So...in the Gay community Hetro's are called "Breeders"?

[trumad]

Is that meant to be complimentary or insulting?

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. Just the equivalent GLBT epithet of

'fag'.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. It's pretty clearly meant to be insulting

[radwriter0555]

22. How is it insulting?

I think it's cute.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. It's insulting because it's intended to be

It's been much discussed at DU and it is clearly designed as an insult.

[radwriter0555]

105. but what about it is insulting?

I honestly don't understand.

[Redleg]

165. It seems to imply that heteros only function is reproduction.

Of course that's just my take on it.

[Sapphocrat]

213. Redleg...

Not picking on you here, honest, but you hit the nail on the head, and allowed me the opening I was looking for.

Here's the point, for anyone who still hasn't figured it out:

The day people stop reducing lesbians and gay men to genital function and sexual behavior by constantly referring to us as "homosexuals" (and ignoring repeated requests to refer to us as "lesbians" and/or "gay men"), I believe the word "breeders" may slowly begin to fade from common usage.

It's not tit-for-tat. It's simply that we don't merit the same respect as straights, and some of us -- who are just fed up to here with being classified according to which of our bodily extremities we stick into which holes (and/or whether or not said extremities + holes = babies) -- are probably more inclined to use the word "breeder."

Meaning: You call me a "homosexual," and I will call you a "breeder."

Does that justify tossing around a word straights don't seem to care for? Absolutely not. But has the straight community (and DU) at large taken our semantic preferences into account? Absolutely not. "Homosexuals" ... "Homosexuals" ... "Homosexuals" ...

Contrary to popular belief, we are quite human, and, like all humans, we get pissed off when we, and issues important to us, are blithely dismissed on a regular basis.

Does anyone have any idea how many times we've heard:

"Oh, grow up! Get a thicker skin! Just because YOU think a word is offensive doesn't mean it IS offensive, especially if it wasn't meant to BE offensive! Stop being so HYPERSENSITIVE!"

Now, if I turned it around and said the same thing to every straight person in this thread offended by the word "breeder," what do you suppose that would get me? Probably half a dozen alerts, a deleted post, and a mod warning.

I hope this thread, as uncomfortable as it has been for many of you, may allow a few formerly closed minds to finally make the connection:

NO ONE wants to be referred to by a word that makes one sound like a lab specimen.

[Vladimir]

220. First time I've heard of

either gay people calling straights breeders, or the term homosexual being viewed as derogatory or insulting by gays.

Interesting... as a straight man who doesn't want children any time soon, I get the feeling I would find being called a breeder more offensive then, say, white-boy or some other ethnic/racial insult. I must say I do have some sympathy with your argument, although I doubt its the most constructive way you could be approaching the subject.

V

[blondeatlast]

181. How did this become an insult (which t undeniably is and is stated as such

in dictionaries.)

fag·ot also fag·got ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fgt)
n.
A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.

[0rganism]

206. slang use of "faggot" comes from Italian slang for "old woman"

I've long suspected that it may be a leftover from a culture of witchburnings and inquisitions. Supposedly, it didn't come into slang usage in America until the early 20th C, so it may have coincided with a post-WW1 influx of European immigrants.

[apnu]

224. interestingly enough...

...another definition for "faggot" in English is "a bundle of sticks".

[foreigncorrespondent]

100. It's pretty clear that...

fag, queer, dyke, homo, lesso, faggot, etc, etc, etc, is also pretty damn insulting when used in the wrong context, huh?

Don't like it, then do what the LGBT community had to do with the slurs we had to face from homophobic idiots, and take the sting out of the word.

[bloom]

160. so it sounds like you are acknowledging

that gay people who use the term are idiots.

"Don't like it, then do what the LGBT community had to do with the slurs we had to face from homophobic idiots..."

OK

[foreigncorrespondent]

161. Not at all.

The only people I am calling idiots are the homophobic ones.

Don't try and read between the lines, mate, because you won't find a thing.

[Ripley]

162. So you're saying because some heteros call people

queer, fag, whatever that is insulting...it's okay for homos to call all heteros breeders?

Illogical friend.

[foreigncorrespondent]

164. I never said all heterosexuals...

...either, mate. Do not follow me around the board and begin putting words in my mouth that are NOT there.

You are reading between the lines of what I am saying way too much.

My exact words were "Don't like it, then do what the LGBT community had to do with the slurs we had to face from homophobic idiots, and take the sting out of the word." Were in that sentence do I say, it is ok to call ALL heterosexuals breeders?

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foreigncorrespondent]

167. My age if of no concern of yours.

You replied directly to me in this thread as well as another, what did you think I would think?

And please DO NOT INSULT MY INTELLIGENCE! I happen to know a damn site more about American politics than most Americans. Something of which I am rather proud of. Plus you are talking about a group that happens to be in my community, of course I know who they are.

I don't respond to anything I don't understand or have a knowledge of.

[bloom]

214. OK

well I think there can be heterophobic idiots just the same as homophobic ones and to say otherwise is to be disingenuous.

[foreigncorrespondent]

215. I never said there weren't...

...I was just pointing out my exact words to someone who likes to twist what people say around.

[angryinoville]

135. Remember the band "The Breeders"?

they were heterosexual members of the Pixies.

[prodigal_green]

198. The Handmaid's Tale

Fertile women were called "breeders" and were given to the ruling class couples in which the woman was past child-bearing age. If you've never read the book, I highly recommend it.

Yes, breeder is meant to be insulting, but who cares? I refer to myself as that when introduced to new people and the issue of sexuality comes up (e.g., out with lesbian friends and somebody wants to ask me out or set me up with someone.)

I don't think it is really a matter of "-ism," it is an in-group/out-group linguistic phenomenon. Christian/Heathen; Muslim/Kafir; Amish/English; American/Terrorist.

[charlie]

2. Maybe just accurate n/t

[Skittles]

13. how is that accurate?

lots of people do not breed

[charlie]

19. Yeah

Like me. I'm a hetero who got my nuts clipped after my kid was born. But, barring sterility, heteros have potential to breed with every coupling. Gays don't. Sooo, it's accurate to say that heteros are breeders and gays aren't. Trumad's just on another one of his shit-stirring missions.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Gays don't have the potential to breed?

Maybe not with every coupling, but breed they do.

[Skittles]

27. Dear God, I had to wonder what he was talking about

my gay neighbor has two biological children.

[charlie]

28. You never had that talk with your Mom?

Men can frolick with men and women with women for 10000 years and not pop a baby. Men and women however... I wouldn't bet against the joyful event happening inside of a year. Hence, breeders. Clear, no?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

36. Yes

I second that !!! :D

[charlie]

37. Maybe I do

and maybe I'll blunder into your exciting world where gay sex can produce babies.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Gay PEOPLE can produce babies

And often do.

The world is not black and white. Why don't you think gays can become parents?

[Skittles]

41. it's just that you implied homosexuals cannot breed

and that is silly. A homosexual union won't produce children but homosexuals can most certainly BREED.

[charlie]

61. I didn't imply that

Of course, homosexuals can breed. But, they have to do something outside of their natures to have a kid.

Tell me something. Why the umbrage over being called a breeder? (Ignore this if you don't feel that way. It's more directed to Muddle, I know he's torqued about it)

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Your posts baffle me

First off, you insist that homosexuals, "have to do something outside of their natures to have a kid." Why? I don't view sexual orientation and parenthood even remotely related. Again, maybe because I know gay parents.

As for the rest, I get torqued off at bigoted terms. I also was annoyed at the use of "bitch" here as well. But breeder is clearly a word designed just like "nigger" to denigrate another group for who they are.

[charlie]

82. Why?

Are you kidding? What if the only way you could have a baby was to romance a man? You wouldn't consider that having to do something outside your nature?

Of course you know gay parents. And you've heard of hetero cons who've indulged in gay sex in prison. The gay parent did what he/she did to have a child, the con did it to salve sexual frustration. Both engaged in sex outside their natures. The people you know who were "once straight" and are now gay are either gays who were trying to fit in or bisexual.

