Not for me, perhaps.

I’m a bisexual male, and to be honest, I tend to skew towards the low end of the Kinsey scale (on the rare days when I give any credence to the scale at all). Nonetheless, when I hear or see “gay” or “fag” or “homo” used as a synonym for “bad” in speech or chat, I feel threatened. I see words that denote queerness used to connote badness, sliding all too easily between the two concepts and linking them quite efficiently. You might use those words around me, and you probably don’t mean any harm, but at the end of the day, I don’t really care about what you mean, I care about what you say, because what you say hurts me. This is not political correctness; this sort of language triggers real, visceral feelings of fear and anger within me. I’m just saying.

TerraNova’s Timothy Burke suggests the possibility that words like “gay,” when used within an online community (like an MMOG), have become “unmoored” from their real-world association with queerness and no longer need to be seen as indicative of homophobia, but can be interpreted simply as generic pejoratives.

I’m not a virtual worlds researcher, or a linguistic ethnographer, or an advanced semiotician, I’m just a half-assed hack of a critic. All I have is my own gut to go on when I react to this kind of thing, but my gut reacts like it’s just been kicked, so I’d have to say that I disagree with Burke’s assertion.

I understand that “language is a fluid social construction,” and that a virtual world is a “bounded cultural space” where ideas and identities are played with, but that doesn’t mean that signifiers can somehow be cleanly separated from and transferred between signifieds. If anything, the sliding of “gay” (or “ghey,” whatever that’s supposed to be about) between its meanings of “queer” and “bad” is only exacerbated by the boundedness of online spaces, and the more the meaning slips back and forth, the more the association between those meanings is engraved into the mind.

Burke points out that on game forums, posters who make overtly homophobic remarks “invariably come off the worse for it,” and are mocked and shamed by the majority of players, many of whom turn right around and go back to using “gay” as a pejorative. It’s good that homophobes are unwelcome in these worlds, but that doesn’t actually help me, because if the most open-minded members of an online community pepper their speech with implicitly hostile language, guess what? I still hear words that make me feel like a lesser person, and I still don’t feel especially welcome in their community.

It’s incredibly saddening to think there are whole servers full of people out there who honestly, innocently think that the words they use have no effect at all on those that hear them. Video games and the Internet are two of the things I hold dearest in this world, two things I can barely imagine doing without, and I’d like to think that there’s room for me in the places where they intersect. But it could be that MMOGs and other virtual worlds are simply not meant for people who don’t fit into a certain demographic, or whose skin isn’t thick enough to handle a constant stream of vituperative, demeaning language. If that’s the case, so be it; if that’s the case, I won’t go where I’m not welcome. I’ll stick to playing Bejeweled and posting to my little weblog, leaving those worlds alone, hoping they leave me alone.

3 Replies

Paul

Part of the fundamental problem here is that words do not necessarily have the same meaning for the speaker and the listener. Even if "gay" has become completed unmoored for somebody (and I'm suspicious of the claim, but acknowledge it could happen -- think of "gyp"), that doesn't mean it's unmoored for Josh.

There is, of course, a term for the difficult work of realizing that intention doesn't always match understanding, and respecting the feelings of others by seeing one's own actions through their eyes. It is "tact."

And gaming forums (and programming forums, for that matter) are one of the most grotesquely tactless venues of discourse I know of.

Marisa

But it's about more than tact and respecting feelings. The problem is that the way we use words (Freud aside) is revealing; in this case, revealing of unconcious cultural assumptions about relative "goodness" and "badness". Whether this action is actively homophobic is kind of beside the point.

Paul

Marisa - If being tactful required suppression only of consciously hurtful ideas, it would be much easier. It is precisely the unconscious nature of so many hurtful ideas (prejudices in particular) that makes basic human respect so difficult to practice.

So my point, really, aligns with your last sentence: even if homophobia is not active / conscious, it is still hurtful. You're saying that what upsets you is that the word isn't really unmoored, but is revealing unconscious assumptions. Agreed entirely. I was saying that even a hypothetical unmooring for the speaker in no excuse: even in the unlikely event that the word "gay" really has become unmoored for some speaker, an doesn't reflect any unconscious assumption on their part, they are still obliged by tact to be thoughtful about how they use it for the sake of those for whom it is not unmoored.