Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Fine print

I discovered last night, with a small measure of amusement, that while using a particular internet provider’s services, it is unacceptable to

“unlawfully incite discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or group, for example because of their race, religion, gender, sexual preference or nationality”.
I was tempted to email the company and tell them that their terminology is so last century. “Sexual orientation” or, more accurately, “sexuality” would be a much more appropriate way to allude to discrimination when it comes to sexual minorities in the twenty-first century. The term “sexual preference”, once used in the latter half of the twentieth century to describe sexual minorities (if they were considered at all that is), now it is only used in this sense by the religious right who cling to the mistaken believe that it is a choice or a simple preference, and usually is used in such a way as to deny basic legal protections on the grounds that it is unnatural anyway. I would point out that the “preference” implies a certain amount of choice and fluidity so that while one may prefer, say, chocolate ice cream over strawberry, they will happily partake of either at a pinch. With that in mind, I would argue that the term really refers to discrimination on the basis of issues more along the lines of preferred sex position or whether one enjoys using sex toys, not whether people are attracted to/fall in love with/fuck members of their own sex or gender. I stifled the temptation, reasoning that whoever read my email would probably see only the inane rantings of a nit-picking “gay activist”, and not fully appreciate the pithy humour with which it was written.

Besides, presumably it is perfectly acceptable to lawfully incite discrimination or hate towards any person or group, for example on the basis of their race, religion, gender, sexual “preference” or nationality. A quick look at anti-discrimination laws in this country will show you that it is actually quite easy to legally do such things. You just have to be a part of a church or government body and you practically have carte blanche.

3 comments ... click here to comment:

Campbell said...

Hi Dan,
I am constantly surprised by how frequently I hear the term 'sexual preference' these days. I think the surprise is because of the people I hear say it that I would have thought more aware.
I think we still have a long way to go.....

Calla said...

I still use it, but then I've never been particularly great with keeping up with PC terminology. I hardly have the need to be so stuffy and formal anyway, but I suppose you can't write 'gayness' on an official document.

Though, lets just flip this around for a sec because if the issue is with the actual term being inaccurate rather than the implied put-down that comes with it, then this is a broader issue. Given that it is generally used in terms of "what is your...?" and that one of the answers is likely to be "members of the opposite sex" which even the most prudish dinosaurs should be aware is a rather innate thing, then it is really just a puzzling term all round and either offensive or not to everyone. If it is offensive (and I will take your word on it and stick to querying gaiety or some such light-hearted fluff, cause I'm kinda easy with this stuff), then it should be equally offensive to heterosexual people, to everyone in between and those outside of the box. If everyone's desire for a certain thing is innate then everyone should be offended. I mean it could well imply that everyone starts off gay and then chooses to be straight, which should be more than enough incentive for aforementioned prudish dinosaurs to attach their disdain and loathing to another term altogether.

I get your point, it is definitely more "how do you like it?" than orientation's "what way do you go?"... I'm not sure that is a vast improvement on matters now that I think about it.

Words are just words, and even the most sanitised of terms can be completely sullied when society deems it to represent an unworthy or unpleasant section. Case in point "OMG! that is so gay!" to mean that something is extremely wrong and fucked up, when once it was skipping through fields of flowers on a sunny day. Whatever term you want to use, however upbeat or cold and uninterpretive you make it, people will still be able to imbue it with their small-mindedness.

I'd rather people said the wrong words with the right intention than the other way around.

Aaaand that was way too serious of a comment for such a fun little post. I should probably add that I'm very glad that you refrained from calling the straight population 'vanilla' in your ice cream analogy :) Much love!

Dan said...

Vanilla was on the tip of my pen, but I didn't want to offend anyone... I see your point re everyone should be offended but the
thing is that everyone isn't, only "us" (hate that word).

Anyway it doesn't offend me per se... it just annoys me when it crops up, like a paper cut, and then goes away soon after.

What annoys me more is that legal discrimination is allowed.