I've found that the use of "gay" in a disparaging way comes with a different reaction depending on where it's being said. In Doncaster, most people had no problem with something being called "gay" and it was banded around merrily. Moving to York, most people kind of understood what I meant, but for those that didn't, a quick "I meant Donny gay" differentiated it from any negative meaning against homosexuals. Oxford's a completely different story, and I normally get very disapproving stares/glances for referring to something as "gay".

Hehe, I did worry briefly that no-one'd get that. Quite pleased I managed to quote Pearl Jam and Mean Girls in the same article

My issue with the use of "gay" as a disparaging word comes from my experience of having to put up with it when I was in the closet in school. My experience was not necessarily representative of everyone's (growing up in a different country and all) but in my school there definitely was a homophobic undercurrent. While things referred to as "gay" were meant to be "bad" rather than "homosexual", it was clear that gay people were the gayest thing of them all, in both senses of the word.

It didn't make for a comfortable environment to come out in or to come to terms with one's sexuality in. Using "gay" in a derogatory sense is at best rude and inconsiderate, but it can also contribute to a climate in which young people feel very uncomfortable with their sexuality and with themselves.

I also wonder what the reaction would be if people used the words "black" "disabled" or "immigrant" as an insult. In fact, I think I'm going to start using "Mitch" as an insult. If anyone asks, I'll say I mean "York Mitch" rather than a derogatory reference to the real Mitch. People will realise that that's ok.

The problem with this article is it's so goddamn straight. Just like the party I went to last week.

Indeed #4. However, let's take the completely theoretical case of using Mitch's first name, Richard, as an insult. Let's consider a theoretical case where Richard, like many other Richards, wanted to use the common one-syllable substitute for Richard, 'Dick', and then some unscrupulous person decided to turn his first name into an insult, "Oh, he's such a dick". Turning a name into an insult sounds crazy, no?

As with the dual-use of 'gay' as a term for homosexuals and a general derogatory term, the difference is context. If you call something 'gay' you're not implying homosexuals are bad, any less than you're implying all Richard's are bad when you call someone a 'dick'.

I think that's more to do with the fact that school kids are cruel, unforgiving dicks and high school is just one massive popularity contest, Matthew. "Kids are animals, civility is learned behaviour."

The difference between "gay" and other words you suggest is that through decades of widespread use in this way it already has a different meaning and in another decade it may be used exclusively in the new sense. Just as I'm sure "spazz" and "spacker" are and will continue to become less offensive over the years simply through their prevalence of use among kids who don't know any better.

BTW, nice example with "dick", Chris.

I knew you'd say this, and I knew it would piss me off.

The problem is, people who do not give the impression of being 100% straight are still subject to prejudice of the worst kinds, discrimination, and even violence, which is not true of people called Richard, or of Christians in this country. So the comparison is completely flawed.

If civility is learned (something I am not convinced of - there are strong arguments for the innateness of empathy. Maybe being cruel unforgiving dicks is learned?) then that is not a reason to go on saying "gay" and not having a problem with it. Surely the reverse is true - civility towards marginalised groups must be consciously promoted, because the social norm is to stigmatise these groups. Until this marginalisation is so historic that disabled people and queer people face no greater difficulties in life than people called richard, I will continue to find derogatory use of words like "gay", and "spacker" as well, oh and "chav" too, A Bad Thing.

That is all for now.

go camilla!

It's incredibly easy for straight kids to say, "Oh, we don't mean it like that." (Which is not to say that anyone who isn't straight will have the same view on it, since I know people who aren't bothered by this usage of 'gay'.)

Also, when someone starts complaining about political correctness, the words "straight white male" often applies to them.

I had to think long and hard about my response here, there are a lot of very convincing words above...

Firstly, I never said it was a good thing or something to be condoned. Merely commented that its use is commonplace, unstoppable, ridiculous and does not necessarily make the speaker a homophobe. Personally I try and avoid using the word in this sense but it does slip out now and then in moments of frustration (insert innuendo here).

I was very keen to avoid using those fateful words "politically correct" in the article - I'll leave Clarkson to bitch about that (not that he is representative of my views in any way) - but you're right Rose, this is certainly a long way from "political correctness". There is a possibility for offence to be caused but in most cases it is completely unintentional.

Then again it's a lot easier to not cause offence in the first place than to say something and apologise for it later.

• slaps head*

Oh this argument comes up all the time and the problem is it's just a pile of poo.

Let me rephrase, gay is NOT playful banter in most schools. (If you happen to have been to one of those nice schools where you can climb trees or do finger painting instead of PE, then maybe things are different, I wouldn’t know…) In most comprehensives the use of the word gay in a 'oh that subject's so gay' way and 'he's a dirty gay I'm gonna kill him after maths' way is pretty blurry. Ask a 13 year old what gay means, and you are very unlikely to get a friendly ‘oh it’s just this funny ironic little thing we say when we’re rather miffed’ more likely a simple ‘well it’s gay, it’s rubbish, dirty, like gays innit… duh!’

Now I understand that most of the nice middle class girls and boys out there are just trying to be down with the street and probably mean no harm against their lgbt friends. Still I have nothing against Pakistani people but then I don't refer to the local Indian takeaway as a 'paki restaurant'. Nor do I jokingly point at a friend in a wheelchair and say, ‘hurry up spaz’. Whether or not I mean it as a friendly jape the fact of the matter is for about 80% of the country (world?) ‘gay’ is no jape...

Words have meanings, and yes, meanings do change, but please don't patronise people who probably know a lot more about what the word 'gay' really means (from direct experience) by claiming that you know better.

Have a nice day, sorry if that came across as vitriolic just think of me as your friendly neighbourhood mercenary homo.

#16, the blogs section of The Yorker is meant to be a place for comment and personal opinion, much like the comment sections in newspapers. Careful consideration was duly taken before publishing this article. As an opinion piece, it does not necessarily reflect the stance of The Yorker and is published to provoke debate and comparison of different opinions as you yourself have provided.

I hope its publication and the subsequent comments for and against have helped enlighten readers to the hurt the use of the word can cause and they may perhaps reconsider their own opinions. I also hope you agree that it has, albeit not in a way preferred to some, brought attention to an important issue.

My personal beliefs on freedom of speech are another topic entirely... Perhaps another blog!