Not a single thing in what you quoted or bolded gives any indication he is talking about the specific motivations or intentions of someone who uses that word. The subject in that paragraph - the thing being denoted by "it" - is always the word openly. He notes that "It signifies.....". That is, using that particular word signifies what he describes. This is entirely different than having the subject be the person and talking about their motivations and intentions. He just doesn't do that.


I think his point is pretty clearly not how you interpreted it. But if it WAS how you interpreted it - if he really thought the motivation and intent of anyone saying openly was as you describe - then he similarly could have used more explicit language to make it clear that is what he meant. He didn't.

This is a gay man writing for an LGBT audience in the Advocate. Trying to read between the lines of his article and jump to conclusions about the outrageous thing he must secretly be saying because he didn't explicitly deny your misinterpretation is just.....a little gross.

Despite attempts to spin there really is no denying that a future "straight person" using "their marker" "Openly" in commenting on a gay person, is tipping their hand about their "tracking system". He goes further and assumes motive that "straight people" then "Think they are living too large" "the only ones worth knowing". He leaves no room for more neutral assumptions. He states as an absolute. That is it. FACT.

You bolded and microquoted a lot, but notice how literally not a single thing you bolded or microquoted says anything about the intention and motivation of every straight person who says "openly gay"? Sure, he is strongly wording his narrative of why he thinks this phrase is bad, and the kinds of negative connotations it comes loaded with. But noting a phrase has negative connotations or that "it signifies" bad things just isn't the same thing at all as speaking to the specific motivations of a specific person who uses it.

If you are going to drag random LGBT people under your scolding of alleged woke-scolding, I think you should focus on cases where the person clearly and unambiguously is actually saying the ridiculous thing you want to criticize. In this case he didn't do that.

It reads far more like something aimed at an LGBT audience to encourage people to challenge the language, and everything you're quoting is about the connotations that exist due to the origin/implications of the word and why people should be challenging it. In fact that whole final sentence is quite clearly arguing the reasons for why the implications of the phrase are harmful and the point is that the problem is implicit in the language itself; the intent of the person using the language is completely irrelevant to the point they're making.

The fact that you are so adamant that an abstract argument about language is impugning the motives of those who use it does explain a lot about your mindset and posting in this forum though.

The amount of spin to suggest that the word "their" is a reference to "the LGBT community" is staggering. "their marker", "their tracking system" is not a reference to LGBT there but I guess the spin will continue.

Woooooooosh! Nobody said that. Wiild is saying that the LGBT author is writing to an LGBT audience - which he is, the Advocate is an LGBT publication and had a conversation with another LGBT person on TV. He wasn't saying the "their" in the quote referenced LGBT people. Come on!

It is very simple. He is explaining the negative connotations of that word. That doesn't mean he is speaking to the intentions and motivations of every straight person who might use the word. Like....do you acknowledge those are different things?

That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying though. The content as a whole is aimed at LGBT the community and those sections are to do with the origins and implications of the language. Yes it's implying that the language is hetero-normative and that the phrase is effectively a way of "tracking" gay people but that doesn't mean that those who use the language are even aware of these implications, yet alone deliberately using them in that way.

You are taking an abstract argument about the implicit and largely unnoticed connotations of a piece of language and reframing to be a direct criticism of people who use the language. The very fact that the argument is being made in the first place implies that the writer thinks that even people directly engaged with the topic don't realise why the phrase can be harmful. Given that the whole piece revolves around the premise that people don't even realise it can be harmful, the idea that they are attributing deliberate harmful intent to those who use it doesn't make any sense.

Edit: Added quote

He is using "their" in the POSSESSIVE sense there.

He is ascribing those things with a statement of fact, as 'their' (possessive) "marker" and "tracking system".

That is he is talking to other LBGT people is the problem. He is telling THEM, what those straight people have. They have a "marker" and they have a "tracking system".

Nonsense.

There are lots of ways to couch language, soften language and use more nuanced language to suggest unintended consequences of speech.

This is not one of them...

What do you think the point of the article is? Because it seems pretty obvious to me that the author is trying to explain that the term is harmful to people who didn't realise it and giving the reasons as to why it is harmful. That requires an assumption that people don't even realise the term is harmful. Given that the author assumes people don't realise that it is harmful, the idea that they are attributing harmful intent to people who use it makes literally no sense.

It would be reasonable to argue that the author believes that there has been harmful intent surrounding the origin and way in which the term has grown to be used, but that is very different to attributing harmful intent to people who use the term now.

sure. He is explaining why that language can be problematic, and the types of negative connotations it has. Presumably a lot of people haven’t thought about those negative connotations. Explaining the negative connotations of a word is just not not not not not not the same thing as saying anyone who says it is intending those negative connotations or motivated by those negative connotations. This is just a basic distinction.