And what makes you think that breeder is "clearly" intended to be a term of derision? Especially one as malevolent as the n-bomb?

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Why I think it is a term of derision

Is because gay people say so. The gay folks I know as well as many here on DU. (This is not the first time it's been discussed.)

[charlie]

91. Eh, maybe some gay people say so

I've heard it for a long time and it was always used as flip slang, without ill intent. My brother-in-law calls me a breeder.

(BTW, I had nothing to do with your missing post upstream, I don't pop alerts on people I disagree with)

[blondeatlast]

184. An awful lot of straights use the word "faggot" that way, too.

I assume you are okay with that?

Yeegads--MotR and I are agreeing--Hell just sent out for propane.

[tedzbear]

186. No, I'm not okay and there's no comparison.

Faggot is way more offensive than breeder. YOU (hetero) will never be bashed over the head with a bat or egged while being called a breeder. I HAVE been egged while being called a faggot, but not yet bashed, thank goodness.

Sorry, but it's a lot more dangerous to be out as a "faggot," than as a "breeder." Your comparison is BS.

:mad:

[blondeatlast]

203. You misread my post--I'm asking if it's okay to flippantly use

ANY derogatory term. And no, I don't think it's okay for straights to use the words, even if no harm is clearly intended.

And I let anyone who uses either in my presence know I don't like it, and in no uncertain terms, too.

"Insult" is in the eye of the subject of the insult; and I, as a woman, a parent, and a straight, find the term "breeder" insulting--and I admit to having used the word myself, and was appalled at myself for doing so. It was only in retrospect that I considered the sentiment behind the word.

I'm on your side, vociferously so. Not looking for your approval for it, either. Just thought you should know that I march, I've volunteered, I speak out when others speak ill.


Edit: Don't assume I have never felt that degree of hostility, either. My husband has brown skin and my child is mixed. My son, husband and I have felt the same degree of hate. Oh yes, my 7 year old son has felt that hate.

[trumad]

46. LOL... Stir the Shit...who me....

I admit that I'm one big shit errr sttiiiiierrrrr... but not time...I work hard to not stereotype folks and I think this is a sterotype...

[charlie]

65. You used to Whip the Gloves Off

so we'd know up front that you were clearing a mosh pit. What happened to the fair warning? :)

[trumad]

77. Gloves off jumped the shark

just like the term "Jumped the Shark" uhh..Jumped the Shark.

[Character Assassin]

194. Sheesh. Why didn't you just get a vasectomy?

Getting your nuts clipped is a bit extreme, don't you think? ;-)

[John_H]

208. I've never taken offense to it but i've always found it

curious aspect to it. If hetero sex is breeding (s evolution "intended"it to be) does that mean gay sex is an aberration of human evolution?

I certainly don't think so, but that's exactly what the epithet "breeder" seems to highlight.

[blondeatlast]

183. And many would like to, but can't.

[JI7]

3. i don't really get it

can someone explain ?

[Cuban_Liberal]

5. It's derogatory. n/t

[JI7]

11. i never heard it before

i don't feel offended by it though. i guess things are more offensive when the word comes with actual discrimination or a history of it.

[kalian]

29. Why...? Its mostly "true"....

:shrug:

[doni_georgia]

40. How is it mostly true?

[kalian]

54. Heteros DO breed, don't they?

[Catch22Dem]

4. HEHEHE

I think that's pretty funny. I mean, I'm not offended by it or anything. I did breed after all. LOL

[w13rd0]

6. It's a term of affection...

... ;)

[trumad]

7. Not in this thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1423798

[Selwynn]

98. Riiiiiiiiiight. :)

[kcwayne]

139. Really? So is fudgepackers

[underpants]

8. No offense but Where have you been?

I don't think it is meant as either. More just like a nickname but then I don't know.

[mainer]

9. So now it's okay to insult your own mother?

if you're gay?

[Gildor Inglorion]

10. Maybe it's better than insulting everyone else's

mother....as in "son of a b***h" or "motherf****r." Frankly, I think "breeder" is just a term of affectionate regard. People need to quit scrabbling quite so desperately to find new ways to attack gays.

[foreigncorrespondent]

102. So now...

...it is ok to insult your own child, if they happen to be gay?

Same rules apply!

[mainer]

122. Of course the same rules apply

When my son came out as bi (at the age of 15) we gave him a hug and told him we loved him. And now that he's an adult, we keep encouraging him to bring home whoever he's involved with, male or female. We would never insult our son -- we love him. Just as we love my husband's two lesbian sisters.

I think NO ONE should insult their family member. As the mom of a bi guy, I would be very hurt if I ever heard him call me a "breeder." Since all I ever call him is my darling son.

[Deja Q]

12. Think of it whis way:

How many white folk (hetero or otherwise) get outraged at the term "honky" or "cracker"?

Same same amount of people go bonkers over the term "breeder".

Those who say it (myself not excluded) feel they're making a stinging insult. In reality, we aren't. We're just saying a cute comment people can giggle at.

Note: I said it only once. I don't use it often and I'll try not to use it in the future. I'm not a total militant after all. :-)

[madrchsod]

14. "poor breeders"

is it ok then to say "poor -----"..i thought we were supposed to be pc around here? oh well ,i still won`t use the words they find offensive..

[doni_georgia]

16. I find it very offensive. n/t

[kalian]

30. I don't...

most xtian heteros ARE "breeders"...so, its essentially true.
I don't mind it even though my wife and I aren't "breeders" since
we refuse to have children.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. You don't view it as offensive

But then, you also don't consider it applies to you and seem equally bothered by those people who have kids.

[kalian]

55. Groups will place titles on others....

we're ALL guilty of doing this, no?

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. We should all avoid it

Especially here. We are all human beings.

[kalian]

57. Hmmm....it really doesn't work that way, does it?

Especially in other forums, right Muddle...? :eyes:

[blondeatlast]

185. Doesn't make it okay.

There's no debate about "groups will place titles on others."

But as progressives, we should be working to eliminate the insulting terms people use to insult other people, without resorting to coercion or law.

[bearfartinthewoods]

120. so it's OK if it's 'essentially true for most of the group?

so fudgepacker is OK as well? :wtf:

sweet tea. why is it so freaking hard for people to speak without stereotypical slurs.

[RetroLounge]

17. I have many gay friends who use the term

it's all in how you use it, and context.

Aimed at me, from them, it's used sarcastically and in fun.

Other times, toward others, it's meant to sting.

Either way, big whoop.

RL

[radwriter0555]

23. Well said. Never bothered me.... Course I don't get insulted by

people either, unless they don't like what I'm saying, and that would be only around republicans and fundie cult freaks.

[Onlooker]

18. It's mostly an expression of annoyance

The term "breeders" is not used very often and when it is, it's used it situations where kids and their parents are annoying, such as a noisy family in a museum or family that let's its kids run rampant thinking everything they do is adorable. I would not compare it to fag, that's too harsh. Maybe calling a gay man flamboyant or flaming would be similar in tone.

[John_H]

209. Like when my kids run through the antique store?

[asthmaticeog]

20. It's not even really just gays

Heteros who don't have kids and are wary of having them, and dislike how some parents expect the world to treat them deferentially just because they've had kids (we've all seen the type!) have also been known to refer to parents as breeders.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Treating parents deferentially

Well, we should be understanding since we were all kids at some point and if no one has children then the race dies out.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leesa]

89. Oh please. Like there aren't enough people in the world. Race dies out??

As a woman without children I have felt the painful exclusion by those with children.
The doting on children in our society is sometimes extremely annoying. I think this is a relatively new phenomenae with increased wealth and with both parents working causing some overindulgence due to fatigue, overcompensation, etc.
I agree that we don't need to call them names though.

[tinanator]

39. no shit

not to mention the tax burden on those too responsible or God forbid unable to have them. Im sick and tired of paying for the miseducation of kids whose mother drives an overgrown SUV around by herself for the most part while writing off the burden they pass onto childless couples.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Children are our future

Trite but true. No kids, no future.

