Perhaps We are Nice Like Homosexuals are Gay!

Post Reply New Topic

This is interesting, but I think taking over the word "nice" to describe us is a bit far-fetched.

This is not how language works.

And dictionaries do not exist to prescribe how to use language, they exist to describe how language is used. This is why new words and definitions are added to dictionaries all the time.

That must be why as early as 1637 the Oxford English Dictionary gives one meaning as "addicted to pleasures and dissipation, often euphemistically ; of loose and immoral life", and the Dictionary of American Slang reports that "gay" was used by homosexuals among themselves in this sense since at least 1920. Rawson, in "Wicked Words", notes a male prostitute use the word "gay" in ref to male homosexuals in 1889.

And if that isn't enough, Cecil Adams, ( The Straight Dope" ) says, " The good-natured word gay has been leading a double-life. Although many people believe that gay simply meant lighthearted or cheerful until it was shanghaid by the perverts, the truth is that the word has long had a secondary connotation of licentiousness", and goes onto quote the above references which I have found in at least three other places, among them the Gay Etymology, Wiki-Answers, and something else.

PS. Perhaps you thought I meant that "gay" had always referred to homosexuality? No, I was just arguing that its meaning had not been nearly as simple as "merry, lively, colourful" etc.


Because it was leading a double life, which double-meaning caused many homosexuals much amusement.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Mar 2009, 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Since posting this thread I have remembered that the sexual rights movement itself, oddly enough, has led to a re-examination of "identity politics", and serious reservations about its usefulness; any kind of label applied to people, as opposed to behaviour, tends to automatically stereotype/restrict, ( like gender, for instance ), and be divisive too.

But I think the word "nice", in its totality, would have been an almost perfect name for us, ( if identity politics hadn't already been debunked).
.

I love words!! !! I'm so impressed at how you found all this out, Oiunon! And then it gets all wierd when you realise that every word we use had such a fascinating history.

I'm reminded of 1984 and the control of language. If there is no word for it, does a thing exist? Well it may do, but we can't talk to anyone else about it because we have no words for it.

It would be such a good idea to 'hijack' a word for us to replace the value-laden psychocrazy words the men in white coats have thought up, bless 'em. But I don't think 'Nice' is quite right Sensitives? Sensies? Not easy....

What, like 'Special'?
I agree :p.
EMZ=]

Ouinon is a nice lady. I'm a nice guy myself. There are lots of nice aspies/autistics.
But are all aspies nice? And what about all the nice people who are not aspies?

Identity Politics can contribute a lot to the aspie/autistic liberation movement -
While putting labels on people is restrictive indeed, putting labels on behaviours is liberating.
Identity Politics, as it applies to aspie/autistic behaviours, can lead us to victory.
After all, we are trying to establish our civil rights to behave autistically, in public, as much as we like, as long as we don't break the law.

As ouinon demonstrated so nicely, words change their meanings with the passage of time. We can hijack the word "autism" from the medical establishment and adopt it to our own needs, if needed.
In addition, 'Aspie' was invented by ourselves, to my best knowledge.

Long live autism/aspieness/whatever...
Peace, Love and Autism/whatever

"Woman", please, or "person"!

The same criticism could also be levelled at the word "gay" for homosexuals". Are all homosexuals "gay" ( as in carefree, uninhibited, cheerful, etc )? And what about all the non-homosexuals that are cheerful, etc, and would like to use the word for themselves?

I am not sure whether labelling our behaviours with a medical term, ( created for a dysfunction/disorder ), could be liberating. And "Aspie" is quite clearly a diminutive of one such. History shows that "oppressed" people's tend to throw off/not use the terms given to them when they were oppressed, at least not as "rallying" calls.


I agree, "nice" isn't exactly exciting, or inspiring, enough! It was just a "nice" thought!

No, "Gifted"!

Gifted, but so sensitive/susceptible to physical environmental stress ( apparently a major aspect of giftedness is hyper-sensitivity ), that in the last 50+ years we have been "poisoned", ( poison is "gift" in german ) into a state of incapacity.

.

How about the word "neurodiverse"? it was invented by us and it encompasses the entire AS, AD(H)D, "Social Anxiety Disorder" (which is probably a form of autism), etc. spectrum.
(I don't like the separation between autism and other forms of neurodiversity, because they are all related to each other).

Neurodiversity Forever

I totally agree.

The DSM labelling system is collapsing/imploding under its own weight; the labels overlap and contradict each other. It's an insane approach to human difference.

.

I also thought of the word special. 'Special needs', 'special children', 'you're special'. Yuck yuck yuck.

I think 'Aspie' should be more widely used. It's less clinical, shorter and can't sound like ass burgers.

Very intresting thread though. I had a fascination with word origins a while ago. This reminded me of how interesting they are.

It reminds me how some psychologists call us "crystal children"
Sadly, the "crystal children" descriptions are full of non-scientific, fictional concepts. (they claim we have telepathic abilities, auras, past incarnations etc.).

I think we are neurodiverse

NISE?!?!?!?!?

"Diversity" would be worth fighting for, not just the neurological kind.

I think that the general tendency to oppress/discriminate against those who are different in any way from "the norm", ( which is still pretty much a white, neurologically inconspicuous, etc, man ), is the underlying problem.

Our increasingly technology-based society has a terrible tendency to homogenise, and almost anyone who won't or can't be homogenised is disabled, at risk of discrimination.

A movement for "Diversity" ( which environmentalists are already campaigning for in the context of non-human lifeforms/"nature" ), is perhaps what is called for. How are environmentalists tackling this?

.