Question for Gay Dopers....

I was told (and this is probably completely factually incorrect but it’s how the oral history was passed down to me by older lesbians) that it came from a story about Boadiccea.
Apparently in that time it was traditional for a victor in battle to kill a bull with a dagger, as a show of strength, bravery, courage and superiorty. I suppose because it wasn’t an especially easy thing to do.
I can’t imagine it was especially a common thing for a woman to do, women not commonly commanding armies in those days.
Anyways, Boadiccea won a battle, and killed the bull with a dagger, on a dyke (mound of earth) so that everyone could see. Because it was such a big achievement, she was called Bulldagger or Bulldyke as a mark of respect.

An older term for a butch lesbian is a bulldagger, dyke is an abbreviation of bulldyke.

Not entirely sure how it came to be used as an insult - i suppose possibly because it was unladylike/unfeminine to have done something like that?

As for terminology, I don’t really like being labelled as anything per se. Queer is the best of a bad bunch. We are people, not lables.

Quoth Cecil:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfaggot.html

Faggot does not harken back to the burning of queers (can anyone even provide a reference stating that gay men were ever burnt at the stake? I’ve never heard it except as a justification for this incorrect etymology.)

Remember, you can generally rest assured an etymology is false if it’s particularly interesting or even comprehensible.

I think a big problem is that a lot of people are trying to come up with all kinds of different, complex theories for why some people become gay (the Good Uncle Theory in particular) when homosexuality could rather easily be filed away as a simple fluke, or series of minor flukes that predispose one to always having perfect hair and immaculate taste.

When you consider that all humans start as female, and that sex and sexual preferences are traits that appear later via some really complex, poorly understood mechanisms, you can see where the occasional glitch can come in. While homosexuality isn’t a concious choice, the correct combination of biological and social factors pertaining to one’s sex and sexual identity could come along and cause someone to be straight, gay, or bisexual for no real single reason. It’s kind of hard to label homosexuality as a purely genetic trait, when one considers how difficult of a trait it would be to pass on via reproduction.

Another thing to consider, is that unlike pretty much all other human traits, homosexuality and gender identity are the only ones that really can be flipped 180 degrees, and as such get undue focus. No one wonders or cares much about the various mechanisms that cause one’s nose to look a certain way, because so long as you have one, the variations don’t much matter. Sexuality on the other hand, is a more noticeable trait, since it can flip completely. It is a really simple shift, but the end result is something like the psychological equivalent of having your legs growing out of your chest. It gets a lot of focus, because you can actually pin down what is considered “normal,” and see how a homosexual differs.

This is in comparison to noses, or facial features, where there is no gold standard of normalcy.

It seems to me that the theories and explanations people put forth tend to focus too much on the social side, trying to come up with some social justification for homosexuals existing, instead of just accepting that homosexuals exist, just like brown haired people. Most of these theories tend to ignore the fact that we are immensely complex beings, and that we don’t even have a fundamental grasp of what makes us who we are.

Let’s go back to that Good Uncle Theory.

Couldn’t one say that post-menopausal women accomplish the same exact thing? She’s not caring for her own children, but has an emotional attachment to the grandkids.

Bonus points for having 50 % of the population showing this trait, as opposed to the 10% or so who are gay.

And it is a lot more dependable of a trait in expressing itself than Ugh’s flamboyant Uncle’s Bruce and Steve, always looking stylish in their expensive pelts, ever being born are.

Do I know why I am gay? Nope. It’s an interesting question, but I don’t expect us to ever actually truly answer it. I don’t much care that I am left handed either, I just accept it as any other personality trait. Same goes for my noticeable Adam’s apple. I always likened the diversity of people to the diversity of colors. Take 3 primary colors, and you can create a whole world of color and variation.

Some of us just get a little off in the mixing and come out a touch more lavender than the rest.

[Side point: What about all the sets of identical twins, only one of whom is heterosexual? That tends to take the genetic theory down a notch or two IMO.]

Anyway. Thanks for being non-phobic about the word “homosexuality” while being homosexual. The straights(heteros) out there (you know, the other 90+% of us) who never took out any negative emotions on other guys for not being heterosexual are getting wigged out by some activists in the media trying to mutate the language. “Gay” has been completely stripped of its original meaning of light-hearted, joyful or happy and been applied to millions of people who may be anything but.
They say the word “homosexual” is evil and should not be used because of prior associations with a psychological disorder or prior use as a separative term. Well, I’m an American of French ancestry, and in the past & present, being French is/was none too cool. Also I’m left-handed, and you know about the handednessism, to coin a word, that is rampant in our world today. I don’t care. I’m not changing.

While we’re at it, let’s look at the word “queer”. For ages, it was seen as the height of bad taste and insult to use this term to refer to homosexual men or women. Now there is a huge push to legitimize the term–but ONLY for use among persons attracted to members of their own gender!! Huh?

Lemme get this straight (no pun): We’re aiming at more integration, acceptance, blending of society, openness…but we’re going to use a former epithet among ourselves that will separate us from the 90+% majority who are still NOT allowed to use it–thus guaranteeing ourselves perpetual “outcast” status? This is monumentally unfair to the millions of heterosexual people who want to be accepting, but get assaulted every day with “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”, “Queer As Folk”, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,” etc. etc. etc. It’s like blacks calling themselves and each other “niggers” or “niggaz”. Revolting. Cut it out, or let everyone else do it and quit getting all hot under the collar over it.

Please?

Can someone parse hyjyljyj’s post for me. I recognize the words individually, but phrases like

make no sense to me.

[hijack]

I think that the Grandma theory about menopause has been kicked to the curb (or I haven’t heard of it for a while), once someone pointed out that women hit menopause in the 40’s-50’s, even tho Back In The Day, people only lived to be in their 40’s. And that a lot of mammals will hit menopause just before or just after their natural lifespan.

Am I right on this?

[/hijack]

Anyway, I’m bi (I figure you might want a bi account for some variety, heh), about 60% gay/40% straight.

I understand why I like women more than I like men. Women are so much prettier. I’m talking general layout of the body, not just the best-looking samples of each sex. I’d rather look at a nekkid woman than a nekkid man ANY DAY. When did I realize this? When I was about 14.

Anyway, it all just feels right. I think that’s probably the best answer anyone could give, straight, gay, bi, whatever. And that’s about the only explanation I’d need.