[tinanator]

44. then try taking care of both for a change

trite aint gonna do them a bit of fucking good.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. How many do you expect me to care for?

Children that is?

[tinanator]

63. none by the looks of it

not everyone is socially responsible, thats for sure.

[dawn]

119. Yes, but that doesn't mean everyone must have them.

That's the message I get tired of hearing. Then again, I don't care what others think about me, so it doesn't bother me when I get the "when are YOU going to have kids?" speech.

I've never called anyone a breeder, but I think the people who say it are referring to people who only talk about their kids, nonstop, all day, use their kids as excuses for not doing things (ie, constantly leaving early from work/missing work), and the people who don't understand why some women prefer not to have children. I don't think they are referring to parents who realize that having children is a choice, and that some people prefer not to have them.

[mainer]

124. The TAX BURDEN? Who is paying for YOUR social security?

I live in a town of retirees who are always complaining about having to pay taxes to support the schools. And I hear too much whining from the childless complaining that those who have kids are selfish.

Well, excuse me. Those who invest the 18 plus years to raise kids (giving of their time and much of their lives), not to mention the money to clothe them, feed them, and send them to college, are raising the future doctors and nurses who will take care of those who keep complaining about the breeders. These kids will pay for OUR social security. These kids will provide the labor that keeps ALL OF US comfortable in our old age.

No one should feel they're expected to have kids. But they certainly shouldn't complain about those who devote so much of their lives to raising the next generation.

[tinanator]

127. thats nonsense

just nonsense unworthy of discussion. Sorry.

[mainer]

211. "Parents pass off the tax burden onto childless couples

>>Im sick and tired of paying for the miseducation of kids whose mother drives an overgrown SUV around by herself for the most part while writing off the burden they pass onto childless couples.<<

Your statement implies that parents of children are sponging off childless couples. I was only pointing out that children benefit EVERYONE, and should not be considered a "burden" on society.

Here's something to chew on. Let's make a trade. We parents will bear the entire burden of child-rearing on our own (no tax breaks, etc.) And in exchange, those who don't raise kids will get NO benefits from our children -- or the next generation of those "sponging kids."

That means the childless would have no younger people to care for them in their old age (no nurses, no doctors! Where DO young doctors come from, anyway? They come from CHILDREN!) And since social security is actually paid for by the CURRENT crop of workers, you'd get no social security benefits, either.

So, do you like the trade? Still want to complain about those breeders and their tax breaks?

The point is, the generations are interdependent on each other. We need the youngsters; the youngsters need us. If you're going to complain about the "breeders" who suck up your tax dollars, then you should contemplate what your life would be like if the breeders -- and their children -- didn't exist to benefit YOU.

[Brian_Expat]

129. I have to chuckle about that too. . .

. . . the same Republicans who make this argument also argue against large families and welfare families, and move to slash aid to single mothers. If the prime directive is to have lots of kids to pay Social Security, shouldn't we be encouraged to have a dozen kids? Shouldn't gay adoption and parenting be encouraged? Shouldn't "welfare mothers" who give birth to six or seven kids by age 24 be applauded?

[Red State Rebel]

145. You are really reaching in that argument....

Nobody encourages welfare mothers to have hordes of children for the simple reason that you shouldn't have more children than you can afford. Not I didn't say how many the Government can afford for you.

We have four grown children, my sister in law has 4, and a couple at our church have 15. They can afford it, they love parenting and they have every right to do that.

[Brian_Expat]

147. I'm in favour of anyone raising as many or as few kids as they like. . .

I just chuckle at the notion that it's a societal good that everyone else should be eternally grateful for, that's all. It's a choice, a legitimate one, but nothing more or less than that.

[EDT]

21. I heard the slang "Power bottom" first time on the radio the other day-

Somehow when I think of all the unique nick names I hear in the gay community, I wouldn't consider being called a Breeder an insult, just another nickname.

[doni_georgia]

35. It's the us v. them thing

I think of people as people. I have heterosexual friends who have decided NOt to have kids, and I have lesbian friends who HAVE kids. So, the term, first off isn't accurate. My across the street neighbor and her husband made a political decision to adopt children from the former Soviet Union rather than have biological kids. My next door neighbors (a lesbian couple) just celebrated the birth of their first child. When I was pregnant with my son, a guy I went to church with (UU church - I actually left that church over this guy and all the zero-populationists like him there who would not leave me alone) said to me, "You aren't SERIOUSLY really going to have that baby!? Breeders like you are ruining the planet!" Number 1, this was only my 2nd child - so it wasn't like I was mama Walton or something. Number 2 - as someone who believes VERY strongly in reproductive rights, I believe NO ONE has a right to tell me I have to have a kid or that I shouldn't have a kid.

Anyway, this is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine.

[tedzbear]

78. Power bottom? I love it!

THAT one sounds like it comes from one of us to describe one of our "Log Cabin Republicans." Or maybe Mr. Geffin (goddess bless him).

Please slap me before I go on...

:eyes:

[tedzbear]

32. Yeah. Get over it.

It's just a descriptive noun. Unlike us queers, heteros can reproduce biologically. So they are "breeders."
The term reminds us that we are second class citizens, aliens if you will, on an inhospitable planet. We are surrounded by breeders who subject us to ridicule and even physical punishment if we reveal our true nature.

The word mostly comes up when we see a young man and woman necking in public, making a public spectacle of their "love" for all to see. We know if we tried that we would be running away from base ball bats in about three minutes.

Breeders also comes up when we read about child abuse and neglect. It is a reminder that a large percentage of heterosexuals should not be allowed to be parents. They can pop them out but don't provide a decent home.

:bounce:

[doni_georgia]

49. That is not true

Homosexuals reproduce all the time. Where have you been? My best friend - a lesbian - has two biological children. My next door neighbor has just had one (she was artificially inseminated with her partner's brother's sperm). I know one lesbian couple who have chosen to co-parent with a gay couple. Gay and lesbian couples also adopt, as do many heterosexual couples. Not ALL heterosexuals CAN reproduce. I know many who suffer from infertility and do not have biological children for that reason.

I find it unbelievable that on a forum like DU that there is such a disregard for people who find the term "breeders" offensive. I am a liberal, I am a BIG supporter of civil rights for ALL Americans. I support the right of gays and lesbians to marry and to have biological children or adopt. Yet, here I feel like I am just a stupid breeder who should be ignored, because I'm not gay. I see no difference in the bigotry of some of the posts here and posts by homophobic freepers. I really can't believe it!

[tedzbear]

60. I said queers, not lesbians, doll.

Relax. Take a deep breath, exhale. Now, isn't that better?

:eyes:

[doni_georgia]

64. sweety, please don't call me doll :)

Look, okay, it is biologically impossible for a man to become pregnant and have a baby (true whether gay or straight), but there are gay men who are fathers. Also, you don't have to reproduce to be an obnoxious parent. People who adopt can be just annoying - believe me.

My whole point was the us v. them thing is really uncalled for. I'm trying really hard to raise my own children to not pigeon hole people based on their color, sex, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. Wish we could just abide by the same standards here.

[Brian_Expat]

66. Uh. . . lesbians are "queers"

:eyes:

[tedzbear]

72. And another thing...

Breeders means "biological" reproduction. You must have a man and a woman to do that. Men and men can't do it by themselves and a woman and a woman can't do it by themselves. Involving an egg or sperm donor is required for GLTs to have kids (or adoption). That is a big difference.

Like I said, for many of us radical queers, breeders means heterosexual couples. Of course, if GLBT marriage becomes legalized and enough of us start adopting or popping out donor babies, then I'll be willing to change my definition and make it mean everybody who's a parent.

Meanwhile, it is a useful term to point out the discrimination against GLBT by heterosexuals in our society. Sorry, but breeders is an apt political term to denote our "active" oppressors (such as certain religious groups). For those of you who are pro GLBT rights, please be patient with radical queer politics. These terms are necessary for some of us to express our rage at the system.

