Bullying & Homophobia In Today's Youth

DingosAteMyBaby

Well I don't know if everyone has read about the recent disturbing trend of suicides amongst young males in the USA. 18 year old Tyler Clementi took his own life after his sexual encounter with another man was allegedly streamed online by his room-mate, who is now facing criminal charges for 'invasion of privacy'. Teenagers Asher Brown(13), Billy Lucas(15) and Seth Walsh(13) all took their own lives and were victims of homophobic bullying. There has been extensive media coverage on what is being called an "epidemic" by some and the LGBTQ-aimed non-profit organisation The Trevor Project has teamed up with a whole host of celebrities to promote the message "It Gets Better". MTV has also launched a "Love Is Louder" campaign endorse by celebrities to try and bring hope to victims of bullying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RKmnAJ3ZWM

Universal Studios has also opted to cut a scene out of a preview for upcoming film "The Dilemma" in which Vince Vaughan's character uses the word "gay" in a derogatory way.

In light of this massive exposure this issue is receiving across the pond, I was wondering what people think of this recent movement to tackle homophobic bullying and bullying general. Do you see it as an epidemic? Is it about time that the use of words/phrases in an insensitive manner is dealt with? Do you think homophobia and bullying are a serious problem in Ireland, particularly in todays youth? Is enough being done here, in schools, the media and social networking sites to prevent bullying?(not just of a homophobic nature)


Briefly(I've talked too long already), I think that the this media focus and widespread condemnation is long overdue. It is a well known fact that the suicide rate is higher amongst young gay males and it is about time that the mass media highlighted this. I that anti-bullying regulations should be more strictly enforced in schools and on social networking sites. More awareness needs to be created on the effects of bullying and more coverage is needed on where the victims can turn to if they need to talk/confide in someone.
I also support the clamp down the derogatory uses of the word "gay" etc. While they may be used innocently, the negative connotations associated with them can have quite an adverse affect on young people struggling with their sexuality.

jefreywithonef

DingosAteMyBaby wrote: »

I also support the clamp down the derogatory uses of the word "gay" etc. While they may be used innocently, the negative connotations associated with them can have quite an adverse affect on young people struggling with their sexuality.

Definitely. Infuriatingly, that adjective is probably the most common one used amongst my friends. Even went to the trouble of showing one a synonym list for the word 'bad'.

Black Swan

DingosAteMyBaby wrote: »

Well I don't know if everyone has read about the recent disturbing trend of suicides amongst young males in the USA.

This is not news or a trend, as bullying and teen suicides are an age old problem that the media has recently focused upon across the pond. As soon as the news media has exhausted their audience on this issue, they will move on, forgetting the problem for another. It's sad, but I doubt all the recent news will have a lasting impact or solution for the problem.

Jamie Starr

I don't want to wade into this argument too much, but I just thought I'd make a point- homophobic bullying shouldn't be attributed to just your standard yob or thick student- homophobia is rampant on a international, governmental and institutional scale. For example, if you're a man who has ever had sexual contact with another man, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service ban you for life from donating blood. Why? Because to even what we would assume to be "sophisticated society", you're automatically an AIDS-riddled monster who bleeds luminous pink acid. Makes you think.

KnifeWRENCH

First of all, thanks DAMB for posting about the "It Gets Better" project. It's a fantastic idea, and great to see celebrities like Chris Colfer and Neil Patrick Harris take part. It's also wonderful that straight celebrities are doing it too, like your man from Good Charlotte (who I can't stand but still it was good for him to do it.) Not too long ago, Anna Paquin (<3) came out as bisexual and tried encouraging others to come out. Even Joe McElderry coming out hopefully had a positive effect for someone out there and helped them to come out too. I love seeing stuff like that.

DingosAteMyBaby wrote: »

I also support the clamp down the derogatory uses of the word "gay" etc. While they may be used innocently, the negative connotations associated with them can have quite an adverse affect on young people struggling with their sexuality.

This is something that (I imagine) a lot of people are guilty of. I try to avoid using the word gay in a derogatory sense like that, but at the same time I never bat an eyelid if one of my friends does because I know they don't mean it maliciously or anything.
I guess it's something that applies to younger teens; they are likely to be more sensitive about it, especially as that's the age most people start coming to terms with their sexuality.

I suppose because I'm used to hearing it, it never bugs me. But it is only right that younger people should be discouraged from using it in that sense.

