Gay slurs list-Words that Hurt | LGBTQIA Resource Center

This is a list of slang terms used for LGBT lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Category:LGBT culture. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is the latest accepted revision , reviewed on 20 September It has been suggested that this article be merged into LGBT slang.

Gay slurs list

Gay slurs list

Gay slurs list

Gay slurs list

Finkbeiner, J. Note 1 In what follows, I will explicitly mention some slurring terms, as the treatment Gay slurs list slurs is severely impaired by the introduction of invented slurs or euphemisms. Sexual orientations Asexual Bisexual Heterosexual Homosexual. Part of a series on. Rights and legal issues. Sage Open. In the present work I will have to set aside the issue of failure, that would deserve a paper on itself for lits discussion of this point, see Cepollaro Show me more.

Crossdressing sissy giving blowjobs. Search form

A transgender woman, hijra, gay man, effeminate man, or someone who lacks male reproductive organs. Part of a Gay slurs list on. Is "colored" a slur? Retrieved 18 February Lits "wipipo" a racial slur? Social attitudes. It was, for example, seen in at the funeral of Matthew Sheparda victim of anti-gay violence, when Fred Phelps and his followers chanted it in front of the gathering. Gender identities Sexual identities Sexual diversities. They seek to be able to earn a living, be safe in their communities, serve their country, and take care of the ones Fucking titt love. Such assertions and insinuations are defamatory and should be avoided, except in direct quotes that clearly reveal the bias of the liat quoted.

Sometimes we say words without realizing the impact they may have on others.

  • Anti-LGBT rhetoric and anti-gay slogans are themes, catchphrases , and slogans that have been used against homosexuality or other non-heterosexual sexual orientations and to demean lesbian , gay , bisexual , and transgender LGBT people.
  • This is a list of slang terms used for LGBT lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
  • Skip to main content.

The last decade saw a growing interest for hate speech and the ways in which language reflects and perpetuates discrimination, with two main focuses of interest: a linguistic-oriented question about how slurs encode evaluation on the one hand, and a philosophical and psychological question about the effects elicited by slurs. In this paper, I show how the two questions are deeply related by illustrating how a certain linguistic analysis of derogatory epithets — the presuppositional one — can shed light on non-linguistic issues, namely what effects the use of slurs produce, especially concerning discrimination.

I present a presuppositional account of slurs Section 2 and I show how such an analysis provides convincing explanations of other non-linguistic phenomena: in particular, I consider the ways in which slurs reflect and spread discrimination by illustrating how they work in conversation Section 3. In Section 4, I argue that some features of slurs presented in Sections 2 and 3, namely the fact that they always target a category and the fact that the derogatory content that they convey is presented as not open to discussion, make slurs particularly dangerous tools.

I conclude by briefly assessing the question as to how one should respond when exposed to the use of slurs. In particular, slurring terms 1 drove the attention of different communities of scholars: philosophers of language, ethics and metaethics, psychologists, as well as linguists. Different perspectives have been adopted, different accounts were put forward.

In this heterogeneous landscape, we can distinguish two main focuses of interest: a linguistic-oriented question about how slurs encode evaluation on the one hand, and a philosophical and psychological question about the effects elicited by slurs.

In this paper, I show how the two questions are deeply related by illustrating how a certain linguistic analysis of derogatory epithets — the presuppositional one — can shed light on non-linguistic issues, namely what effects the use of slurs produces, especially concerning discrimination.

I present a presuppositional account of slurs 2 Section 2 and I show how such an analysis provides convincing explanations of other non-linguistic phenomena: in particular, I consider the ways in which slurs reflect and spread discrimination by illustrating how they work in conversation Section 3.

In section 4, I argue that some features of slurs presented in section 2 and 3, namely the fact that they always target a category and the fact that the derogatory content that they convey is presented as not open to discussion, make slurs particularly dangerous tools. Slurs typically target people on the basis of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion and so on. For each slur we can usually find a non-loaded corresponding expression, i.

The target class could be in principle any 3 , but we observe that epithets tend to target groups that are or used to be discriminated against. Moreover, it is a cross-linguistic phenomenon: while the groups targeted by epithets tend to change from language to language, the mechanism seems to be the same in nature across languages, that is, there are terms that are employed to refer in a pejorative way to a certain group, typically discriminated against.

The scoping out of the derogatory content of slurs concerns negation, antecedents of conditionals, modals, questions and so on:. As a matter of fact, one way to account for the derogatory content of pejoratives is to analyze it in terms of presuppositions. In what follows, I shall present such an approach and illustrate its advantages. According to the presuppositional account, slurs and their corresponding counterparts have the same meaning at the level of truth-conditions; but slurs carry in addition a derogatory content targeting a group, which tends to scope out of semantic embedding.

For example, 6 has the same truth-conditions as 7 , but in addition triggers a presupposition like 8 :. If that is not the case, i. In the present work I will have to set aside the issue of failure, that would deserve a paper on itself for a discussion of this point, see Cepollaro This difference might look like a technical detail, but it is not. It changes the kind of requirements imposed by the utterance on the common ground: what the use of a slur presupposes is not that the speaker has discriminatory beliefs about the target class, but that the target has to be discriminated against.

I shall address this point at a greater length in section 3, when I discuss the notion of complicity and propagandistic power of slurs. I find this labelling quite misleading. Nevertheless, if we embed them under negation, we find a decisive divergence:. Under negation, the germanophobic content is not ascribed to Hans, but it survives the embedding. They display different linguistic behavior under embedding, as the pejorative content of slurs is more resistant.

Slurs appear to be conventional means to perpetrate discrimination, as they attack a person because she belongs to some group, irrespective of who she is and what she does. In this sense, slurs are intrinsically related to discrimination, whereas non-slurring expressions are not 4. As we said, according to the presuppositional account, the derogatory content of epithets is a non-truth-conditional component of meaning.

This feature might seem just a linguistic technicality, but it is not. The information that utterances presuppose rather than assert has a particular status, as in the former case the content is presented as taken for granted, as not open to discussion. A presupposition is something we take for granted in a conversation, something we take to be already part of the conversation background, or to be very compatible with it.

We shall now see how this apparently technical feature of presuppositions is crucial to understand how derogatory epithets work and how effective they are in promoting discrimination. I will distinguish three scenarios: a endorsement, b complicity and propaganda and c rejection.

Jane is taking for granted that Asian people are bad for being Asian, which is in fact common ground in the context of that conversation. Presupposing such a content is a way to reinforce the shared discriminatory beliefs as well as to reinforce the racist identity of the group. Geoffrey Nunberg points out that to attack targets is not the only function of slurs and according to Nunberg, it is not even the primary one ; slurs are used by slur-users to identify themselves, to create a bond based on discriminating someone else.

Indeed, a community may have a slur for a group of people that its members have no expectation of ever encountering. Nunberg forthcoming. It might sound strange to say that speakers presuppose something that is not common ground, as presuppositions are what we take for granted in conversations.

Speakers can presuppose information that is not already part of the common ground, when they expect that the audience will just accept it without objections. If no one says anything, the introduction of derogatory and discriminatory contents transforms and shapes the common ground and it legitimates further uses of slurs as well as corresponding discriminatory practices. The non-challenged racist utterance turns the context into an explicitly racist one. The presuppositional account of slurs provides a reasonable explanation of why slurs are taken to have a propagandistic power: they trigger presuppositions that — if not objected — slip into the common ground and change what the participants to a conversation take everyone else to assume.

Here we see the danger of slurs: they do not only reflect the discriminatory practices and beliefs of a certain community, but they also spread them, by imposing such beliefs in contexts where they were not explicitly shared. In other words, when a slur is used literally in a context, if speakers do not object they are responsible for letting the derogatory content in the common ground.

Otherwise, if it was just about what the speaker believes, it is less easy to explain why the participants to the conversation would bear responsibility.

It is the case of rejection. As a matter of fact, 14 survives semantic embedding in 15 and We can imagine for 19 a continuation like 20 :. One strategy with presuppositions is to explicitly articulate the presupposition and explicitly reject it, or to deny it metalinguistically. In general, presuppositions are so effective in entering the common ground because rejection has a cognitive as well as a social cost. The implicit nature of the derogatory content that is — in less evocative terms — the fact that epithets encode the derogatory content at the level of presuppositions rather than at the level of truth-conditions makes it hard for speakers to retrieve and reject it, as the best way to reject presupposition is to stop the flow of the conversation, which means to stop being cooperative.

So either one accommodates the presupposition or gives up for a moment cooperation. In this sense, slurs, intended as means to produce discrimination, are crucially different from explicit manifesti endorsing and fostering discrimination.

If a speaker is confronted with a homophobic manifesto, there can be room for discussion. As unreasonable as it is, the homophobic content is explicitly articulated and thus it can be rejected. Also statements that imply homophobic beliefs can be relatively easily challenged. Can we have it against other things? Give me a break. Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For years, it was criminal in every state.

They can argue that Scalia is wrong by presenting arguments for example, with respect to 28 , one can say that the fact that something was illegal for years tells nothing about the legal status it should have today. On the contrary, when slurs are used, it is much harder to argue, as the derogatory content they trigger is presuppositional and thus taken for granted: it is imposed on the audience.

The question about the effects of slurs in conversation brings up the question of the function that slurs fulfil. The function that slurs — as opposed to other expressives — specifically fulfill is to discriminate: to dehumanize the targets and label them as inferior on the basis of characteristics that in no way ground or justify derogation, exclusion etc. They are quite specific. Stereotypes, negative and positive, are among the cognitive shortcuts we rely on to make sense of the world and to guide our responses to it.