For the heterosexuals who support us, we don't mean YOU, just the people around you who still discriminate.

[TankLV]

85. And, once again, amen.

You said it just fine.

[Brian_Expat]

106. And just to clarify. . .

"Radical queers" are outside of the mainstream of the gay community -- I say that as a gay man who has no problem with anyone's choice to have children, gay or straight.

Not all of us are counter-culture radicals seeking to offend all within earshot to prove our avant-garde credentials. Most of us find slurs against ANY group to be offensive. Please don't think the "radical queers" speak for all of us or even more than a tiny fringe in the gay community.

[blondeatlast]

188. Of course, I am preternaturally aware that it applies to "those"

heteros, not me.

Sorry, doesn't wash.

I grew up thinking "nigger" was okay; everyone in my circle used it, although my parents strictly forbade it. I thought it was just lie "shit," etc.


Radical is no defense, IMHO. I sympathize with the struggle, but not your adoption of the tools of those who oppress you (of which I try very hard not to do).

[foreigncorrespondent]

133. tedthebear...

...do you have a problem with lesbians? Because I for one would really like to know why the hell you decided to exclude us from under the big tent of the queer community?

[Brian_Expat]

134. You're not really a queer, dear

Neither am I. We just like to rock the worlds of our same-sex partners! ;)

[tedzbear]

169. Oops. I thought I was being politically correct.

Actually, I was trying to be respectful by not assuming you should be lumped in with the guys. Yes, we are all homosexuals (?) fighting the same cause, but I know sometimes the womyn get kind of testy when the guys presume to speak for them. We are two sides to the same coin, and should respect our differences (gender) and our similarities.
My womyn friends mostly call themselves "lesbos", "gay womyn." and sometimes even "dykes" (a la Dykes on Bikes). If queer is now the radical term for all GLBTs, that would be fine with me. That's what THEY have always called us.

:kick:

[DemLikr]

75. Calm down and leave the thread. Put the poster on ignore

Life's too short to leap at every freakin chance to be offended and milk it.

[seaglass]

81. Don't be surprised. There are those on the left who are just

as intolerant as those on the right. Sad, but true.

[FlaGranny]

51. Well, I'd like to "bop" anyone who necks in public,

whatever the sexual orientation. But that's just me - necking in public really turns me off.

Several of my "queer" friends have reproduced biologically and are "breeders."

You don't have to have biological children to abuse and neglect children.

You are right that a large percentage shouldn't have children, but not necessarily because they are heterosexual.

Lastly, generalizations are not very helpful.

:-)

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Two for two

This post rocks and good catch on the "sperm detonator" post.

[HEyHEY]

117. I like to watch anyone who necks in public

rrrooowww ;-)

[Gildor Inglorion]

69. Kick!

Superb post...very, very well said!

[TankLV]

84. Thank you - you said it simply and beautifully.

Again, thank you.

[blondeatlast]

187. "comes up when we see a young man and woman necking in public,

making a public spectacle of their "love" for all to see. We know if we tried that we would be running away from base ball bats in about three minutes."

Anyone, gay or straight, who does that kind of crap, should be scorned. Not baseball batted, but YEEEEEEEEEEEEECCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH...

[tinanator]

34. so is this why some were complaining of the homophobia here?

And look at the cast of characters. Im shocked I tell you.

[warrior1]

45. You don't have to be gay to be annoyed.

I love humanity it's people I can't stand.

But really, ever been to an amusement park or the mall or state fair and get clipped by a stroller or twelve. I don't call them breeders, but they do seem to be all over the place.

[tinanator]

47. oh yeah they seem to have right of way

but to think a term like breeders is equivalent to faggot or what have you really demonstrates an agenda, doesnt it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Both terms are disparaging

And have no place here.

[tinanator]

158. yeah, generalizations generally suck

"a majority of Palestinians do indeed support terrorist acts against Israel.

As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"

[0007]

48. My father was sperm detonator

[FlaGranny]

52. How do you detonate sperm?

[Renew Deal]

67. Yesterday there were exploding penis's today...

today there are sperm detonations. :shrug:

[trumad]

53. Question

Is it a stereotype or not? Again... I started the thread because of the thread I mentioned above. To me the term breeder was intended by the person(s) who said it as a derogatory remark against Hetro's... Maybe I'm a bit sensitive here but I do my best not to insult Gay's with name calling and I think the same should be applied back... MHOP

[Brian_Expat]

68. Well some gays agree with you and some don't. . .

. . . there's no such thing as a monolithic gay community any more than there is a monolithic straight one. There are gay racists and bigots and heterophobes, just like there are straight racists and bigots and homophobes.

Yes, "breeder" is a stupid and offensive term that I once used as a youngster until a straight female friend of mine explained how offensive it was to her. I then apologized profusely and set out to explain how offensive it was to other people. Hey, so shoot me, I was young and stupid.

I am willing to say, however, that I'm willing to accept full accountability for the bigotry of certain gays who use terms like "breeder" the moment that all liberal straight folk take responsibility for straight Freepers and their slurs. :)

[doni_georgia]

80. Thanks Brian

Guess I haven't heard the term much except from those opposed to all breeding whether gay or straight. Most (not all) of my homosexual friends are lesbians, and they have never used this term in front of me. Interestingly enough I have a gay uncle and a lesbian aunt. I have been raised to be accepting of homosexuality as completely normal. I know that all gays and lesbians do not agree any more than all heterosexuals agree. Hell, I have a gay friend who is a fanatical republican (still haven't been able to get my brain around that one). I'm a feminist, so I guess I go off at the term "breeder" for my own reasons. My husband was just laughing at me, though, since I lack the organs to reproduce any more, he said, "Sorry, but you couldn't be a breeder any more if you wanted to." Hadn't even thought of that!

[mitchum]

88. Excellent post, Brian!

Thoughtful and well said

[booisblu]

70. Maybe the person

threw out the "breeder" term was a bit of a disruptor? I don't like being called a dyke, but it happens. The guys are called faggots, and they don't like it... when it's done by hets and used in a totally insultive and demeaning way. However, we do refer to ourselves as such. When the term breeder is used, it's fairly certain to be an insult. Gay sex cannot produce children, but yes, gays that can conceive can have babies. Breeder is just a word basically to describe the straights that give us a hard time. It really has no place on this board and really shouldn't be an issue, which is why I question the motives of the poster using it.

[Brian_Expat]

71. I think the primary motive of the poster using it. . .

. . . if I was to guess, is argue it's OK to refer to people as "faggots" because some stupid folks in the gay community hiss about "breeders."

[Deja Q]

73. Other way around, buddy

We were called faggots first and far more often.

"Go beat him up, he doesn't fight back." is a comment that was said about me once and is one I shall never ever forget.

I have no qualms against people who use the term "breeders". Turnabout is fair play, especially when there's 10% of us and 90% of everybody else.

[Brian_Expat]

107. You're fighting a losing battle

When I was younger (early 20s), I had the whole "make war with them forever" thing too. Now that 30 is appearing just around the bend, I am more mature and realize that human dignity and equality -- and consideration for not being bigoted against anyone -- is something I have to exercise if I expect others too.

If I am not willing to accord dignity and respect to those who choose to live their family lives as they choose, by having children, how can I expect them to accord dignity and respect to gays and lesbians?

Further, if you view it as a "war between 10% and 90%" you might as well give up now -- there's no way we'll win a war for equality with only 10% on "our side." Fortunately there are lots of enlightened heterosexuals (including those with kids) who happen to support us because THEY understand what those who use terms like "breeder" or "faggot" do not -- that all humans deserve dignity and respect as individuals for their actions, not their fundamental sexual orientation.

[gmaki]

74. I think with these terms history has a lot to do with it

In the case of "fag" or the "N" word, I am sure the recipients of such insults can associate those terms with being ridiculed (or worse) in their youth.

For my part you can call me "breeder" or "cracker" all day long, but since I do not associate the term with any deep pain I have experienced in my life I simply don't feel the "sting" from them that I might otherwise. It would no doubt be different had I gone to an all gay school and been beat up by "queer bullies" who hurled those insults at me while kicking my butt.

The closest I can imagine is if someone were to call me "pigeon toed" in a mocking fashion. Sometimes I go off about that, but it is still no comparison.

that's my take anyway.

[tedzbear]

76. Thank you. Good point.

"Fag" reminds me that the people who use it would gladly bash me over the head with a base ball bat, or worse. Queer is a political term radical gays use for themselves. I think it is a much older term than fag is. I wonder if fag originated in the USA or in Europe?

The term "breeder" is not associated with violent oppression like fag is. When has a homosexual attacked a straight couple with base ball bats? Nada.

:eyes:

[trumad]

79. So..the lesson that I've learned is that " Turnabout is fair play"

That the discrimination of African Americans, Homosexual's and other minority groups was so egregious throughout history that now it's OK to turnaround and do the same to the offending group.

One more question: How do you distinguish who in that group who was offensive or do you carpet bomb the whole group because it's easier?

[tedzbear]

83. Get over it, baby.

I'm talking radical queer politics. You don't have to agree with it.

:eyes:

[Brian_Expat]

108. As a gay man, the only thing that's hurt the quest for equality more. . .

. . . than fundamentalists is "radical queers." Sometimes I think they're working for Jerry Falwell to perpetuate stereotypes.

No, as a gay man I don't wear buttless stained leather chaps, dance naked on floats, splash politicians with blood, or scream epithets at heterosexual families. Neither do most other gay people.

Please make sure you're clear in stating that you represent the fringe, not the mainstream, and we'll get along fine. But misrepresent yourself as a mainstream GLBT activist, and you'll have to deal with me. And a pissed-off Brian_Expat is not something you want to have to deal with, as the right wing have already learnt. :)

[LeftCoast]

126. I just have to comment

"as a gay man I don't wear buttless stained leather chaps"

So what's wrong with wearing what you want? Who gives a crap? And why does it bother you so much? (You've mentioned it twice already) Are you also afraid of effiminate gay men? What about gays who lisp? The horror! :scared:

Oh...and let's not get started on drag, right?

I don't care if you're gay or not. You're buying into the homophobic argument that "gay" activities are somehow wrong.

[Brian_Expat]

128. Nice pass at a smear

I am a gay activist, so your contention that I am not one is pretty specious.

As for "gay" activities, none of the chaps, leather, drag stuff is any more (or less) "gay" than monogamous people who live in the burbs and raise kids. The problem is that "radical queer" gay culture is all that's presented as gay life -- usually by the urging of "radical queers."

Gays who live "normal" lives of monogamy are accused of being "assimilationist" and "self-loathing" because they're not visiting bathhouses and otherwise engaging in "radical queer" behaviour. And the reality is, a majority of GLBT folk, butch or femme, lispy or not, don't want any part of it.

The biggest disaster for "radical queer" highjacking of the gay movement is the marriage revolution. The MASSIVE numbers of people who signed up to get married made the silent gay majority suddenly visible and humanized us. No longer were we portrayed as the chaps-wearing freakazoid on a pride float fellating someone we'd met 20 minutes earlier.

We found our voice in the gay equality movement and simultaneously had a coup d'etat against our self-appointed radical queer "leaders." And thank GOD for that.

[LeftCoast]

151. I don't believe I made any such contention

but if anything I wrote implied that, I apologize.

As to your assertion that radical queers have (or had at some point) hijacked the gay movement...let me relate a story:

In 1990 I went to my first Gay Pride Parade in the city of LA. 300,000 people showed up. Santa Monica Blvd was closed for several miles and was jammed with spectators. Most of them were average jeans-wearing, middle-class folks. The parade itself must've had 20 or more groups that were also your average jeans-wearing, middle-class folks. Only a handful of groups were comprised of people you described as "radical queers". That night I was so excited when I went home. I wanted to see the TV coverage of the event. I mean, how often do 300,000 people show up for a party? Well guess what. Out of 9 local channels ONE had any coverage at all. One. And do you know what they showed for a whopping 30 secconds? Out of those 300,000 people the only ones they showed were "radical queers." All those so-called normal homos might as well have not existed. Year after year I returned to the parade and year after year the same thing happened.

I'm sorry you feel radical queers have "hijacked" gay culture, but I would suggest to you (again) that you are buying into the propaganda. I was once afraid of drag queens and guys with their ass hanging out of chaps, but then I got to know them. Most of my best friends are radical queers and yes, many of them do let their ass hang out in chaps. But I thank God for them because they are the ones out in front of this movement. Don't forget, it was a bunch of drag queens who were the ones who fought back at Stonewall while all of the 'normal' gay people hid in the closet where it was safe.

As far as I'm concerned, whether someone's ass is hanging out of a pair of chaps or they run around in drag OR if they looked like they stepped out of an A&F catalog doesn't matter in the slightest. Be who you are. Be who you want to be. But don't point fingers at those scary 'radical queers' just because you think they make you (or the gay community at large) look bad.

Oh and by the way, I saw many of those 'radical queers' getting married at SF City Hall and yes, some of them did have their ass hanging out of their chaps.

[Brian_Expat]

159. Wear what you want. . .

As far as I'm concerned, whether someone's ass is hanging out of a pair of chaps or they run around in drag OR if they looked like they stepped out of an A&F catalog doesn't matter in the slightest. Be who you are. Be who you want to be. But don't point fingers at those scary 'radical queers' just because you think they make you (or the gay community at large) look bad.

But when said radical queer gets on TV and says that real gays don't want to get married, don't believe in monogamy, or want to fellate other people in public, don't dare think for a moment I'm not going to hop all over his ass.

He has a right to say what he wants, he does NOT have a right to use the bully pulpit provided to him by the media (by virtue of his outrageous appearance) to speak for me and everyone else. And they do, every single day.

I saw many of those 'radical queers' getting married at SF City Hall and yes, some of them did have their ass hanging out of their chaps.

They're obviously not too "radical" then, since the RQ vogue seems to argue that monogamy and marriage are "oppressive."

Of course, I know several RQs who plan to get married in Massachusetts, cheat on their spouses in "open" relationships, and then challenge the laws governing infidelity as cause for divorce. Thanks a fuckin' lot, guys, for once again making us look like non-respectable libertines.

[LeftCoast]

179. I'll make sure any "Radical Queers" check with you first

before calling themselves Radical Queers. :eyes:

[Brian_Expat]

197. No need to check with me. . .

. . . just don't get pissy when you learn there's an alternate point of view that differs from your "way to be gay." :)

And also make sure you clarify you're not speaking for all gays when you make pronouncements.

[freetobegay]

216. Jesus Christ!

Now theres a way we have to be gay!

[tedzbear]

171. Brian is a hypocrite.

He speaks out for human dignity yet he has contempt for the different cultural facets of gay men and womyn who he's afraid will offend the pious heteros who he covets.
I will stand proudly next to any leather dude or drag queen, but "straight acting" men like Brian can stand alone. They don't need me.
Brian's like the Christian who turns away the homeless man at his front door, only to find out it was Jesus.

:puke:

[tishaLA]

132. Yes, those radical queers in

ACT UP and Queer Nation were really harmful when they got people involved in the process and made drugs available more quickly and shamed politicians who hid in their closets and demanded equal access. In fact, those radical queers back at Stonewall were terrible too; they should have let the cops lock them up and remained quiet. And what about those radical queers in the Mattechine society in the 50s who had the temerity to march and hold up signs about "homophile rights"? I wish they'd stayed inside too.

[Brian_Expat]

137. Well, let's dissect and analyze

Most of the HIV progress was made by gay people in the legal and medical communities, not QN (who made lots of noise but weren't effective in changing opinion except AGAINST gay people).

As for Stonewall, I'm not convinced it did anything to advance gay rights at all. People constantly claim it did, but offer no evidence to back that contention.

Finally, the Mattachine Society weren't exactly "radical." If anything, they weren't radical enough.

Most people with the appellation "radical queer" today seem all to willing to exclude people who don't quite fit THEIR pre-fab definition of "queer." Like people who support equal marriage rights, or gay parents, or suburban gays, or monogamous couples.

Try it sometime. Go to a "radical queer" group event (say, QN), and proclaim yourself a married, monogamous gay person who wants to have a kid or two. Feel the waves of contempt and manufactured pity wash over your unenlightened, unliberated carcasse. :)

[tishaLA]

140. OK, let's analyze

QN had nothing to do with HIV progress--it was never even part of its mission, as anyone who participated in it would know--or as anyone concerned with the broad swath of the LGBTG movement would know. On the other hand, ACT UP, which WAS concerned with HIV/AIDS, had a profound effect on getting funding by pressuing politicians, on expediting the approval process for drugs, and by increasing the visibility of AIDS as a public health issue. Its radicalism, even by Mathilde Krim's admission, made the work of "mainstream" AIDS organizations like amFar, far easier than it would have otherwise been. But I'm sure Dr. Krim is just talking out of her ass.

I mentioned the Mattachine Society precisely because it doesn't look "radical" now, but it did at the time. retroactively, the most radical portions of the LGBT movement NEVER look radical; they only do in the present tense. When QN started to discuss same-sex marriage over 10 years ago, people thought they were nuts. They don't look so nuts now. In fact, it looks like a perfectly mainstream goal. Funny how that worked out.

And I guess those gay pride parades have had no positive effect on the LGBT community if you prefer to think so. But they do commemorate the Stonewall riots. It looks to me like a way to advance gay rights. But I, like Dr. Krim, might just be talking out of my ass.

[Brian_Expat]

142. QN didn't discuss gay marriage 10 years ago when I flirted with them. . .

You must have found a more conservative chapter.

As for ACT-UP, ACT-UP San Francisco is one of the AIDS denialist branches, which argues that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and that AIDS is a patriarchal conspiracy to control gay men, so I'm not so convinced it is a net positive.

As for Dr. Krim's comments, I'm sure they had some positive effect, but the stunts like interrupting a Mass at St. Patricks and splashing people with blood were VERY damaging. It's possible to lobby for AIDS research money without stunts like that.

There's also a profound difference between "radicalism for rights" and "radicalism for radicalism's sake." Someone who talks about how his status as a "radical queer" entitles him to use slurs against heterosexuals is doing nothing that advances anyone's rights. Someone who fellates another man on a gay pride float is transforming his insecurity about his sexuality (hence the need for a public display for affirmation and shock value) into a "gay issue" when, in reality, it's an issue better reserved for a psychologist.

Most gay people tend to cringe at the portrayals of gay people in those pride parades, which have not advanced gay rights so much as they have revenues of advertisers for years. San Francisco Pride has been, for the past ten years, mostly an advertisement for alcoholic beverages, clubs, drug use, and absolute wild promiscuity. Given the higher-than-average rates of alcoholism, drug abuse and STDs in the gay community, I would suggest that it's doing little to advance gay rights AND creates false impressions of the average gay person -- fuelling stereotypes.

[tishaLA]

143. Well, even academic articles published at that time

talk about QN's interest in same sex (what you call "gay") marriage; maybe you found one that was more conservative though. They were fairly libertine about the notion of choice, whether it was marriage or "promiscuity." Indeed, they were so progressive they thought LGBT people should be able to serve in something as conservative as the military if they wanted to. And they marched for it, too.

I am well aware of the SF chapter of ACT UP and how it was "taken over" in the early/mid 90s and it's membership became almost nil (and its work ineffective) after it started those shenanigans. It's one chapter, though, and it was demonized by ACT-UP NY, ACT-UP Philadelphia (where I lived at the time), ACT-UP LA, etc., etc. And of course ACT UP never "lobbied for AIDS money" at all. They were a direct action group, not a fund raising endeavor.

Finally, pride parades, whatever their problems, help form a sense of community--however fractured, imperfect, riddled with elitism and racism, etc. I hardly think a few outrageous acts makes for a net negative (or, indeed, that they have never done "anything to advance gay (and lesbian, presumably) rights at all. You critique aberrations from the mainstream for pretending to be constitutive of the broad swath of opinion and yet you do it yourself in both these last two examples.

On edit: Spelling

[Brian_Expat]

146. You should spend some time at SF Pride sometime. . .

. . . it was embarrassing when I lived there. Lewd propositioning and sex acts all over the place, along with advertising for a huge variety of corporate products and services. It had no relevance for me as a gay man at all, and it was far from a welcoming community (well, unless you doffed your shirt and walked around topless with a yellow hankee in your rear left pocket).

[tedzbear]

174. I marched in West Hollywood the nite Clinton betrayed us...

...with his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise. It was a spontaneous event and there were over a thousand of us marching down the middle of the street all the way to the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. When we got there, we screamed for Hillary to come out so we could tar and feather her. Of course she didn't (thank goodness).
Talk about a grass roots movement! That was one of the coolest nights of my life and I will never forget how the police backed off when they realized we were enraged and determined to march. All they did was photograph us and follow our procession with helicopters.
We were all there, walking down the middle of Santa Monica Blvd: log cabin Republicans, leather queens, dykes on bikes, drag queens, and "straight looking" queens like me who had just left work. I marched next to a group of radical womyn with drums and flutes. They played "The Stars & Stripes Forever" if I remember right. We were all one, ready to get arrested or whatever, we didn't care.
It was fabo.

:bounce:

edit for sp.

[tedzbear]

172. Honey, you're being paranoid.

"Try it sometime. Go to a "radical queer" group event (say, QN), and proclaim yourself a married, monogamous gay person who wants to have a kid or two. Feel the waves of contempt and manufactured pity wash over your unenlightened, unliberated carcasse. :)"
----Brian_Expat


I doubt if you're THAT important that a group would immediately focus on you and attack. My impression is that most politically oriented gay men and womyn are more than willing to overlook their individual cultural differences for the sake of the cause. If we can't do that, then we will never achieve equal status.

Your sensitivity to ridicule is obvious and probably the main reason you are so determined to assimilate with straight culture. Myself, I prefer monogamy in a relationship because I am a very insecure, jealous individual. I wish I could be cool with open marriage, but I'm not. I get crazy!

:crazy:

[blondeatlast]

190. "Get over it." The same to you? You ARE in a debate forum;

there is plenty of heat on both sides.

Radicalism is not the issue, a disputed term is. Those in opposition to its use have every right to dispute its use, you have every right to defend it. But don't expect radicalism to win anyone over to your side or be an acceptable excuse; things just don't work that way in real life.

Trumad is famous for just this side of baiting posts--I enjoy them, myself, even if I disgree vehemently with him, which I usually do.

[trumad]

210. "baiting posts",,I can't fault you with that description of me

I like to stir it up to get discussions like this going.... BUT I swear this isn't a baiting post or at least I had no intention of it being so.... I read a thread about a Key West Hotel turning away guests because they weren't Gay and in that thread I read a couple of posts that mentioned "Breeders" in what I deemed a derogatory fashion... I was struck by that and simply wanted to get a sense of what folks felt about it. As far as I'm concerned this has been one hell of a thread with great posts from DU'ers... I sure hope this explantion hasn't ruined my Rep...;-)

peace

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. An article on the origins of 'fag' and 'queer'

from The Straight Dope (no pun intended). They usually give well researched answers. Both expressions appear to date from around the begninning of the 20th century. As it says (as does my British dictionary), 'fag' is originally an American usage - it's still an everyday expression for 'cigarette' in the UK.

[tedzbear]

90. Maybe that's the origin.

When we're done smoking, we put out the cigarette by crushing it or smashing it with our foot.

Some bigots do the same thing to queers.

:kick:

[doni_georgia]

93. actually technically a faggot is a stick used for kindling

cigarettes in the UK began being called fags, because they resemble sticks. I believe this is was the implied origin of the term "fag" for homosexuals as well, having to do with being not your big body builder types.

[charlie]

95. One really weird peculiarity

(to us USAians, anyway) is its use as a term for meatballs:

http://www.mrbrainsfaggots.com/

[LeftCoast]

125. The term "Fag" originated in Europe

It refers to the pyres where they would burn homosexuals alive. A "faggot" is a piece of wood for burning. So every time you hear that word used against a person, essentially what they're saying is that person should be burned alive because they're gay.

[AGD4y2357y]

92. My best friend is gay

and she occasionally will use this term. I've never heard her call anyone she didn't know a breeder, and with her heterosexual friends it's usually just a comic friend thing. It is said with no hostility intended.

Frankly I am glad the term came about. Gay people have been called so many derogatory things it's not even funny.

For the heterosexuals who take offense to it - sure does suck to get a taste of your own medicine doesn't it?

Now I realize the bigot population is relatively low here, but for your nut case right people maybe one of them will get the clue.

[doni_georgia]

94. Not a taste of my own medicine - which is my point

I find the term "breeder' offensive as a WOMAN. I have never used derrogatory slang against a homosexual - EVER! My favorite uncle is gay, and I was raised to accept him as just as normal as my dad. I know that my situation is not the norm in the heterosexual community, but my point is ALL heterosexuals are not homophobic biggots. Fine, if the radical gay community wants to use the term - FINE! I just find it particularly demeaning to women.

[AGD4y2357y]

96. Guess what

< have never used derrogatory slang against a homosexual - EVER>

you are a minority. Maybe if you had been called a breeder from the very first moment it was apparent you were heterosexual you would get an idea of what it's like. My friend is known at her university as being gay and she gets called a fag or something else just about every other day. But I suppose it's easy for you to say when you've never experienced it.

It's the same thing with african americans. Tired of being called "nigger" by whites for so long (even if YOU never did it) they developed a counter language. I don't see you criticizing them, yet apparently you hold gays to a different standard. Maybe they have a point?

And it's not intended to be a gender hit. Nice spin though.

[trumad]

97. So the minority pays for the majority?

now where have I heard that before?

[AGD4y2357y]

101. I find this funny

from the original poster who stated heterosexuals are known in the gay community as breeders. Obviously another example of the minority paying for the majority from you your self. I didn't see any disclaimer along the lines of SOME in the gay community. Nice double standard applied to me though.

[trumad]

103. You lost me....

:shrug: I only noticed the term today (little slow) in another thread... I thought it would be an interesting discussion so I posted a thread about it... It has turned into a good discussion and it's running about 50-50 right now in opinion. But you still lost me there...LOL

[AGD4y2357y]

104. You claimed

I was essentially punishing the majority for the minority.

I pointed out the hypocrisy of that statement directed towards me considering you just accused the gay community in general (instead of saying SOME in the gay community) of calling heterosexuals breeders.

If you are going to criticize me for making an overly broad claim, at least criticize your self as well.

[trumad]

109. Accuse?

I asked if it was a diss or complimentary leaning more towards the Diss...Read my opening post.... plus I said the opinions were 50-50... This post was not towards the majority because I wouldn't know if the majority uses a term I just learned about today. Oh never mind...LOL

[doni_georgia]

112. Really don't know WHAT the hell is your problem

I'm sorry your friend has had it bad - so have many of my friends. Don't understand how you feel that justifies using the same tactics as the ignorant biggots. I did not bring up African Americans in this thread, because it is a not the issue. Besides, I don't see any African Americans here on DU posting posts saying, "Look finally the honkies got it!" If I see what I perceive as bigotry, I speak out against it. Sorry if THAT offends you.

[tedzbear]

175. AGD4y2357y, can I be your friend?

You are full of compassion and I like that.
I would never call YOU a breeder if you didn't like it. I try to be respectful of people's boundaries on an individual basis.

For example, I NEVER discuss politics with my Republican friends. We always end up screaming.

:eyes:

[indigo32]

99. I've never called anyone a breeder in my life

it is meant to be insulting.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

110. depends on usage

"stupid breeder" meant to insult

so my breeder friends think we too should have a children..its just a descriptive

anyword can be used to insult...depends on the usage

[LDS Jock]

111. I agree, its usage

I've said it before referring to my brother-in-law, just the other day in fact. He stood me up for tennis, saying he couldn't make it, he had to stay with the kids because they were sick. I turned to my friend and said "that breeder just canceled on me." No insult. Just being sassy.

[slinkerwink]

113. it's the gay equivalent of "faggots" or "queers" and the sexist

equivalent of "bitches" or "sluts"

[SEAburb]

114. Then it's usage should be banned a DU

if it's a bigoted heterophobic slur.

[slinkerwink]

115. but sexist slurs aren't banned here

:shrug:

[foreigncorrespondent]

136. So what about the...

...homophobic bigotry that a straight might not see as being homophobic, but us queers certainly do, what happens to that around here?

We can hit alert, but unless the mod is walking in our shoes, then that mod might not see what we are seeing, and the stealth bigotry will remain for everyone to see. Is THAT fair?

So don't come off with something being a heterophobic slur and request its usage be banned from DU because this time it might be YOU getting the slurs. If you want to ban one, then you need to ban all.

[Brian_Expat]

138. Frankly, I am against banning all but the most outrageous slurs

I think letting people show their true colours is so much better in so many ways. Let someone who rants against "damn breeders" or "damn faggots" hang himself or herself with the extra rope in the eyes of the community. :)

[blondeatlast]

193. It pains me, but I agree. this is where the gloves come off

to prepare ourselves for the fight in the real world.

[blondeatlast]

192. It's a joke, referring to an issue important to the previous poster.

Please don't tell us humor has no place in this thread.

[tedzbear]

176. How can "breeders" be sexist when if refers to both men and women?

Plus "breeders" does not imply a threat of physical abuse like "faggots and queers" does.
When has a homosexual chased a straight couple with a base ball bat because they are holding hands in public?

This debate is about homosexual human rights, regardless of gender. Not sexism.

:eyes:

[HEyHEY]

116. Does that mean the band "the breeders" were all straight?

Sorry, that question had to be asked

[Brian_Expat]

118. Pansy Division is my fave band named after a slur. . .

. . . and their anti-Bush songs ROCK! :)

[Cronus Protagonist]

121. My mother's a breeder

And I happen to think she did a very good job of it.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[bobthedrummer]

123. Musicians know about the band The Breeders!

The Breeders have lots of fans here @DU.
:hi:

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

131. Tammy and the Amps....

Tipp City.

....there was that Dayton connection with that band.....

[bobthedrummer]

144. Dyke and the Blazers-Wilson Pickett covered them!

"Funky Broadway"

[rumguy]

130. It's a harmless insult

I'm straight, if someone wants to call me a "breeder" I don't care...I've haven't "bred" yet however...

[malachibk]

141. Gay in NYC

So I know lots of 'em and I have never, ever heard any one of my friends refer to straight-folk as "breeders". I did, however, see a anti-gay bashing video in High School in NH that was sort of a "what if being straight was in the minority" and the epithet the majority gays yelled before kicking some hetero ass was "Breeder". So I'd say it's a negative.

[dsc]

148. One of the worst things about being a minority

is that it is assumed that all of us do x. In this case, call straight folks names. For the record, I don't. I never have used that term and wouldn't.

[Andy_Stephenson]

152. I call my straight friend a breeder all the time...

he calls me fag...what is the big deal.

:shrug:

[dsc]

153. You can call your friend whatever you like

but I don't think I should have to answer for your conduct. I rarely, if ever, see straights told they have to answer for people who call me fag, and i shouldn't see it either. People are responsible for their own actions.

[Andy_Stephenson]

225. We do it in a kidding way...

and just in jest. The point I was making is...it depends on who is calling me fag...if it is a Redneck breeder from Lampasas I take offence...If it is my friend I am not as worried.

[private_ryan]

149. looks like insulting

but I'll take women over a man anytime so....

[9215]

150. Sounds like envy, hee?

:evilgrin:

[AntiCoup2K4]

154. Believe it or not, it's even in some dictionaries

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third edition (1992)

Breeder - Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a heterosexual person.

Even though this dictionary has a lot of words in it (including most of the ones the FCC won't let you say on the air), I was actually surprised to find "breeder" among them - at least by that definition. At the time this dictionary was published, I was under the assumption that it was a fairly new term, even within the GLBT community. I had only heard the term used myself for a year or so before that. Actually, the first time it was used on me, I was sort of offended. But it was probably because I wasn't "breeding" much at the time ;)

[w13rd0]

155. This thread has far too many responses...

...spawened off a one sentence post. How remarkably petty and self-defeating.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

156. I don't call my gay or lesbian friends or family members

"fags" or "dykes" or anything like that, so I don't expect to be called a "breeder". I expect to be called by my name, just as I call them.

[rman]

157. who cares?

-

[blondeatlast]

195. You must, or you wouldn't have looked at the thread.

:eyes:

[rman]

221. or maybe i was just curious what it is about

:eyes:

[KTM]

163. Bah. Got kids - you're a breeder.

Gay, straight, doesn't matter - not a homo or hetero slur, IMHO. I'm straight, DINK, no intention of breeding. I use the term to apply to those of any sexual persuasion who are enthralled with their wee ones to the point of absurdity. Yay, you made a baby, congratulations... breeder.

[maddezmom]

168. not all hetero folks that have children "breed"

:)

[9215]

180. but all children come from hetero folks that breed.

;)

[maddezmom]

207. this is true

:) Thank God for our "breeder" birthmothers, or else I'd be childless.

[ibegurpard]

170. I have heard the term used

but the statement "in the gay community heteros are called "breeders"" is a big exaggeration. The statement implies that any time a gay person refers to a straight person they would refer to them as a "breeder." That is not the case. It's an insulting term.

[markomalley]

173. This thread stinks!

What is it with labels? Breeder, f@g, n!gger, fr33per, and all that? Why do we have to attach labels to people??? This labeling is making me sick, particularly out of progressive people! I hear it everywhere. It makes me sick!

[trumad]

177. Well...as a progressive Democrat I want to talk about these things

It educates me on how to be sensitive on how a errr label effects people. Oh and by the way... Fuck the Freepers... I'll label these fucks anyway I want to!

[tedzbear]

178. I think it rocks!

Notice we have had no messages deleted by the mod (yet) even though we are flaming each other like crazy.

Personally, I would never use the term "breeders" unless I was sure nobody was around who might be offended. I would have to hear a human of the hetero persuasion call themselves that before I would use it in front of them.
I don't like to be rude (except here at DU on occassion).

Truth be known, I've never used it AT ALL until this discussion. But "some" of my gay friends use it at times when they're feeling testy. But that's because they don't think it's as derogatory a word as fag, n----r, or w-p. Could that be because it refers to the great majority of humans, as opposed to an overly victimized few? This dilemma deserves discussion, IMHO.

[blondeatlast]

196. Very good point indeed--

and I admit flamed you a bit earlier.

There's an elephant in the room, and I think you found it.

Definitely worthy of discussion, even though some feelings may be hurt in the process.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

205. I find the idea that

someone would be saying it "because they don't think it's as derogatory a word as" to be just an excuse for bad behavior. A slur is a slur. Are some more rude or shocking than others, sure, but if the intent is to slur, that's what counts.

[9215]

182. It's about equality IMHO

Up until now heteros, about the only sub-group I've heard of without a slur to stigmatize them, had an unfair advantage in the culture war we love to wallow in. Kulturcampf requires slurs to keep the tension high....:eyes:

[Bertha Venation]

189. Yes. It's true. I call every straight person I know "breeder," w/ a sneer.

An ugly sneer. Including my beloved sisters, their children, my in-laws, most of the people I work with, most of my neighbors . . . . After all, turnabout's fair play, no? If you -- "you" representing straight people -- can call me a dyke, then I can call you a breeder. /sarcasm

I realize I've weighed in after you've already had 188 replies, but here are my two cents:

In the past, I have uttered the words "f'ing breeders" when I have seen a child being smacked around, or a het couple feeling each other up in public. I'm not proud of myself for it, nor am I proud that I continue do judge when I see such things now. I just don't say "f'ing breeders" anymore. At least a part of me has matured somewhat.

I'm sure you realize by now that to say "in the Gay community Hetro's are called 'Breeders'" is a sweeping generalization.

[Bluebear]

191. Besides there is no 'gay community'

There may be gay communities but no one 'community'!

[gayrebel83]

200. There IS a gay community...

Whether one is a radical queer, a lesbian separatist, an HRCer, a Log Cabin Republican, or even an "ex-gay", one is still subject to the same heterosexist system of oppression. Denying the existence of a gay community is merely a reactionary tactic for breaking down solidarity among GLBTs...ya know, divide and conquer.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

201. hmmm...interesting.

I sort of agree with you there.

I notice that ex-gays are not really straight. They are "ex-gay". So that stigma is still there.

[Bluebear]

202. Perhaps but..

the original post referred to the 'gay commununity' labelling 'breeders' etc. To paint with a broad brush like that is as inaccurate as saying the "Italian community" or any other group. There are subsets and differences.

[gayrebel83]

204. Well, yeah...

Of course there are differences among us...we'd be very boring otherwise ;) I, too, resent the implication that all gays are the same, because it usually comes from the Right insisting that we all molest kids, screw everything walking on two legs, have AIDS, had poor relationships with our parents, and are hell-bent on destroying civilization. So, I am very well aware of how damaging that brush can be.

At the same time, I do not think that those differences preclude acknowledging a broader community that faces many of the same obstacles and shares many concerns. I am likely unique in the level of solidarity I feel with GLBTs. I refer to the gay community as "my people" and consider those who came before me "ancestors." :)

[ButterflyBlood]

199. it's a derogatory term, but I don't mind being called it

if some black guy called me a cracker, I wouldn't be too bothered either.

however I know this thread was provoked by the hotel refusing the heterosexual couples. That WAS wrong, pure discrimination, and counter-productive to the gay rights cause

[MissB]

212. Breeders is an insult

Although not one that I associate with gays/lesbians. There are some message boards that I've happened across that are for people who are childless by choice. Their term for annoying parents is breeders. These would be the type of parents that let their kids run amok in a Starbucks without any thought to the other patrons.

[freetobegay]

217. After stubmling upon this thread in the middle of the night

& reading the whole thing! (OUCH), I have come to the conclusion that someone who likes to stir up trouble & IMO is a homophobe has found a way to be coy & to carry on his mission & others seem to be enjoying it also.

I am offended by one perosn in here who claims to be gay That there is a certain way we should act.

If you are truley offended by the term breeder I apologize (I myself never use the term, but I find it highly suspect that you are, it's just a way of stirring up more shit.

And in closing I will leave you with a Rosanne quote "My hope is that gays will be running the world, because then there would be no more war. Just a greater emphasis on military apparel."

[clonebot]

218. the way homosexuals should act

i think its too bad that there aren't enough good homosexual male role models for gay youths to follow, so instead they just act like party boy queenies since thats how they assume they are 'supposed' to act.

[truthspeaker]

219. I'm straight and I think it's funny. n/t

[Neecy]

222. jeebus...

I'm really surprised that this thread has so many people worked up.

I view 'breeders' as slang more than anything else, because when I've heard it used it's not with anger or hatred. And I agree with the posters above who have emphasized that this word isn't everyday language for the entire gay community. Some use it, some don't.

When my friends and I would see a straight couple walking down Castro street, we noted with interest that the straight man would always hang onto the woman so there would be NO misunderstanding of his sexuality. We called this the 'het clutch'. Was it derogatory? No, just ironic that straight couples cling to each other in a near death-grip when in our communities, but if we were to do that in their communities, we'd most likely get bashed or worse. So, yeah, some resentments exist, but I've never witnessed anyone accost a heterosexual and scream that the person is a 'breeder' or anything else. Who cares?

[Daedalus]

223. Breeder?

That is a new one to me...