Granted that the person using the word as an insult thinks it is insulting, that DUers become offended by the implication would seem to indicate that they think it is insulting, too.

If we accept that a word is a slur, what does that make the activity or condition?

-- Mal

Obviously a lot of folks who saw that comment saw nothing wrong with it, and were wondering why that comment got hidden - even ones who KNEW it suggested he was a closeted gay. So yeah, a fair number do buy into using such slurs.

and realize that that means he's actually insulting gay people by comparing them to Cruz.

Many posters, including your humble obedient, were unaware that "beard" used in that context had a slang meaning. So until advised that the word carried an insulting subtext, we were unaware of what was being alerted on.

I often wonder how less insulting words would be, if we only refused to accept them as insulting. Mind you, comparing anyone to Ted Cruz is an ipso-facto insult.

-- Mal

it is that calling the woman on Cruz's arm a beard is calling Cruz a (closeted) gay. When the word represents a group of people, using it as an insult implies being one of those people is something undesirable, insulting everyone in that group.

The person using the insult doesn't generally consciously think about the group of people they are using as a weapon. - their thinking is more likely along the lines of, "What would get under his skin the most." They aren't (mostly) thinking that by using being gay as an insult they are buying into his line of thinking that being gay is a bad thing.

I submit people reveal a lot about themselves by what they take for granted.

-- Mal

We still haven't learned.

Look around. You'll find them.

the mods didnt debate it. just needed a second vote to remove it.
it makes me sick. it has no place here. please alert on them when you find them.

was in 2009 when a then-regular poster posted on a thread about the problem of prison rape: 'Well if they didn't want to be raped in prison, they shouldn't have committed a crime'

I think she is. I don't bring that up as an insult. In fact, I didn't even notice she had an Adam's apple until one day when I was watching TV with a trans friend who pointed it out. I just think it's bizarre and hypocritical that she spouts hatred in support of a GLBT-hating political party.

a human being enough to recognize them as the gender they claim.

I have never heard Ann claim to be trans.

I think she has only ever identified as hetero female (cis gender) and so, that is how I recognize her.

just my .02

... and I could be wrong ... did I miss something where Ann has said otherwise?

And you aren't defending Ann Coulter - you are defending the right of any individual to self-identify, and to have that identity respected by society.

I guess I just used her as an example since she was the one mentioned. Thanks for clarifying.

You suggesting, with a straight face, that a well known conservative icon like Ann Coulter magically appeared as an adult woman having grown up as a male, and they let her in the door?

Aside from which, coming out as a trans* individual is something which belongs to the individual alone. Even if you sincerely believe she is trans*, unless she acknowledges it, it should be off limits for any progressive to comment on.

She is not. I grew up in New Canaan Ct where Coulter also grew up. She is and always has been a woman.

college records, the works. She's a famous woman born into an arch conservative family. You simply have no idea.

Adam's apple? Sandra Bullock. Meg Ryan. et al. Lots of women have them. Jeez.

because she has an Adam's apple? Everybody has one- some are more prominent than others. She is an extremely slim woman, which probably helps to make hers appear more prominent.

It could be insulting, but it could be speculation that it is actually true. Though it's no one's business if he doesn't want it known. And when he is anti-GLBT, that's an indication he doesn't want it to be true. Kind of sad for him really.

So misogynistic.

I'm tired of the conflation of All Things Feminine with Repulsion, Bad, Weak, Disgusting, Hate-Worthy.

Not necessarily.

Like with calling Linsey Graham gay.... it's actually a slur at people who think being gay is a bad thing... like Linsey Graham. It's not a slur at gay people.

It's called satire.

Calling someone gay only works as an insult if being gay is perceived as something bad. Otherwise it wouldn't work as an insult. So and so is a "blankety-blank" is only insulting if "blankety-blank" is bad.

LGBT people on DU - including me - have been telling you (collectively) this for more than a decade. Every time a new crop of ugly right wing idiots roll out, the"ooohhhh he must be gay" or shemale/mAnn Coulter, etc. taunts start, we go through it again. Don't use a group of people as an insult - whether it is LGBT individuals, people of color, individuals with developmental disabilities, etc.

How about helping make this the last time we have to go through it, instead of perpetuating it.

I'm a lesbian. I don't find most of the jokes about anti-gay politicians being gay offensive. I take it as a swipe at their hypocrisy. It's a way to mock them knowing how much it would bother the anti-gay politician.

But I don't presume to speak for most gay DUers. Also, most of the jokes are directed at men, so I acknowledge it may not hit home as much for me.

It is less of a flash point, at the moment, since general societal feelings toward LGBT individuals are changing - but many of us find it offensive to be used as a weapon against the right wing lunatics, not to mention having to explain why it is offensive over and over again to people who are supposed to be supportive.

I just want to say that for me, there isn't a hard line.

I think it's about the trust level you have in the posters, the readers, and whether you feel like you're in on the joke. I'm being very subjective here, and I understand where others get uncomfortable. I did just see the Ted Cruz post people are talking about, and it did make me a little uncomfortable - I don't think Cruz is particularly known for "seeming" gay so it feels somewhat gratuitous/left field. Most of the time though, like with the Lindsay Graham jokes, I don't feel bothered by it.

It's not that hard to understand that in certain instances it's obviously a sarcastic slur on people, like Linsey Graham, who think it's something to be ashamed of and not a slur at actual gay people.

Try to get the joke. Because I've heard many gay people (I'm gay BTW)) make it.... and it was obvious to me that is what they meant. I'm not gonna censor them. I assure you nobody really cares what Linsey Graham's sexual preference is.... I sure don't. But they do care, and make a joke, that HE is all uptight about people's preference.

Your premise that everyone who tells such jokes are homophobes is flawed.

You may think it's a tacky joke, and that's fine. (my personal reaction is "meh... think of another one&quot But insisting that everybody think as you do is not fine.

with much more consistency than they hide much of anything else, it isn't' just me - it is the community standard on DU that it is not ok to use gay as an insult.

Gay means happy, merriment, joyful. It is like the 80s all over again with religious bigots making the word 'homosexual' into a bad word. However this current trend I blame on South Park for turning out cartoons that made the word into a general overall insult. There is nothing insulting about being gay, that is like saying the stars are insulting or my cat is an insult to dogs.

If you see someone do that on DU, alert on them. I cannot stand this current trend of changing the meaning of the word.

My given name is Gay, I can't begin to tell you. I don' t mind sharing it but I've had to deal with all manner of insult all my life.

I think it's a shame that employing chauvinism that uses any condition/characteristic of a class and really a third party as a disparagement against second party targets.

are DU threads with subject lines that do not have any hint of what the topic of the thread is.

Is it OK in that case to imply that perhaps the reason for the politician being hostile to the gay community is that they are unwilling to come to terms with their own homosexuality since it maybe goes against their deeply help religious beliefs or something?