Sammy-Blue said:
"i'd argue that there should be no stigma about or boundary against women using the term "gay" to describe themselves"
Her main point was that we shouldn't have two terms (one for each homosexual sex) when there is only one term for both male and female heterosexuals. What I don't get is why she made it a feminist point with that second sentence, when men could also argue that they want to share the same term as women.
I guess she did say "could".
IMO, it makes sense to have differenciable terms. A heterosexual couple will always have a man and a woman, whereas if you describe to me a homosexual couple I know that you're talking about men, and if you describe to me a lesbian couple I know that you're talking about women.
If we went all politically correct, dropped the word lesbian and all accepted homosexual to include both, we'd just have to tag "male" and "female" before the homosexual to specify... and then I'd just be confused as to why having two different terms was such a bad thing.
It would be like dropping the words men and women and adopting the word "persons".
Although I suppose hardline feminists don't like that female and woman stem from male and man anway... ahh...
I don't even care. The need for feminist action as diminished to about moot. I actually have unfair advantage in the line of work I'm aiming for now that employers feel like they have to employ 50 percent women even when that doesn't reflect the demographic of women in the industry...
=> Jess