As an avowed heterosexual who fully intends on having children, I have no problem with the term "breeder," and always thought it was tongue-in-cheek. It's not a slur, for goodness sake!

I also saw it as an opposite to the use of the word "straight" to describe heterosexuals, because that implies there's something crooked about homosexuals.

That's just me. Maybe I'm not that deep.

How 'bout that? *gold star*

Conversely, think about the claiming of the word "queer" by a marginalized community in rejection of (or in addition to) the word "gay."

^^^Nope, you're not the only one.

ETA: That was directed at Munchkin.

Hey, I'm not offended by the term breeder. I figure that when gay people use it to refer to straight people it's usually tongue-in-cheek. At least, I assumed that it was in this case. I was just clarifying what I think of when someone uses the word.

And Sen, I don't claim any straight privilege over the right to be a parent, a good or bad one. Once we stop making it so freaking hard for homosexuals to have children (by whatever means) I'm sure there will be plenty of awful gay parents out there, also.

:p

Wow, definitely took the "breeders" comment as a joke.. and laughed. One of my gay friends says it all the time and I've never been bothered by it. And if that's considered some kind of slur toward heterosexuals, this country is definitely starting to take things way too seriously.

Rock on, non-breeders!

So it's like a tit for tat kind of thing.

And, for the record, some heteros not being offended by "breeder" isn't enough to sink the Titanic if we're simply talking about what may be embedded in our daily language. "Breeder" is only as tongue-in-cheek as the context and the people who receive it. I think it's funny coming from Senusret but in a different context and from someone else I might be like "whoa, bitch."

Yes, marginalized groups have that right. I am also familiar with "queer studies" but I have had homosexual colleagues express that they don't want hetero colleagues using "queer" in most contexts. To which I respond with "OKAY, I will respect." As a member of the majority, I can't tell the minority how to self-identify but I can comment on what is embedded in the language if it is directed at the majority.

Context matters.

One part of increased tolerance is beginning to take things more seriously, for better or for worse.

Categorical distinctions are conducive to inequality in our language and behaviors. That can include the use of "breeder" and "nonbreeder," depending on the context.

Okay...Day Without a Gay.

And...START!!!

Part of me wants to go along with the term "breeder" as an actual descriptor (as in, currently we don't have the physical capability for a same-sex couple to conceive together without scientific assistance, whereas the overwhelming majority of opposite-sex couples have that potential, at least to the extent that we can recognize it as a substantive difference) . . . but doesn't that sort of play into the homophobic or anti-homosexual rights movement's (illogical) arguments regarding not applying identical rights for those couples because they don't have identical familial capabilities?

I'm all for "taking back" the word "queer" and I think any group has the general right to self-identify any way they want - trust me, we've had to run research to find out whether a certain area preferred the term "black" or "African-American" from an old, white attorney - but this seems like an awkward way to fight that battle.

This is very stream-of-consciousness, and I'm not sure why, but there it is. Am I completely off base or overthinking this?

I wouldn't feel comfortable, as part of the majority, using that term. "Gay" and "lesbian" are just fine with me.

I think one thinks about this stuff more in academia, even if you're not directly dealing with "queer studies," or even the social sciences, than the non-academic world. Everyone's so damned sensitive in colleges.

You mean, "sensitive" to different points of view in an attempt to reach greater understanding.

Eh, it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but not really. I think people in the college world are considerably more sensitive about things that those of us outside of academia don't think or care about.

I went to two notoriously politically correct universities, and it was a huge wake-up call when I started working and realized that the real world doesn't work like that. It may have been less severe if I had attended large state universities, but the transition was there all the same.

. . . and, back on topic, "Day Without a Gay" seems like the least effective type of activism: the type that "targets" (or only really affects) people who are already on your side.

Think about it like this: where are the areas where a significant number of gays vanishes from the workforce, or a large amount of gay money disappears from the local economy? Areas with a large (and largely out) gay population. Aren't those generally the places with the highest acceptance of and support for gay rights?

Also, those who call in to work or close their businesses are likely out in their everyday lives - those who are not openly gay in their everyday lives are in a weird spot: support the movement and out yourself, or keep the status quo and ignore a large-scale rights movement. Those who are out will be supported by those who support them, and ridiculed by those who ridicule them in their everyday life already - one day isn't going to make Joey Exfootballstarhomophobe say "wow, I never realized how important Rashid is to my workplace, I really should rethink my stance," is it?

It seems like the macro level is well-intentioned but ultimately may be undermined by micro-level effects, if that makes any sense. There may be more effective ways to show solidarity and the gradual but steady increase in acceptance for the homosexual rights movement.

The timing blows. Most people aren't trying to take extra days off of work before the holidays with vacations looming; also, a lot of people have already used up their vacation and personal days by the time December 10 comes along.

Your stream of conscious is highlighting that there are things embedded in our language (and actions) that are taken for granted if we aren't critical.

It's like when I get annoyed when men call me a "girl" or refer to a group of women as "guys." A lot of women don't care about this but I look at what's embedded in it and how it can be used for different agendas. This doesn't mean that I correct people everysingletime that I want to, but I raise my eyebrow everytime. :)