Activism run amok creates in-group jargon, especially when it loses contact with reality. We’ll just do a little verbal exercise: “gay person.” Most people think they know what it means, probably because they haven’t thought about it too much.
It could mean:
1. A person who engages in homosexual sexual activity;
2. A person who experiences sexual attraction to persons of the same sex;
Or even: 3. A person advocating for the full normalization of homosexuality (and other activities) and possibly the eradication of the traditional family. He or she could be a part of (1), (2), both, or none.
Some of the extremists have helped us out in a sense, by asserting things like, “Declaring the labels is a political act.” Well, not a surprise.
Revolutionary and destructive activism doesn’t want debate and discussion; those people want power. If sentiment works—liberal white women, for example—they’ll use that. And for this power game, your uncle or cousin who generally doesn’t want to demand anything from anyone doesn’t matter. And obviously not Log Cabin Republicans for Trump.
It is sort of curious that the idea of fixed sexual orientation was abandoned as soon as it wasn’t useful. But hey, we who are clever knew that would happen.
But if you’re kind of new, what I believe to be actually true shapes the language I use. When I am talking about individual sexual desire, you’ll never see “gay/straight/other.” Those are political words, perhaps only that. I am going to use “gender” very carefully, if at all, to describe social norms traditionally associated with one’s biological sex. Sex and gender are not synonymous, but they are interrelated.
I have never used any slurs or vulgarity related to sexuality, unless I used it on myself, so I’m not overly concerned about CCC, 2359. With that out of the way, buckle up.
Comments