what you stand for or why you're fighting, the moment you start to tell me what words I can and can't use, on the grounds that you think they're bad words, you lose me.

Never, ever, ever try and remove words from my dictionary in an effort to limit my right to debate, question or challenge.

The page that wound me up like this was one that took me right back to the NewSpeak of 1984; Stonewall's Dictionary of Equality Language.

I want to look at some of their definitions and question the motives behind them;

Gay agenda: A homophobic term used to denigrate the LGB equality movement. It suggests a conspiracy to promote 'homosexuality' while threatening the 'norm' of heterosexual society.
Hang on a minute, how is it a bad thing to recognise that organisations like Stonewall have an agenda? Of course they do. Everybody has an agenda. Everybody has an objective. What, do the members of Stonewall just sit around and look into blank space, not saying anything just in case they find a direction?

Of course they have an agenda. At best, it's equality. At worst, who knows? But the fact is this, they have an agenda but we're not supposed to know it. That's why it's homophobic to say Gay Agenda.

Why wouldn't they want us to consider their agenda, their objectives, their goals?

Gay sex: A derogatory term used to define gay men by the sex they have, and ignores the emotional aspects of being gay. Often used in the media to imply a certain sleaziness to a story.
Nope, it's not to define the men, it's to describe the sexual act.

So far, we have a movement (Stonewall) where we're not allowed to consider its agenda and we're not allowed to talk about what people in the community do because they don't like the words.
Homosexual: Considered by some in the LGB community to be a derogatory and offensive term. It was used when same-sex attraction/relationships were construed as a mental illness. Use gay, lesbian, gay man/woman, bisexual, bisexual man/woman or the acronym LGB (lesbian, gay and bisexual).
How can I keep up with what I can and can't say? I was always taught that using the term Homosexual was a respectful term. Never, in school or outside, was the term homosexual considered negative or derogatory. In fact, the term gay was considered to be as rude and disrespectful as poofter.

Now I'm told it's an insult despite the fact that someone who is homosexual is actually homo-sexual. How long before the word gay is considered denigrating because youngsters have started to use it to mean bad, boring, pathetic and horrible?

Well, at least I have the web page to tell me what words I should use.
Homophobia: literally defined as fear of 'the other'. The beliefs and actions of people who hold these views and act upon them are based around a hatred of, or intolerance for, and/or a refusal to accept or acknowledge the equal rights of any lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
Now we're cooking! This one word covers the entire spectrum, from refusal to accept right through to hatred. That's one helluva sweeping statement and talk about clipping the intellectual wings of someone who wants to think and understand!

But consider this loaded text; refusal to accept or acknowledge the equal rights of any lesbian, gay and bisexual people. I know people who believe that there is a moral issue in gay-ness (I'm not allowed to say homosexuality, remember?) but who also openly believe in equality for all people. Are people like this, homophobic? Experience tells me that if you disagree with any issue raised by the gay community (remember, there's no agenda so it's probably something that someone said when they forgot they weren'a allowed to say it), no matter how small, you're homophobic.
Prejudice: many people have prejudices or a faint dislike of people or groups. However, being prejudiced against a person or persons becomes very serious if that prejudice has an effect on the way that person is treated. Once a prejudicial thought is translated into a deed it becomes an act of discrimination.
So don't have the thought. Get it? Don't even think it.

Think about this for a minute, you've just been told that the word 'homosexual' is insulting, that there's no such thing as the 'gay agenda' and if you think there is, you're homophobic. Now, with this latest one, if you're in any doubt as to whether you wanting to ask a question could be an act of prejudice, you're probably better off not asking the question. it could turn into an act of prejudice so hey, let's not think about it - just in case.
Stereotyping: Stereotyping occurs when a person or organisation has pre-conceived ideas and notions about an individual or a group of people. For example, 'All gay men are camp' or 'All lesbians wear DM's and shave their heads.'
Maybe they could add to that 'everyone who uses the term 'homosexual' is a homophobe'?

---

As I said at the top, equality is a must for everyone. Nobody should be the underdog who suffers at the selfish greed or insecurity of another. Nobody. No exceptions.

That essential need for equality does not justify the removal of the the tools of thought; words. For, by removing words from the vocabulary of the people, those doing the removing are exalting themselves above everyone else and, guess what? There's no equality.

No doubt, this blog post is going to be considered by some as proof of an anti-gay agenda or some kind of homophobic scheme. Sadly, the stupid people who will conclude that I hate gays based on this blog post will not be driven by evil motives but actually, by good and well-meaning motives. I say 'sadly' because as well-meaning as many of these people may be who hate what they think I've written, they'll be too stupid to see beyond their blinkered NewSpeak noses to understand what I'm saying.

No comments: