James

Have you ever heard anyone say the following, in order to say that something is crap? "That is so black" "That is so spastic" However Chris Moyles and others have said "That is so gay" Do you get it yet?

We are talking about the gay word being used to mean "sh*t" - not "camp" or anything else. No other word to describe a minority is used like this so openly and pervasively. I have repeated this numerous times. You must be illiterate. If I were bigoted I would say "how gay of you". Do you understand now?

>>in principle, James and CED are right, in reality you could argue that that would further exacerbate house prices in posher areas and increase ghettoisation between the majority and the poorest. One thing you could do is have a system whereby kids are brought in from the nearest poor/rich area to even things out. Say you had a school in Dulwich and another in Peckham. To enforce it you'd have some kids from Dulwich being schooled in Peckham and vice versa so that the intakes matched in terms of ability and affluence.

>>GAY PEOPLE say it AS A SLUR frequently Absolute drivel. 1) I never do and have never heard a gay person use the word in this way 2) How can I "slur" myself? Best give up now Bob. You are talking nonsense.

Because of course, nobody calls anyone a "dickhead" or a "cock" do they?

Aha! So we agree on something :))

It's a bit sad that some people are still happy to turn a blind eye to flagrant double standards. It is you who is living in a weird bubble Bob - where it's perfectly acceptable to use a word that describes someone's sexuality as a slur. By the way Citizen, I didn't say that this is the same as someone shouting homophobic abuse at you in the street but thanks for twisting my words again. The word "gay" is unique in being used like this. Do you not understand this yet? It is a pretty basic and simple point. I can't keep repeating myself if you're determined not to listen.

So if a white person uses the word "n*gger" it's "hard to complain - because black people do it? You make no sense whatsoever! You are totally contradicting yourself. I never use the word "gay" to mean crap - and nor do any of my gay or straight friends. If they did I would correct them. Gay is a sexuality - it describes the way some people are. Why is it okay to use it as a derogotary term? If someone used the word "spastic" in this way you would condemn it.

Good point Taper. This makes perfect sense. I think the existence of 'sink schools' has made people think that comprehensives cannot get the best out of everyone. This is a flawed argument in my opinion. The only reason some schools are bad is because it is nigh-on impossible to teach when you are faced with all the most challenging kids at once. They all end up in the same place because faith schools, selective schools and popular so-called comprehensives in posh areas (whose intake is patently not comprehensive) suck out all the pupils that are easiest to teach and have the fewest social disadvantages. In a school with a good mix of abilities and great teachers (like Haberdashers), everyone can do well. But there is a tipping point beyond which even the best teachers will struggle. The government know this very well - but they don't want it to be common knowledge. Because once you acknowledge that you have to admit that selection is morally wrong - so you have to throw open the doors of all those faith schools, private schools, grammar schools and posh comps to everyone. The floating voters would not be happy with that, so nothing changes.

Great idea Keef! But we cannot run very well in our high heels and PVC trousers. And we are too busy making witty one-liners and looking for casual sexual encounters to go 'steaming' on trains...

So what is the percentage of the population who use a word relating to the colour of someone's skin to mean "sh*t" as compared to the percentage of the population who use a word relating to someone's sexuality to mean "sh*t"?

>>My initial point was that some of the outlandishness at Pride does little to increase acceptance among those have pre-existing prejudices and don't come into contact with members of the gay community on a regular basis. This reminds me of the people who said of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence "Well you know, he was no angel himself."

I assume that everyone who's happy to throw the word "gay" around as an insult would do the same with the word "n*gger"? After all, some black people use that word ironically as a term of address to each other.

The point about the word gay is very simple, Bob. What other word to describe a minority group is also deemed acceptable to mean "sh*t"? I happily use the word to describe myself and others and don't mind other people calling me gay - it's what I am after all!

Likewise, sorry if I am being a bit hot-headed. The last thing I would do is belittle victims of racism or brush aside this country's shameful colonial legacy. As I said before, I have black friends who have told me about the subtle but pervasive discrimination they face, and it's not right. But I am making a different point about homophobia.

Muffintop, how you can fail to understand my point is beyond me. My point is that while racism is still a problem it is generally more subtle and covert, whereas we are still at the overt stage with homophobia. This is evidenced by the fact that there is still homophobia within the media (e.g. use of the word "gay" to mean rubbish, tabloids screaming about gays etc) and the unfair court ruling whereby a registrar was allowed to discriminate against gays, plus the lack of reporting of gay attacks and unchallenged homophobia in schools. When did I say "abuse at me is worse than abuse at you because you're black"? This is not what I said at all. You are being very disingenous twisting my words like this. How many more times do I have to repeat myself? Read my post again. I think the people who are deliberately, repeatedly twisting my words because they don't want to face what I'm saying are boring, to be honest. We are further along in the fight against racism, which is something to be proud of (although we must stay vigilant too). But now we must use the lessons learned to tackle homophobia - zero tolerance.

Read the rest of DPF's post

>>Nobody was suggesting that the fetish clad, attention-seeking minority at Pride were typical of the average gay person, just that it doesn't help to persuade the detractors that there is nothing deviant in same sex relationships. Doesn't matter which way you swing, if you go out in public dressed like that people will think you're weird. Firstly, I don't go out in public like that! Again, we get the "You people" treatment, just like black people used to get routinely. "Why don't you people just...?"etc. Yawn. you sound like a third-rate tabloid columnist. Secondly, why should I (or anyone gay, for that matter) have to persuade people that I am not "deviant" or "weird" in order to be treated equally? Does a black person have to persuade you that they are not a gangster or a drug dealer? Of course not - if you suggested that everyone would give you a good telling off for racist stereotyping. Not so if you take cheap shots with gay stereotypes. Yet again we see how instructive my comparison is. Oh and by the way, pk and Citizen - Muffintop said that she overheard a man saying to his friend "She's pretty for a black girl." I have been followed by a gang of kids shouting "F*cking batty man" in a menacing way at me. Which do you think is more severe? Now before the usual suspects jump in and scream "Oh you're saying homophobia is worse than racism, it's not a competition" etc etc. I AM NOT. Please do not twist my words. I am saying that BOTH ARE EQUALLY BAD but fewer people dare to be openly, menacingly racist these days than to be openly, menacingly homophobic. How many black people do you know who have been followed by a gang of kids screaming racial abuse? This is extremely rare these days. Where it does happen, the media pick up on it - and rightly so. But when a gay teen was brutally murdered in a homophobic attack in Liverpool, there was no coverage AT ALL in the mainstream national media. Which is an indication of how we are further behind at tackling homophobia than racism, as Diane Abbott was suggesting. I don't know how much more clear I can be than this.

An interesting case study in the selection vs comprehensive debate is Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College in New Cross. They have a banding system whereby a mix of all abilities is enforced and get outstanding results. To answer Bob's suggestion that comprehensives make everybody adequate rather than better - this school could be taken as evidence that it doesn't have to be this way. Perhaps all schools should be like this?

>>Firstly my Grammar School with 350 years proud Academic history became a "Sink School" within 8 years of losing its "Grammar" status..Pretty impressive one feels. Secondly must have read 500 stories of Guys in the Public eye who were held back at School because the disruptive kids not only did not want to learn as it was boring and uncool but made damn sure no-one else did either! This is my point! Your school became a sink school Tony - unless we have full, enforced comprehensivisation there will always be a brain drain towards any kind of selective school. If there were no selective, private or faith schools and your school's comprehensive intake had been truly comprehensive (ie. a proper, enforced mix of each ability level) it would not have become a sink school.

Moos that is a very good point you've raised. As I keep repeating, I'm not saying that one is worse than the other. I'm saying that we seem to be a bit less advanced in tackling homophobia. All this business about us gays "parading our sexuality" at Pride, being lewd and overtly sexualised reminds me once again of how certain black people are stereotyped. You could say the same thing about certain elements of the Notting Hill carnival. But we all acknowledge that for every black "yoof" causing trouble there there are many more decent, law abiding black citizens weary of the stereotypes. Likewise, for every sleazy clone in bumless leather trousers there are many more of us just getting on with our lives in a quite dull and normal way. We are the 'invisible' ones - and therein lies the problem. This is why people stereotype gay people so much. I would just like to point out that I can't stand musicals, Judy Garland or Madonna*. I do not own any PVC trousers. I like cars (especially old Citroens), 60s films and alternative music. I think I sould more like an East Dulwich cliche than a gay one but there you go... *Not that there is anything wrong with anyone who does!

I went to a grammar and hated it. Here's my idea: Genuine comprehensivisation. Comprehensives have a bad name because: 1) Their introduction happened to coincide with 'modern' teaching methods (less emphasis on spelling and grammar, relaxed discipline etc) which have since been discredited 2) The market system we have creates sink schools because everyone who can afford it moves to a pash area with good comps, gets their kids into a selective school or goes private Therefore I propose the following: Abolition of all selective, private and faith schools. Every local authority tests all its kids at the end of year 6 and allocates them to ensure all its schools have an intake of mixed ability. Result: no more sink schools. No more privileged elites. Genuine opportunity for all. I await your responses...

True - but again, the mischief shows that people just don't take homophobia seriously enough. We wouldn't be having this debate about racism in this day and age. I suppose I'm just disappointed at people's lack of empathy. I marched against the war in Iraq beause I believed it was wrong. I don't want to get into an argument about the whys and wherefores (that's for another thread and maybe a bit out of date now) but I think humanity is all about speaking out for and defending people who are different to you. It kind of saddens me that people retreat into a kind of tribalism where it's all about me, me, me and looking after your own.

Just saw Huguenot's post and it seemed so nasty and ignorant I had to reply. >>I'm thinking that comparing the gay community to the black community is outrageous hyperbole. It's like Christiano Ronaldo comparing himself to Nelson Mandela. Gay people don't live in poverty stricken ghettos on the edge of society. There are no gay apartment blocks in North Peckham. There was no gay-trade across the Atlantic where only one third of the gays survived the journey This really saddens me. So there are no poor gay people? Has it ever occurred to you that might be because they are too terrified to come out for fear of being beaten senseless? Do you really believe that Peter Mandelson is a good reference for the average gay man? That's a bit like saying "Poor black people? Nonsense! What about P Diddy and all these rappers in Bentleys?" Your stereotyping is extreme, and proves my point that lack of visibility in the media results in a stereotypical, distorted perception of gay people. Yes, gay rich people have it good. But what about poor gay people? You also seem unaware or unwilling to believe that gay people have been persecuted throughout history - and it continues today in many countries across the world. I am amazed that you are ignorant of this. As for your point about the slave trade - "Well you haven't been enslaved so it doesn't count." How childish and distasteful. Again, you illustrate my argument beautifully by suggesting that gay people are disproportionately wealthy. What evidence do you have for this? Have you heard of Cornwall police's homophobic attitude towards poor & destitute gay youngsters? Thought not. You didn't read it in your newspaper therefore it does not exist to you. The only gays you see are Graham Norton and Peter Mandelson, therefore most/all gay man are like this. Why do you choose a shallow, image-obsessed footballer to represent gay people? So this is what we all are? Again, mindless stereotyping which you wouldn't DARE to do to black people. I'm amazed that certain people keep twisting this into saying that homophobia is worse than racism or something... I have never said this. My point was very clear but I should have known that this would be hijacked. Go back and reread the initial post. Finally I have to say I am quite deflated and saddened by the attitudes of some people on this forum. Ranging from disbelief that homophobic attacks are a serious crime or that homophobia itself is damaging at all to the suggestion that you might be able to change your sexuality anyway so it's your own fault. That old chestnut about those "bloody gays, why don't they just shut up and stop whining." I have suffered homophobic abuse in public on more than one occasion. My partner has been gay bashed, as have several of my friends. Incidentally, none was kissing or holding hands or anything in public. The suggestions that this might not be anti-gay but "anti-narcissist" baffle me. So gay people are narcissists? Another textbook 1950s bit of stereotyping. Scary and ridiculous! I will have to ask the people concerned whether they were "parading their sexuality" (again, the short skirt/rape analogy rears its ugly head). Racism and homophobia are twin evils as far as I'm concerned. But some of the attitudes displayed on this forum seem to prove my point that we are much further along tackling the former than the latter. Many seem familiar - they remind me of the prejudice towards black people in the 70s and 80s. Thank goodness for people like Sean

So what's your point? Black people call each other "n*gger" so are you saying it would be ok for me, as a white person, to address a black person in this way? Or use that word to describe something rubbish? Of course not - but this is what is happening with the word "gay"