Subject: On slang.
Author:
Posted on: 2014-04-17 11:44:00 UTC

The thing about romantic/sexuality words is that they either have to proliferate until there's no tomorrow, or be eliminated entirely. We have words to distinguish which gender you're attracted to (specifically with reference to your own) - so why don't we have words for, say, having a strong preference regarding hair colour? If you really are only interested in redheads (say), why doesn't that qualify for a noun of its own?

Historically, the answer is 'because society cares to a fanatic extent about gender, but not about most other things'. But that's changing - slowly, but it is. In a certain theoretical future world, sex/gender will be as irrelevant an issue to society at large as hair colour. Which, ultimately, I suspect means that people will stop seeing those things as a big part of their identity. 'Gay Pride' would become as nonsensical as 'Hazel-Eyed Pride' - because no-one would care either way, so why get agitated about it? That's the ultimate end of 'normalisation', and I'm really trying to think of a historical example that doesn't still have repercussions, but it's not proving easy. So maybe I'm being over-optimistic - humans ain't that good at letting go. But imagine we are.

In that theoretical future, will we abandon words like 'gay' entirely? Or will we start proliferating words for every other preference, too? The answer, I suspect, lies in how useful they are - is it easier to turn down a proposition by just saying 'no thanks, not interested', or by saying 'no thanks, I'm russosexual'? (That's as in 'russet', not as in 'I only sleep with people named Russ' - though that could be a thing too!). Um... probably the latter, because how can you argue with 'my biology/psychology says no'? So what it really comes down to is, is it enough of an advantage to bother with learning all the words?

Darn, two types of human laziness running into each other. Most epically halfhearted fight ever?

hS, rambling again

Reply Return to messages