If you assume that, for example, being Italian goes together with being a latecomer, talking loud, being obsessed with food and the like, then you are justified in inferring from the fact that someone is Italian that she instantiates most of the above properties; and you are justified for instance in avoiding hiring an Italian person for a job that requires punctuality.

Nevertheless, I shall argue that this is not the end of the story when it comes to slurs and the reason has to do with the standard features of presuppositions. According to the analysis I just presented, slurs are presupposition triggers.

As we saw, presuppositions are what speakers take for granted in conversation: when speakers presuppose a content, they present it as accepted and uncontroversial. Because of this feature, scholars studying discourse in Court, dedicate special attention to how presuppositions are used to impose a content that was not actually shared see i. In this sense, slurs do not just reflect discriminatory beliefs, but they actually promote discrimination without arguing for it, just presenting it as given.

This can concern not just the knowledge speakers share, but also the values they share. If the set of beliefs underlying discrimination was object of discussion, we might have far less discriminatory practices than we do. The reason why slurs are considered dangerous tools is that they impose discriminatory contents without leaving room for disagreement. Such terms need to be removed from circulation until their offensive potential fades away.

However, it is not clear how this would happen. Bianchi proposes an alternative analysis, where she rejects silentism as a policy and she suggests that the process through which slurs can lose their derogatory potential is actually appropriation.

According to Bianchi, silentism is not apt to diminish the derogatory potential of slurs, while appropriation is able to subvert it and, in time, even delete it.

The analysis of epithets that I just proposed does not take a clear stance with respect to silentism. What it does suggest is that the main source of danger of slurs is their conveying a derogatory content in an implicit way.

So a good practice would be to train people to properly respond to slurs when they come across them. Just as in the case of any presupposition, a proper rejection strategy would consist in articulating the presupposition, i. Some lgbtq rights organizations do promote this kind of training, by teaching people how to react when they come across an utterance of an homophobic slur.

This is one of their suggestions, which closely resembles what it would mean to retrieve and reject a presupposition in the case of slurs. I concluded by suggesting that according to my account, the best way to respond to hate speech would be to make explicit the derogatory content of epithets and then reject it. Anderson, L. Bianchi , C. Bolinger , R. Brontsema , R.

Cepollaro , B.

HuffPost UK. April 9, Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay. Prejudice , violence. Slang City. AIDS epidemic update: December

Gay slurs list

Gay slurs list

Gay slurs list

Gay slurs list

Gay slurs list. More synonyms

.

List of LGBT slang terms - Wikipedia

Last month, activist Elena Grigorieva was murdered after her details were doxxed on a mysterious, Saw-inspired website. A longtime activist, she came out as bisexual earlier this year and soon received a steady flow of death threats. These threats became more severe and more frequent in early July, when her name was first listed. Fearing for her life, she teamed up with local activists and ultimately succeeded in shutting down the site, but on 18th July she posted a Facebook status urging her followers to stay vigilant and pressure law enforcement to find the creators and bring them to justice.

Two days later, she was murdered. According to reports, she had been strangled to death, with wounds indicating she had been stabbed eight times in her face and back. A year-old was quickly arrested and then released, but authorities suspect several people were involved in the dispute.

Earlier this month, another suspect, Alexey Volnyanko, was arrested. Although website creators have extorted people on the list and provided enough detail to ensure attacks could pass without difficulty, authorities are seemingly refusing to investigate the website at all. The police denied ever receiving the information. The fact that this has existed for more than a year and that nobody has been punished sends a very dangerous message. The website is part of a wider problem within Russia.

Russia could have overruled this and forced an investigation, but ultimately chose not to. To say that lives are at stake is no understatement. Earlier this year, Russian LGBT Network volunteer David Isteev was one of several activists reportedly subjected to an aggressive home invasion , which was later referenced in some of the death threats sent to Elena. But questions like these currently look unlikely to be answers — at least unless campaigners worldwide continue to pressure authorities.

A celebrity-led boycott of his hotels ensued; around a month later, the Sultan backtracked. Queer nightlife scenes are cropping up in major cities like Moscow and St. Sometimes, international outrage is still needed to set the wheels of justice into motion. Enjoyed this article? Share this Italian photographer Rocco Rorandelli's new project, Bitter Leaves, is laying bare the true impact of the tobacco industry.

But as peace has spread, an influx of coffee fanatics is revolutionising the landscape. One of the few women in a male-dominated scene, Claudia "Claw Money" Gold has been tagging the streets of New York for three decades. But is it really effective? Only two northern white rhinos remain on the planet: Najin, 30, and Fatu, 19, both of whom are under the care of James Mwenda.

Pro skater Mason Silva is entering a new phase of his career, embracing film photography as a way to stay grounded in the present. Privacy Policy Events.

Gay slurs list

Gay slurs list

Gay slurs list