Reply to: How did "faggot" get to mean "male homosexual"?

As I have heard for the use of the word Fagot (or Faggot):

During Shakespearean times, there were no women actors; young men played the female roles, often wearing the period “ruffled collars” or “Fagots” (Faggots) as they were called. These actors were possibly referred to as Fagots (or Faggots), but were a respected part of the theater of the times.

Later, women began playing the female roles, and the use of the word “fagot” (faggot) at some point turned to it’s derogatory meaning, though coming from a prouder past.


LINK TO STAFF REPORT: How did “f-ggot” get to mean “male homosexual”? - The Straight Dope

Two things your post needs:[ol][li]A link to the column you (and we) are talking about, and[*]A link to something that supports your claim.[/ol]In other words, when come back, bring links.[/li]
Oh, and welcome to SDMB. :slight_smile:

I’ll add the welcome, realwyo, and I’ve put the link to the Staff Report at the bottom of your post. We like to do that when starting a thread, saves searching time and avoids people posting what’s already in the Staff Report.

Meanwhile, I’ll advise samclem, who wrote that Staff Report a few years back, and see what he has to say in response to your interesting suggestion.

Two problems–there is NO evidence that “ruffled collars” or any such outfits/stiching were referred to as “fagots/faggots” or anything similar before the 19th century. There is no print cite for these actors being called anything resembling “faggot/fagot.”

What I’ve heard is that, when first introduced, cigarettes (faggots) were considered a diminutive and fay substitute for the more robust, masculine cigars. If you smoked faggots, you were considered a bit less than a full-blooded male. Over time, the term for the smoke of choice transferred to the putative effeminate smoker.

No cite, though, and probably not right. If you’ve a yen for etymology, though, you may want to look in that direction.

No print cite? You mean word of mouth, passed down for generations, isn’t good enough for you? :slight_smile:

As far as anyone knows, the story given in the column is correct. I would only add that “faggot” or “faggoty” could also be applied to an animal that was being annoying, such as a cow standing in the road and blocking you.

The etymology of the word “faggot”, as I know it, falls back to when the word was a measuring unit for a bundle of sticks used to start a fire. Homosexuals were burned before witches during the Inquisition, thus they were considered “faggot for the fire”.

While I learned this in a college English class, I was actually able to find a cite.

http://www.viewaskew.com/newboard/messages286/620.html

That’s not a valid cite-that’s another anonymous poster repeating a story.

Well, yeah, you found a cite. But, your cite is bullshit! It’s someone’s opinion, and not a good opinion at that. Additionally, if you learned that in college English class, you need to examine other things you learned that may not be true.

Damn. Sorry. I didn’t really look very hard, honestly.

But the definition is a good one, (bundle of sticks used to as kindling) regardless of the accuracy of the story.

Yes, it was a bundle of sticks as far back as the 14th century. But the homosexual use of the term only occurs in the 20th century.

The usual version of the story that is given in the cite is merely ignorant, mixed up, and wrong. This version, on the other hand, is a flat-out lie from beginning to end. Give it a few more years, and it will probably ferment itself, first into stark madness, and finally into an effluvium of pure nonsense.