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

I don't want to wade into this argument too much, but I just thought I'd make a point- homophobic bullying shouldn't be attributed to just your standard yob or thick student- homophobia is rampant on a international, governmental and institutional scale. For example, if you're a man who has ever had sexual contact with another man, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service ban you for life from donating blood. Why? Because to even what we would assume to be "sophisticated society", you're automatically an AIDS-riddled monster who bleeds luminous pink acid. Makes you think.

This is something that does anger me a lot. I understand that blood needs to be tested rigourously, and that it would be a disaster if unsafe or infected blood got through the system. But a blanket ban on any male who has had sexual contact with another man is ridiculous and discriminatory. It's probably down to one of the (many) stereotypes stamped on LGBT people is that they're all promiscuous sluts who'll get the ride from anything that has a pulse. :rolleyes: Plenty of men out there are capable of monogamy and having safe sex.

Also, I'm not sure about this but if a woman has sex with a bisexual man is she also banned from giving blood?

DingosAteMyBaby

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

I don't want to wade into this argument too much, but I just thought I'd make a point- homophobic bullying shouldn't be attributed to just your standard yob or thick student- homophobia is rampant on a international, governmental and institutional scale. For example, if you're a man who has ever had sexual contact with another man, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service ban you for life from donating blood. Why? Because to even what we would assume to be "sophisticated society", you're automatically an AIDS-riddled monster who bleeds luminous pink acid. Makes you think.

Totally! I wasn't attributing homophobia to just young people, I was just putting a focus on it in light of the recent media attention. This thread is intended for the discussion of homophobic bullying amongst young people but that doesn't mean I was implying that the rest of the world isn't partaking in it!

DingosAteMyBaby

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

First of all, thanks DAMB for posting about the "It Gets Better" project. It's a fantastic idea, and great to see celebrities like Chris Colfer and Neil Patrick Harris take part. It's also wonderful that straight celebrities are doing it too, like your man from Good Charlotte (who I can't stand but still it was good for him to do it.) Not too long ago, Anna Paquin (<3) came out as bisexual and tried encouraging others to come out. Even Joe McElderry coming out hopefully had a positive effect for someone out there and helped them to come out too. I love seeing stuff like that.

Definitely a great idea, long overdue. Such overwhelming support and messages of hope from people in the public eye are bound to bring comfort to those who need it and hopefully bring awareness to the hardships faced by some people when growing up.

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

This is something that (I imagine) a lot of people are guilty of. I try to avoid using the word gay in a derogatory sense like that, but at the same time I never bat an eyelid if one of my friends does because I know they don't mean it maliciously or anything.
I guess it's something that applies to younger teens; they are likely to be more sensitive about it, especially as that's the age most people start coming to terms with their sexuality.

Yeah I totally agree, anytime some said it around me I barely noticed but I'll never forget when my firends little brother, who was around 8 years old at the time, described something as "totally gay". It worried me that it was being used by such a young person in quite a negative way. It just associates such negative connotations with the word and if people are using it in that fashion from such an early age then I can only imagine the detrimental effects it has on a young person who is already struggling with their sexuality.

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Also, I'm not sure about this but if a woman has sex with a bisexual man is she also banned from giving blood?

Yes, I believe this is true. It's ridiculous:rolleyes:

Banjo Fella

I'm sure most people don't have any sort of malicious intention when they use the word "gay" in a derogatory sense, but it still irks me whenever I hear it and it's so difficult not to call people out on it. It shouldn't be a synonym for "bad"... that's just so fundamentally wrong! There's nothing wrong about being gay, and allowing that usage of the word to be acceptable and ignored shows how deeply ingrained homophobic oppression is in society. I know it's only a small, semantic problem in the grander scheme of things, but it really sucks and it needs to change.

Chuchoter

I am offended when people use the word gay to say something is bad, and I do not take it in 'they mean something else'. I'd think less of them for it.

Frankly however, this 'it gets better' project is the preserve of upper middle class, white gay men in America. It doesn't get better for everyone, or at least not in the same way. The suicide epidemic among gay youth has been going on for years. They've always known that LGBTQ teens are three to four times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide.

Also, homophobia in Ireland is rampant not only among youth, but in pop culture, the media, the education system, the law and the government. It is not that young people are the last bastion of homophobia in super duper modern Ireland, it is just the most obvious.

Cavehill Red

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

For example, if you're a man who has ever had sexual contact with another man, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service ban you for life from donating blood. Why?

On this point, it's because homosexual men are many times more likely statistically to be carrying HIV or Hepatitis.
I'm not allowed to give blood either because I lived in the UK during the mad cow period and despite the numbers of people who contracted CJD being absolutely miniscule, there is a blanket ban on all donors who spent any length of time in the UK during that period.
One of these rules is reasonable, yet misinterpreted as bigotry. The other is preposterous, yet never gets commented on.

Jamie Starr

Cavehill Red wrote: »

On this point, it's because homosexual men are many times more likely statistically to be carrying HIV or Hepatitis.
I'm not allowed to give blood either because I lived in the UK during the mad cow period and despite the numbers of people who contracted CJD being absolutely miniscule, there is a blanket ban on all donors who spent any length of time in the UK during that period.
One of these rules is reasonable, yet misinterpreted as bigotry. The other is preposterous, yet never gets commented on.

I don't think anyone feels like they're being openly discriminated against with the CJD situation- I lived in the UK at that time too. It's the same for everyone- regardless of whether you're straight, gay or whatever label you're given- it doesn't determine who can or can't based on a statistic like "white upper middle-class eat more beef than lower class black people" etc. That's why it's not commented on, because it's fair.

Conversely, I don't believe it's remotely reasonable to assume that every gay man should be supposed as having AIDs. Statistics can be sorted out pretty quickly by way of a blood test- if you're totally clean of any disease, and still can't give blood because of your sexuality, there's something wrong. It's a bit like saying "You're black and so you're incapable of doing as well at school as a white person. (I'm sorry, it's true, good ol' statistics have robbed you of any individuality, so it's probably safer if you just sit at the back and shut up)".

KnifeWRENCH

crayolastereo wrote: »

Frankly however, this 'it gets better' project is the preserve of upper middle class, white gay men in America. It doesn't get better for everyone, or at least not in the same way. The suicide epidemic among gay youth has been going on for years. They've always known that LGBTQ teens are three to four times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide.

Not sure where you're getting this "upper class male" thing tbh. There are plenty of women who have submitted videos for it. It may not speak to you personally, but if the "It Gets Better" project helps just one young person out there, then it's definitely worthwhile. They're hardly going to release videos along the lines of "Era sure it'll probably get better like, but it may not and you may be miserable forever. Oh well..."
I think ANY effort made by anyone to help address the problem is commendable.

Also, homophobia in Ireland is rampant not only among youth, but in pop culture, the media, the education system, the law and the government.

Media - well I suppose certain newspapers are less receptive towards LGBT people (right wing, conservative ones like the Mail.) And I guess tabloids tend to focus on stereotypical camp guys/butch lesbians.

Law - civil partnership is a step up but still not marriage. It will be a long time before there's full equality in that sense, if it ever happens.

Government - Alas, our Tánaiste and Minister For Education is a renowned homophobe! This, when added to the number of gaffes she's made and her general incompetence, makes you wonder how someone so hopeless got to such a prominent position! :rolleyes: One slight positive is that the youth wing of Fianna Fáil is more open minded and progressive than the senior party; they recently produced a policy document arguing for gay marriage over civil partnership.
Fine Gael is founded on a Christian ideology, so I doubt they'd beaparticularly receptive towards LGBT people in Government. I don't think they'd ever want to venture beyond civil partnership.
Of the three main parties, Labour are by far the most "LGBT-friendly" (for want of a better term.)

Education system - not too sure how this is homophobic as such. Though I certainly don't remember any talks on LGBT issues or anything. It was kind of a non-issue in my school.

Cavehill Red wrote:

One of these rules is reasonable, yet misinterpreted as bigotry. The other is preposterous, yet never gets commented on.

It's no less preposterous to assume everyone who lived in Britain has CJD than it is to assume that every male who's had sex with another man is riddled with AIDS and other STI's. Both rules are preposterous; the fact you consider one to be reasonable and not the other baffles me tbh.

Cavehill Red

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

I don't think anyone feels like they're being openly discriminated against with the CJD situation- I lived in the UK at that time too. It's the same for everyone- regardless of whether you're straight, gay or whatever label you're given- it doesn't determine who can or can't based on a statistic like "white upper middle-class eat more beef than lower class black people" etc. That's why it's not commented on, because it's fair.

Of course it is discriminatory (as well as being entirely without necessity or justification.)
In addition to discriminating against British people, it also discriminates against Northern Irish people and Irish people who lived in Britain during that time, even though cases of CJD also occurred in the Republic. We are effectively blanket banned because we carry the taint of not having spent the entirety of our lives in the Republic.

