Can politically correct expressions be actually harmful?

I'm going to suggest you're a few degrees off course with that one. The components of the word "homosexuality" are, indeed, "homo" and "sexuality". For instance, if I ask you if you sleep with your own gender or another, am I asking about an aspect of your "sexuality" or your "sexualism"? I'm curious as to the source of your purported reason on that.

I'm also curious about your source for "homoaffection" and "homoaffectivity". Don't get me wrong, I could simply be out of the loop, but that's news to me.

Incidentally (and coincidentally, after a fashion), it's worth noting, about the word "gay":

So "gay" has been passé for about sixteen years, apparently. Don't look at me, I wouldn't have guessed, either. Or maybe this is one of those cyclical things. You know, history repeating itself?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I actually agree; even if one can actually te said to be asking about "sexualism" (which wouldn't be technically incorrect, I think, only very weird wording), there's even other similar grammatical argument; for most of the practices or positions whose word ends with "ism", the adjective for the person would not end in "al", but in "ist", like "capitalist", "philanthropist", or "ian", like "humanitarian"; at the same time hardly anyone says to be a hetero or "homosexualist", or "homosexualian". So if the noun to define "the state of being homo/heterosexual" is preferably derived from the word that defines the individual, hetero/homosexuality would be the correct choice.

But then it's more about grammar than offensiveness... well, would be offensive for a grammarian, perhaps specially for a homosexual grammarian.

I don't have decent sources for either one.

The article "homossexualidade" wikipedia in portuguese has a bit of unsourced argumentation that "homossexualismo" has a connotation of disease or mental disturb, followed by the assertion that it's been usually used by people who have a negative perspective about it. Followed by the mention that WHO doesn't consider homosexuality to be a disorder anymore. I think it has become (at least in Brazil) a sort of common sense/"urban legend".

There's also an article in another site saying that "homoafetividade" is preferable because it allows for more dimension in the same-sex relationship, while the "sexual" suffix reduces it as a purely sexual thing. And it's something that you read every now and then in internet discussions but as far as I've looked for, I couldn't find any sort of "official" condemnation for the other terms proposing this one instead.

It's somewhat ironic that, as far as I've seen, it's also become more used in a sort of mocking way, i.e., between heterosexuals, saying something like "your new avatar is by far the most homoaffectionate one".

Funny. I thought that "queer" was offensive, or at least one of those words that it's okay to be used within the group, but not by an "outsider". I hope someone soon invent some sort of GPS-oriented, internet-fed electronic thesaurus incorporated in our cell phones, that highlights the PC and PinC words in wherever and whenever we are.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can't keep up with all this PC crap so forgive me while I make many mistakes trying too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pinche words?

Buckaroo Banzai

The grammatical thing is an interesting question, especially if we start with "homosexual" as defining the nature of relations between two people, and then extend it back to the individual. Because then it would seem that "homosexualist" is appropriate, except that unlike homosexuals, nobody is born a capitalist or philanthropist, communist, racist, or any other -ist.

Merriam-Webster provides a few definitions of the suffix -ist:

So ... technically, I suppose "homosexualist" and "heterosexualist" works. Merriam Webster also notes that "heterosexual" as an adjective dates to 1892, and as a noun to 1920. For homosexual, both adjective and noun dates to 1892. I wonder what people called heterosexual people for the intervening 28 years? Couldn't be "normal", since heterosexuals can be deviant.

If I say, "let's leave that to them", it's because I'm not prepared to cross both linguistic and cultural barriers on this one. I'll point back to an earlier note I made about the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, and leave it at that. Hell, I haven't even read the proper SWH. (Nor, it would seem, have Beard and Cerf, who cited a 1989 speech by Marc Maurer about the blind. I'll have to see if I can dig that one up.)

Well, that's the thing about Queer Nation. Part of their point is to compel people to miss the point, in order that they might make the point as to what the point really is. Er ... or something.

That's awesome ... PinC words ... we could just call them pinche words.