Political correctness gone rampant

Clayton Cramer draws attention to this piece of political correctness gone wild:

The Lord Chancellor is facing accusations of political correctness after banning the word “homosexual” from official documents in his department.

Lord Falconer has ordered for the word to be removed on the grounds that it “may be considered offensive.”

The ban comes after a report commissioned by the Department for Constitutional Affairs to analyse how well diversity rules are obeyed when selecting judges.

Academics from the Queen Mary college compiled the report and concluded, “It is important to recognise that the term homosexuality is considered inappropriate by many gays and lesbians today.”

They claimed that gay charity Stonewall regards the word as derogatory, “It originates from a medical definition when same-sex attraction was construed as mental illness.' The report said “it should no longer be used in official documentation. Stonewall recommends that ‘lesbian, gay and bisexual’ is a more appropriate term.”

The PC cant-mongers should realize that, etymologically speaking, 'gay' used to be a slang term for what we nowadays call 'rough trade' or 'stud hustlers' in the 18th century. (Don't even get me started on 'queer'.)

Listen, I'm probably as heterosexual as they come so have no personal experience with the specific matter. But I do know that I've always rejected (and resented) weasel-words such as 'Israelite', 'of the Mosaic persuasion', 'of the Hebrew faith', and the like in favor of the simple, plain, and descriptive 'Jew'. And I have no doubt that if I were homosexual (as impossible to imagine as it is), I would prefer to be called just that. Or that I'd prefer to be called 'black' rather than 'African-American' if I had a darker skin tone.

The English language has a very diverse and colorful repertoire of derogatory terms for homosexuals (one more anatomical than the next). Nobody would ever confuse those with a neutral descriptive term.

Unless the attitude displayed is the same as that of the Index of Forbidden Books of the Catholic Church, which would not only ban certain books as hostile to the Church and give its approval to others, but would use a category that literally translates as 'disturbingly/annoyingly neutral' ("storend neutraal")...

Comments

[Fred Scrooby]

"But I do know that I've always rejected (and resented) weasel-words such as 'Israelite', 'of the Mosaic persuasion', 'of the Hebrew faith', and the like in favor of the simple, plain, and descriptive 'Jew'. And I have no doubt that if I were homosexual (as impossible to imagine as it is), I would prefer to be called just that. Or that I'd prefer to be called 'black' rather than 'African-American' if I had a darker skin tone." ( -- from the log entry)

But with the "black" appellation you're sort of playing the same game as the other side. Had you put, "Or that I'd prefer to be called "Negro" rather than "African-American" if I had I been of the Negro race," you'd be consistent. "Negro" is the former( * ) standard, neutral, in-no-way-derogatory word for the race.
______

( * It was until the left decreed for no good reason whatsoever around 1970 that it had to be phased out -- since I don't follow the left's dictates I've never personally phased it out. It was perfectly polite when I was a boy and as far as I'm concerned it still is: things don't suddenly change one-hundred-and-eighty degrees merely on the left's say-so, sorry. The English language bequethed me by my fathers isn't the left's personal property to butcher as they see fit. It belongs to me and to everyone else, not exclusively to the left.)