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

Conversely, I don't believe it's remotely reasonable to assume that every gay man should be supposed as having AIDs. Statistics can be sorted out pretty quickly by way of a blood test- if you're totally clean of any disease, and still can't give blood because of your sexuality, there's something wrong. It's a bit like saying "You're black and so you're incapable of doing as well at school as a white person. (I'm sorry, it's true, good ol' statistics have robbed you of any individuality, so it's probably safer if you just sit at the back and shut up)".

Given the series of blood scandals we had in this country during the Eighties and Nineties, it is understandable that the IBTS is overcautious in relation to passing HIV and Hepatitis onto blood recipients.
It's a demonstrable fact that homosexual men have multiply higher rates of both these conditions. Perhaps if the rates of infection started falling among gay men instead of annually rising, there might be a stronger argument against a blanket ban from donation.

DingosAteMyBaby

crayolastereo wrote: »

Frankly however, this 'it gets better' project is the preserve of upper middle class, white gay men in America. It doesn't get better for everyone, or at least not in the same way. The suicide epidemic among gay youth has been going on for years. They've always known that LGBTQ teens are three to four times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide.

That is ridiculous, there is whole range of celebrities from different backgrounds after making "It Gets Better" videos. I'm 20 years old and perfectly happy and if I had seen one of those videos 4 or 5 years ago then I know it would've helped greatly because from my own personal experience it does get better. And yes, like I stated in the OP the suicide rates are much higher in LGBTQ teens, and it's about time people sat up and actively tried to do something to help. WOuld you rather they just be swept under the rug?

crayolastereo wrote: »

Also, homophobia in Ireland is rampant not only among youth, but in pop culture, the media, the education system, the law and the government. It is not that young people are the last bastion of homophobia in super duper modern Ireland, it is just the most obvious.

I completely agree, but as I stated above I started this thread as response to the recent suicides and subsequent media attention in America. These suicides were allegedly caused by homophobic bullying in school/college by their peers. I'm just concentrating on a specific area of society and one which people in this forum are a part of!

Chuchoter

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Not sure where you're getting this "upper class male" thing tbh. There are plenty of women who have submitted videos for it. It may not speak to you personally, but if the "It Gets Better" project helps just one young person out there, then it's definitely worthwhile. They're hardly going to release videos along the lines of "Era sure it'll probably get better like, but it may not and you may be miserable forever. Oh well..."
I think ANY effort made by anyone to help address the problem is commendable.

The man who started the It Gets Better project, Dan Savage, has made several racist comments in the past(he blamed prop 8 on black people), said the AIDS epidemic was over (well maybe for rich white guy, not sure about undereducated everyone else), biphobic and transphobic comments. He is not a very nice man, basically.

Although I do see where you are coming from in terms of no-ones going to make a video saying yeah in all likelihood you're life might not be perfect, I find these kinds of campaigns misleading and lead kids into a sense of false hope/security which makes them come out when they shouldn't come out (at school for instance). What I'm saying with upper class, white gay man is that out of all the queer spectrum, he has it the easiest. He runs the gay community and is the face of it. He is on TV the most and is the most accepted. As you move through into lesbians (lesbians are fairly under served as it goes in Ireland and most places- the main gay magazine GCN does not write about us, there are lesbian nights only because the rest of the week is dominated by gay men and their straight female friends, so on and so forth), bisexuals (nobody understands them, they get serious flac from gay and straight people), trans people and so forth things become increasingly more difficult. When you bring class, race and faith into the equation it is more difficult again. Of course things will get better for upper class white gay man, people like him because he goes shopping and is witty. He's not quite as offensive as trans or lesbian.

Media - well I suppose certain newspapers are less receptive towards LGBT people (right wing, conservative ones like the Mail.) And I guess tabloids tend to focus on stereotypical camp guys/butch lesbians.

Off the top of my head I can think of three rappers with clearly homophobic lyrics: Eminem, 50 cent and DMX, onto TV.

Ugly Betty-stereotypical gay characters
Corrie-stereotypical gay characters
Glee-stereotypical gay characters
Will and Grace-stereotypical gay characters
Sex and the City-stereotypical gay characters

Although you also have non stereotypical characters like Sian and Sophie on Corrie and Dr Torrez and Arizona on Greys Anatomy, they are always femme and in any case are outnumbered by the number of stereotypes on TV/Movies

Law - civil partnership is a step up but still not marriage. It will be a long time before there's full equality in that sense, if it ever happens.