Basically you are attacking an LGBT person writing to an LGBT audience for something they didn’t come close to explicitly saying. Heck, let’s say for the sake of argument it is ambiguous. Wiild and I read it one way, you another. Why not focus your scolding to situations where someone has unambiguously made an outrageous claim, and not these ones where if you squint your eyes and tilt your head sideways then maybe maybe maybe they said this outrageous thing, but probably not.

You are entirely inventing intonations that are not there.

You are offering suggestion for what is meant when it is SAID...


There is a CLEARLY defined reaction.

Reaction by WHOM? He says whom. "Straight people" and "their tracking system".

that you want to pretend that what is being said is something along the lines of '..some unintended consequences might come from those words being used unintentionally and with no negative intent..." is pure gaslighting.


What is being said is not a cautionary tale about accidental consequences of unintended speech and how to help the "straight people" avoid being labelled with a "tracking system"

FALSE. These straight people, when they say the word "Openly" are outing themselves and we see their "...expresse(d) surprise, shock, that someone LGBTQ+ is actually, officially, not hiding in plain sight...."

He DOES NOT offer up a cautionary tale of unintended consequences by hapless but well meaning "Straight people". He uses no such language to suggest there is ANY OTHER POSSIBLE explanation but the one he gave, which he stated as if factual and proven and there is no other explanation.

The rest of your post is hot garbage that does not deserve to be dignified.

I was making a simple point about how unfortunately too often there is a tendency to ascribe to people merely ignorant (in the non negative way of not yet woke) negative intentions, as something I have seen.

I was asked to find the example, and did.

So I was forced into defending and proving I was right or accepting I was "wrong" and being "gross" when I was not.

Now that defense of fact and truth, is swinging to the other tactic often used which is a pretense I am "attacking a LGBT person".

For shame, whether you are right or wrong, you will now be labeled as 'attacking an LBGT person' you sure you want to go there QP?

Yes. If that is where we have to go to defend a truth then so be it.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I agree, he doesn't explicitly refute your bizarre theory that he is speaking to the intentions or motivations of every person who uses that phrase. But there is no need to clarify that or make it explicit. His narrative explains why the phrase is problematic but as everyone (I hope) knows, criticizing a problematic phrase is absolutely not the same thing as suggesting those who say it intend it that way or motivated by it that way. As it is unlikely most people will interpret it the way you interpreted it, offering extra clarifications to explicitly refute your interpretation is unnecessary.

I believe you think this. sadly, "too often" it goes exactly the other way around. When a particular language choice is critiqued, there is a horde of anti-woke scolders who conflate the critique of the language with some sort of personal attack on the person who used the language.


Regardless, I'm done with this point. My only suggestion for the future is that when reading a passage you find ambiguous, try and consider its most reasonable interpretation. If that most reasonable interpretation is still outrageous, then by all means share your criticism ITT. But if your outrage relies on the most unreasonable interpretation being true, perhaps keep it to yourself.

Cuepee, when you brought up this person your point was about the danger of attributing intentionality to a person's words where there might be none. And yet what you're doing is taking what appears to be a broader point about the implications of a term and arguing the writer intended to mean that all those who use the term have those implications in mind. You're doing the thing you were saying we shouldn't do.

Even granting that the text in question does imply what you say, wouldn't it be wise to apply the same principle of charity you were supposed to be arguing for? Do you think the writer really thinks that everyone who uses the term "openly" consciously intends the implications of that word? That doesn't seem very likely to me. It seems like a far more reasonable reading to say that he's talking about how the term functions in language than that he's impugning every straight person.

I think we can grant everything you say about that article and all that's going to happen is we circle back to you not having a consistent position. You don't want people to impugn you or others for the implications of your language, but you're happy to impugn this writer for the implications you see in his.

What we really ought to get to is an obvious point that language does have all sorts of implications and connotations. How we talk about issues does reflect broader societal norms, even those not intended by the speaker do betray wider attitudes of the time and place. So the question is not really whether speakers always intend the implications of their words, obviously they don't, the question is whether the words in question in this thread actually have the implications people say they do. Which is why I tried to get you to engage with the reasons people objected to your pronoun usage.

You are arguing to basically 'give him a break'. Ignore what is actually said and instead allow that he might not mean it that way. Fine.

But that does not change the fact, FACT, of what his words say which is very clear and written as direct as possible. Very different than what i was suggesting when people apply intent when it is not clear.

As Wiild did you are applying your subjective interpretation to things that are very literal in what he said. Fine, but if that is what he means, would you not at least admit he should say it very differently the next time?

You cannot say "if people use the term XYZ they mean ABC and "they" are doing EFG..."

And then say after the fact "well you cannot assume he meant all people who use the term XYZ as that is exactly what is said with NO ROOM for saying what you say until he corrects his statement after.

I could write out all sorts of examples using the holocaust or racial langue and say the same type of absolute statements that 'if anyone says xyz they mean ABC' and that DOES speak for any and ALL who then say XYZ unless i allow, in my statement, for exceptions. That is by default correct.

