Does The New York Times Think "Gay" Is A Bad Word?

Towleroad notes that when a reader text messages someone a New York Times article with the word "gay" in the title, the New York Times web service censors the word "gay," replacing it with a "beep":

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[harriettubman]

I was watching an old 50s movie the other day and they were talking about gay (happy) times. It made me wonder where how the word became attached to homosexuals in the first place?

[rbryanh]

The word "gay" acquired sexual overtones in the 17th century, e.g., a gay house was one where you could purchase the services of a sex worker. In the late 19th century, gay gained connotations of disinhibition or unconventionality: a gay party was a wild one, and a gay bachelor was not one who stayed at home. The first notable use of gay as a synonym for homosexual include publications by Gertrude Stein and Noel Coward in the 1920's.

This is common etymological story... You can tell a similar one about any word you choose, and of course using the same word for disparate meanings is a standard feature of language.

[Phenlandia]

As I "gay" man, I wish we'd get a new word. Homosexual is depressingly clinical, but I like the old-timey archaic gay better. It's a quaint, halcyon, good-old-days kind of word, and I can't help feeling imposed on by a slangy label that insinuates both a collective culture and an emotion onto an arbitrary attribute that has nothing to do with either of those things. Maybe we should ask a fantasy writer like Ray Bradbury to invent a word for us? Something clever, catchy.

[LITNUP]

They never were a really happy bunch

[rbryanh]

While this instance may have been a mere technical glitch, the debate over the use of language is not trivial. For example, for many years the NYT refused to allow the self-definition of LGBT people, simply by refusing to print the word "gay." Instead, their editorial policy mandated language that diagnosed ("homosexual") or demonized ("pervert").

Consider two headlines: 1) Gay organizations request parade permit. 2) Sexual deviants demand right to public display. They may describe the same fact, but tell a very different story. Referring to minority groups using biased language, and in particular, refusing to refer to minority groups using the terms they themselves use and request, are no longer the journalistic norm.

The latest use of "gay" to mean "lame" is arguably a delayed result of the HIV epidemic. Gay men were weakened by AIDS, and in America, compassion is never served without a side dish of contempt.

[ObjectiveRealist]

And they're running out of money.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/05/new-york-times-sells-fron_n_155180.html
Coincidence?

[mystic]

Growing up in South Africa, censorship was a way of life. Even "Playboy" was banned. tjhe book "Black Beauty" was banned because it implied black people not horses! I do recall when i was 17 or so, in the 60s, everyone gay was in the closet, In fact I didn't even know there WERE other gay people!! and I was rummaging through the "bodybuilding muscle magazines" --there were only a few people in the shop in Johannesburg,--and the lady in charge, seeing I was looking for something, as coarse and low class as anyone could be, rather like a fisherwoman, fat and ugly, yelled out toudly to presumably her son"Hey Rob, have any more GAY magazines?". I had never heard the word, was terribly naive and shy, and was so crushed I never entered that store again, but still remember the event as a watershed.

[barrycourage]

Although the glitch has evidently been fixed, the story reminded me of one part the newspaper's stuffy history.

For those of us old enough to remember, back in the bad old 1980s the Times refused to use the word "gay" in any part of an article about homosexuals. It was political--they didn't want to be a part of the "hijacking" of a word that would put homosexuality in a positive light.

Gay activists held several meetings with the editorial board and eventually the policy changed. Perhaps, also, the AIDS epidemic ripped open many closet doors and suddenly the world knew that "respectable" people could be gay.

At least the Times had some footing in the real world. One small-town newspaper (I forgot where) had the same stupid policy and took it so far that they changed the name of a historic airplane:

The "Enola Homosexual."

[Manx]

No, the New York Times does not think that "gay" is a bad word. Their editorials have always been very supportive of gay rights.

[AlP]

You haven't read the New York Times very often.

[rbryanh]

Forgive me, but your historical knowledge of The NY Times' editorial policies with regard to LGBT people is inaccurate. For example, they banned the word "gay" in favor or terms that pathologized or demonized homosexuality until relatively late in the 20th century, despite the protests of activists. Their treatment of the writer Gore Vidal throughout his history also makes an interesting study.

[flyingmonkey]

Gawd, don't ya just hate sites that use filter words and stifle free speech?

[ProfessorDuh]

LOL.

[naeldwyck]

Lol!

[InofTouch]

actaully it Apple that has the word filter after all...you can see the word gay on the NYT website. I thought people were smarter with technology but I see this just another easy and lazy way on jumping on the New York times

Slow news day indeed. Apathic

[JZ735]

No wonder the Old Gray Lady is fast fading into oblivion...what a ridiculous bit of fuddy duddy censorship...tired, ugly old crones at the Times up to their usual shenanigans...

[heretical eggs]

Gay meaning happy is archaic. After Stonewall, the term became more widespread and accepted as a term for a homosexual. However, in my experience as gay person it is used to describe a homosexual who is also a member of an open community of "gay" people.

Decades ago we used gay and the F word amongst ourselves in a variety of different contexts just as many in the African American community use certain words. These were our words and terms much like certain words and phrases were the domain of the African American community. It was not cool for non-gay or non-black people to use them.

However, in recent times younger generations have adopted "gay" from our community just as they have adopted many other things such as our musical and fashion trends. Today, one will here "gay" everywhere.

Aside from this current widespread meaning of something soft, wrong, stupid or silly, it also describes who I am and my community. I personally do not approve of this latest incarnation. In fact, I do not use it any longer in a negative context even with my gay friends.

As far as the NYT, I think it is ridiculous to cut out the word entirely. It is not a difficult thing to discern when gay is being used inappropriately. They need a better filter.

[EndangeredJackalope]

I grew up with really liberal parents in Portland. We moved to conservative Northern Va. My friends & I knew and used the word firstly as a negative term that didn't refer to sexuality or people at all. I distinctly remember us getting a lecture about it from my Dad, after a some awkward time of distraction conversation while we internally mulled the misplaced and wounded sentiments from the lecture, we kicked the whole thing and were relieved when we jumped back into using the word 10 minutes later. In the back of our minds, there was an acknowledgment like, "yeah, for SOME people, it means something hurtful" but ti wasn't hurtful for us, unless its negative connotation was rightly labeling our actions. My Dad didn't get it, but we'd kept the power of the word, but taken away the context & made it applicable for anyone. That is the natural healthy progression. We learned to keep an eye out for those it might hurt (being perceptive of their pain), but we didn't let the 'power' of the 'hate' or whatever, control us. Back then, racism & homophobia seemed nuts (it hadn't really gotten kicked back up w/ rap & evangelical culture.) If someone had said gay,f**, n*****, etc in sincerity they'd firstly be rejected for crassness then laughed off for how out of touch they were. If we'd had the skill to recognize & appreciate their own pain, it'd have probably been a more helpful response, hopefully thats the

[harriettubman]

Kids use it in high school all the time. I've had to chastise my own children for saying it's so "gay" about everything.

[MarcoEsquandolas]

Creed Bratton:
"In the sixties, I made love to many, many women. Often outdoors. In the mud and the rain. And it's possible a man slipped in. There would be no way of knowing."

Michael Scott: Did you know that gay used to mean 'happy?' When I was growing up, it meant 'lame.' And now, it means a man who makes love to other men. We're all homos. Homo sapiens.

[noseysniper]

That's because so many people use the word "gay" to mean "bad" in everyday conversation.

How's your day been?
It's been really gay.
Sorry to hear that.

[bub26]

that was gay

[tailgateshirts]

you're gay

[ramal]

I live in Atlanta and apparently many of the gay "leaders" here have considered the word "Gay" taboo for a decade or more. What was for years the "Atlanta Gay Pride Festival and March" has for the past decade been just the "Pride March" or "Pride Festival." Sort of defeats the purpose when you can even use the term you are expressing pride for in your title, doesn't it?

[EndangeredJackalope]

Even that seems ridiculous, ultimately. Being proud of something you have no control over, like your gender, ethnicity, nationality, etc -- something you had to accomplish nothing to get.

You can be proud of the gay rights movement, woman's suffrage, the civil rights movement, the American Revolution of the creation of Constitutional govt and all the people and courage that made it happen.. but pride parades are stupid, or at least calling them that.

A parade that exhibits minorities is a protest against oppression. Sometimes its just fun, but cornering it into a hole to celebrate its usually superficial differences is ultimately divisive and counter productive when the period where protest is necessary has passed. I live in D.C. and to me the idea of a Gay Pride parade is just obnoxious. I can appreciate the excuse to be colorful, creative and celebratory just for the hell of it, but invoking the imagery of the early pride parades is just obnoxious and vulgar now. It was protest before, now its just a venue for attention-hungry exhibitionists to get a little social sanctioning/cover for displays of self-absorption.

Just as the need to put "Gay" out there has withered, so will the needless "Pride" as well (hopefully.)

[harriettubman]

I never got it either. I always wondered why? Scratching my head.

[rudyinbama]

That may not actually be the reason.
My guess is they dropped "gay" from the name so as to include the entire LGBT community.

[harriettubman]

I don't get it. A gay person includes LGB. Transgender is something entirely different though.

[kitanonami]

I texted the article to myself, and it came out "gay" not "beep." Maybe there are different filters for different wireless services?

[johnnynyc]

Absolutely correct.

You'd think the original author or somebody here would ask themselves why the Times would censor itself.

After all the term "gay" is used in their print and web editions.

The New York Times isn't the American Family Association which has a filter that automatically substitutes "homosexual" for "gay."

Consequently, during the Olympic trials sprinter Tyson Gay was referred to as Tyson Homosexual.

It sounds like a joke but its not:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/07/christian_sites_ban_on_g_word.html