Section 37 of the Equality Employment Act 1997 states that:

"a religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person . . . if it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution"

This basically says that I can be fired for being a lesbian. I want to be a doctor and work in a hospital, a large percentage have some kind of religious tie. Schools are even worse.

Government - Alas, our Tánaiste and Minister For Education is a renowned homophobe! This, when added to the number of gaffes she's made and her general incompetence, makes you wonder how someone so hopeless got to such a prominent position! :rolleyes: One slight positive is that the youth wing of Fianna Fáil is more open minded and progressive than the senior party; they recently produced a policy document arguing for gay marriage over civil partnership.
Fine Gael is founded on a Christian ideology, so I doubt they'd beaparticularly receptive towards LGBT people in Government. I don't think they'd ever want to venture beyond civil partnership.
Of the three main parties, Labour are by far the most "LGBT-friendly" (for want of a better term.)

This is the same government that spent the last 13 years battling Dr. Lydia Foy over her right to be legally recognized as a woman is it?

Education system - not too sure how this is homophobic as such. Though I certainly don't remember any talks on LGBT issues or anything. It was kind of a non-issue in my school.

But it should come up. It shouldn't be OK that SPHE does not deal with alternate sexualities at all. It should not be OK that I hear teachers making homophobic comments fairly regularly, notices for BeLonGTo's services are taken down, plays are cancelled for gay characters. It shouldn't be OK that I don't exist in my school. Was it a non issue for the gay kids I assure you were getting bullied for it?

KnifeWrench I'm not attacking you, assuming you are straight, I don't expect you to know any of this. I think its important that people gay and straight realize the giant obstacles we still have to overcome.

Jamie Starr

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Of course it is discriminatory (as well as being entirely without necessity or justification.)
In addition to discriminating against British people, it also discriminates against Northern Irish people and Irish people who lived in Britain during that time, even though cases of CJD also occurred in the Republic. We are effectively blanket banned because we carry the taint of not having spent the entirety of our lives in the Republic.

It's unfortunate, because it decreases the supply of blood to blood banks, but living in the UK during the BSE crisis is a circumstance subject to chance. Being homosexual isn't.

Given the series of blood scandals we had in this country during the Eighties and Nineties, it is understandable that the IBTS is overcautious in relation to passing HIV and Hepatitis onto blood recipients.
It's a demonstrable fact that homosexual men have multiply higher rates of both these conditions. Perhaps if the rates of infection started falling among gay men instead of annually rising, there might be a stronger argument against a blanket ban from donation.

My point is, while the CJD ban affects all people who have lived in the UK during the BSE period, when you blanket ban a select part of a community due to skin colour or orientation, something they can't change, it's wrong. The main problem lies with the blood tranfusions services: the means of testing blood for these diseases is there, and has improved dramatically, but most services are either too poorly funded, or lazy, to do it. The Red Cross have called the ban "medically and scientifically unwarranted". So where's the issue?

Anyway, I said I wouldn't wade, I'm done wading!

Regarding blood testing, there's no basis for discriminating against homosexuals at all. One type of HIV is spread more rapidly through homosexual intercourse and another is spread better by heterosexual intercourse.
Ban everybody having lots of sex, I say :rolleyes:

I don't see anything wrong with using the word gay in a derogatory way though - the meaning of the word is just morphing. It did used to mean 'happy', after all. A language is dictated by the people who use it. The unfortunate thing is that we don't have another non-scientific sounding word for gay people.
I try to avoid the word as much as I can, anyway.

Tragedy

I use gay a lot. I'll continue to use gay a lot, anyone who tells me I'm being homophobic, unintelligent or derogatory...well, I'll call them gay.

If you want to ban gay as a synonym for bad(seriously, when's the last time you heard someone use gay as a slur against someone who was homosexual? "Oh my god you're gay!" "Yes I am?" "Ok!" wow), ban gay as a synonym for homosexual too.
Words change over time, what gives LGBT groups the special right to deny that and try to stop it?

Chuchoter

Tragedy wrote: »

I use gay a lot. I'll continue to use gay a lot, anyone who tells me I'm being homophobic, unintelligent or derogatory...well, I'll call them gay.

If you want to ban gay as a synonym for bad(seriously, when's the last time you heard someone use gay as a slur against someone who was homosexual? "Oh my god you're gay!" "Yes I am?" "Ok!" wow), ban gay as a synonym for homosexual too.
Words change over time, what gives LGBT groups the special right to deny that and try to stop it?

My friends who are out at school get f@ggot/dyke shouted at them fairly regularly. When I came out to my parents, I had any number of horrible things said to me, which I don't think I'll ever forgive them for. I haven't heard a slur against a black person in a long time, so can I call my homework a n.igger?