Is there a Grammar/English Usage Forum for this massive derail?

Well, no, I'm not arguing to "give him a break". I flatly disagree with your interpretation, and I think it's weird to talk about others giving a "subjective interpretation" as if you've discovered the true objective meaning of words (or that even if you have that the writer in question would also have access to them and intend your meaning).

What I'm saying is that even if I grant your interpretation as a reasonable one that it's not going to mean that that was the writer's intention. Which is exactly the argument you were making prior to deciding to read intentionality into something when it suits you.

I might be getting you wrong here but this is exactly how language functions. If you just mean that it's contradictory somehow to

then I just don't really get you mean by this last bit but I don't think it's what anyone''s saying to you.

I'm not sure what you mean here either. When I think of certain racial language I can think of words where regardless of a person's intention that they do carry broader implications. For example, there's an abbreviation of the word Pakistani that's seen as derogatory in the UK. And I've heard Americans react with a "WTF?" at the idea that an abbreviation could be derogatory any more than calling me a Brit, but that's how the word is seen here. I could even write and say "When a white British person uses that term they're using racially charged language that demeans people of Pakistani heritage" and not mean that that's the implication of all white British people who use the word.

So, honestly, I'm not even sure what the disagreement is here other than that you're ascribing intentionality to a quote that no one else is. Which is the kind of intentionality you were previously arguing shouldn't be attributed to people.

So I just went back to reread the article and this is literally the second line:

I honestly don't know how you can think that the author is impugning the motives of people using the term when he explicitly says that the term is "well-meaning". That one sentence should be enough to end any debate on the matter.

Oh that is new information forcing an addendum. I said previously the only reasonable interpretation of the text is that he is unpacking the negative connotations of the phrase, not impugning the specific motivations of a person saying it, and that indeed there was no need to make explicit that this was the case as it is the only reasonable interpretation. Yet he did make it explicit! You can be “well-meaning” with using the phrase (as presumably he thinks his lgbt audience is or his lgbt interviewer was) despite it having negative connotations.

Case closed!

Yes it is.

Case open.

The spin here is amazing.

Let us not gloss over or pretend this discussion was not prompted by the video I posted and its content and the reply to me that based on that I was wrong despite my view being that 'some corollary' 'some other info' needs to be presented to soften and modify his absolute terms in that video that impugn ALL straight people.

So the 'aha case closed, he modified it' is an admission I was right about the video but you are now saying that article provides enough modification.

My point remains and that video is wrong and dangerous in how it states things in a way that easily could lead to woke shaming and other. I don't want to over inflate that as I don't think it critical but I think it is a very common wrong way to view and state things that leads to lots of problems down the road.

Even the author of the article, in the more fleshed out version needs to far more careful with his language as the things he says later are not, by default modified by his prior statement, because he states them as absolutes.

If he does not mean to impugn all straight people, if he does not mean to ascribe intent to all of them, he needs to be far more clear and careful.

If I made any claim that 'gay people are saying XYZ about straight people' in a video like that and made zero caveats, you guys would be the first to say 'you cannot speak for all gay guys like that'.

My defense cannot be and should not be that unless I say ALL then you should not assume it as it is a statement that ASSUMES by default ALL unless you state otherwise.

Seems tough to police. Wouldn't every single woman who participates in any competition against a transgender woman demand some compensation? I suppose in an individual sport like track and field it might work (just give the 2nd place finisher 1st place money etc.), but what about team sports? Would every player on the other team be entitled to compensation?

I guess it could be arranged but it would be messy. And it wouldn't solve the larger issue that some people would see the competitions as fundamentally unfair, undermining the entire sport or event.

Here is a thought anyone born as a biological male competes in the mens division and anyone born as a biological female competes in the ladies division.
If you choose to change your gender sadly you can not compete competitively in the woman's division

It amazes me how the folks that disagree are the same ones that say trust the science in other threads but not here

Very tough to police.

Look at example I posted just upthread of Laurel Hubbard. How do you compensate the lady who no longer gets a spot in the Olympics due to being bumped by Laurel?

Are you estimating the difference in lifetime earnings of all form, for an Olympian versus a non Olympian?

And the what is the potential impact on viewership. The reason sport is compelling and highly watched generally is the 'competition' aspect. "Competition" based on the idea of a fair playing field. As soon as you introduce things that make the audience feel the end result is rigged or not competitive people lose their desire to go watch it.

I think of Laurel Hubbard transitioning at age 20 if she could have in her prime and how she would have destroyed women's records and dominated the sport for 20 years and really now only start losing and know I would not watch that. Sport is not sport to me without the 'level playing field' premise if not always perfectly achieved, at least aspired to.

I absolutely believe if the number of transwomen competing starts to scale up for any of the various reasons it could, women's sport, which has always had to struggle for viewership, will be destroyed.