Talk:Terminology of homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Contents 1 Comment 2 Homosexuality an inaccurate term? 3 Anonymous or not? 4 A bit outdated in most places, and offensive in others 5 One term is constantly used but never explained 6 Origin of "homogenital"? 7 Fricatrice 8 Same gender loving 9 Non controversial problem 10 "Queer"

[edit] Comment

I would like to rename this page "Terminology of homosexuality" and integrate into it much of the material on etymology and usage from the main Homosexuality page. Comments? Haiduc 04:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object. Poor/confusing title. Separate page seems unnecessary. Exploding Boy 16:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I forget what the original title was, but it was even worse. On the other hand, it goes against wikipedia practice to load down a main article with a great deal of detail, and material which gets too extensive is spun off routinely into its own article. Entire chapters could be written on this topic, making the main Homosexuality page more than top-heavy. Haiduc 00:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality an inaccurate term?

"The use of the word homosexual in describing individuals and same-sex relationships may also be inaccurate."

This is stated several times in this article and I honestly do not get it. The word "homosexual" means "of the same sex," so how is it not the same as "individuals and same-sex relationships?" What is meant by this? --208.54.94.81 14:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I get it now. Being in a homosexual relationship doesn't stop other people from being sexy if you look at them. Or something like that. The above post was mine from over a year ago. I didn't even read the article again and I figured it out lol. --24.165.225.41 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous or not?

The opening para says:

The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymous 1869 German pamphlet 143 des Preussischen Strafgesetzbuchs und seine Aufrechterhaltung als 152 des Entwurfs eines Strafgesetzbuchs für den Norddeutschen Bund ("Paragraph 143 of the Prussian Penal Code and Its Maintenance as Paragraph 152 of the Draft of a Penal Code for the North German Confederation") written by Karl-Maria Kertbeny.

(my emphasis)

Which is it? --Skud 04:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Both. He published it anonymously. ntennis 14:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bit outdated in most places, and offensive in others

This article uses terminology that hasn't been in widespread use in the gay community for ages, and tries to pass it off as current. Further, associating pederasty with homosexuality is offensive. Paedophilia has nothing in common with the GLBT community, and it never has, except in the twisted imaginations of those who look for an argument to base their irrational hatred upon. All in all, this article fails to inform, as the information it gives is outdated and/or inaccurate. This page should be deleted or cleaned up and renamed " Archaic terms from the gay lexicon that are no longer in use" Wandering Star 03:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to list an article for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion explains the process. Personally, I think the article is useful, and I'd rather see it expanded than deleted. I'm struggling to understand your objection to the "history" section, which (naturally) is about terminology that was common in the past. Nearly half of the words in the article are outside of this section anyway.

As for pederasty, what you say is not entirely true. At one time, it was the standard English-language designation for male-male love, regardless of the relative ages of sexual partners. In addition, such "gay" luminaries as Oscar Wilde, André Gide, John Henry Mackay, and John Addington Symonds all practised and wrote primarily about love between adult men and male youths — Wilde himself was asked in court what he meant by "the love that dare not speak its name", and he replied "a great affection of an elder for a younger man". The word pedophilia is not in the article. ntennis 04:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This should probably be merged with Homosexuality. --24.165.225.41 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No room. Haiduc 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One term is constantly used but never explained

And that word is "sexual orientation"! This is a term of very recent coinage, which replaced "sexual preference" in the usage of activists for ideological reasons, but it is treated everywhere on wiki as if it is a neutral, dictionary term that has always existed! A section on "sexual orientation" that details the history of the term is badly needed!

[edit] Origin of "homogenital"?

Does anybody know the exact origin of "homogenital"? It's used primarily by anti-gay Catholics, but also by some protestant groups. I suspect it was in some Catholic encyclicals in the 70s, because a FAQ on church doctrine by DignityUSA uses the word in responding to the official church position. But that's all I know for sure. Any clues? Thanks. DanB DanD 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fricatrice

I don't think this term was a homosexual term. It refers to sexual stimulation through rubbing, which can be done to women or men.--Syd Henderson 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same gender loving

Should Same gender loving be merged to this article? It's a bit more than a dictionary definition, but seems short enough to fit here until it expands further. —Celithemis 10:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non controversial problem

The section "Homosexuality" in Terminology of homosexuality has a {{main}} that points to Homosexuality, and the Homosexuality article has a {{main}} which points to Terminology of homosexuality... I'm not sure how this should be resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Queer"

The term "queer" isn't a negative word anymore, and it can be used in a formal context. It can still be used in a negative sense, but it's being endorsed these days as an acceptable umbrella term. Does anyone think it should stay in the pejorative list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lambyte (talk • contribs) 06:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC).