you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Clitorisk 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

I agree with GLAAD: homosexual is a very clinical term that reduces complex identities to sexual interactions with genitals. Being Gay/lesbian is more than genital interactions.

[–]reluctant_commenter 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Being Gay/lesbian is more than genital interactions.

Sexual orientation-- e.g. being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual-- is all about one's characteristic pattern of sexual arousal.

A heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual person is much more than simply their sexual arousal pattern. However, that's all that sexual orientation means.

[–]Clitorisk 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Which is why calling someone a homosexual is reductive.

[–]usehername 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Only to the extent that referring to someone as any other characteristic would be: "a blonde", "a brunette", "an Italian". Do you also take issue with these terms? Of course, a person is much more than the color of their hair or their nationality, but we refer to them using specific characteristics when it's relevant. For example, if you are describing someone's looks, you may call them a brunette. If you're talking about a person in the context of the politics in their country, you may refer to them by their nationality. When we talk about LGB in the context of "LGBTQ+", we may refer to LGB people as "homosexuals" in order to differentiate them from the rest of TQ+.

[–]reluctant_commenter 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Couldn't have put it better.