No I can't. Because that would make me an asshole. Racism is just as bad as homophobia.

crayolastereo

crayolastereo wrote: »

My friends who are out at school get f@ggot/dyke shouted at them fairly regularly. When I came out to my parents, I had any number of horrible things said to me, which I don't think I'll ever forgive them for. I haven't heard a slur against a black person in a long time, so can I call my homework a n.igger?

No I can't. Because that would make me an asshole. Racism is just as bad as homophobia.

Gay has commonly become used as bad. You wouldn't call your homework such a thing because it doesn't have any meaning other than a slur against black people.

Actually offensive terms like f@ggot and dyke and discrimination against gay people is obviously horrible, because of the intent behind it. All language depends on context.

Tragedy

crayolastereo wrote: »

My friends who are out at school get f@ggot/dyke shouted at them fairly regularly. When I came out to my parents, I had any number of horrible things said to me, which I don't think I'll ever forgive them for. I haven't heard a slur against a black person in a long time, so can I call my homework a n.igger?

No I can't. Because that would make me an asshole. Racism is just as bad as homophobia.

Where's gay in all of that?

You must have forgot to put it in.

Let's be clear. When you use Jew as a pejorative, you ascribe a negative stereotype to someone(that of being a money obsessed cheap-assed backstabbing etc etc). When you drop the N bomb, you ascribe a negative stereotype to someone(the worst negative stereotypes of black people, that of them being a subclass/subhuman/whatever).
When you call someone or something gay, you aren't calling them a prancing fairy who practices sexual acts on men. You aren't. It has nothing to do with homosexuality and homophobia, and trying to censor the rest of the population because of LGBT activists hang-ups is absolutely ridiculous and disgraceful. People really need to find something better to be offended about.

unknown13

crayolastereo wrote: »

Section 37 of the Equality Employment Act 1997 states that:

This basically says that I can be fired for being a lesbian. I want to be a doctor and work in a hospital, a large percentage have some kind of religious tie. Schools are even worse.

The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (that was revised in 1993); States that no one can be fired purely because of their Sexual Orientation.

unknown13

unknown13 wrote: »

The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (that was revised in 1993); States that no one can be fired purely because of their Sexual Orientation.

Which takes precedence? The act crayolastereo mentioned seems to be more recent, but also quite general and non-specific.
Anyone wanna inform us?

wayhey

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

It's no less preposterous to assume everyone who lived in Britain has CJD than it is to assume that every male who's had sex with another man is riddled with AIDS and other STI's. Both rules are preposterous; the fact you consider one to be reasonable and not the other baffles me tbh.

"There is no test to determine if a blood donor is infected while in the latent phase of vCJD"

A guy I knew with a PhD in something to do with Biochemistry/Immunology told me before that CJD can just suddenly be "activated", at any time, years after eating infected meat. That quote above came from Wikipedia (yep, it's really reliable I know..). If we really can't test for CJD in blood then I don't think it's completely unreasonable to call the blanket ban. If it needs to be overturned because blood is running low, fair enough, but if not why run the risk?

Completely agree about the institutionalized homophobia. I know there's a principle there, but if it was me I'd just lie and give the blood anyway if I knew I was HIV-.

Chuchoter

unknown13 wrote: »

The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (that was revised in 1993); States that no one can be fired purely because of their Sexual Orientation.

This is a different thing. Since several institutions are catholic run, and since it is a sin to be gay, I am against the ethos of the institution, so I can be fired for that reason, or more simply just not hired. The LGBT branch of the INTO is always giving out about it, as it can still and is still used.

@Tragedy.
You're argument was that its ok to call something bad gay because gay people are no longer called names. I refuted that.

@ConnorStuff: The word gay has not evolved, its being misused. You could say it had evolved if it didn't mean homosexual anymore, but it does, and its really the only word going for homosexual. If you were a sexual minority, who wasn't out and everywhere you turn, coupled with your own self hatred, shame and trouble with family, you had you're friends calling everything that was **** gay how would you feel? Not great I'd say.

DingosAteMyBaby

Tragedy wrote: »

Where's gay in all of that?

You must have forgot to put it in.

Let's be clear. When you use Jew as a pejorative, you ascribe a negative stereotype to someone(that of being a money obsessed cheap-assed backstabbing etc etc). When you drop the N bomb, you ascribe a negative stereotype to someone(the worst negative stereotypes of black people, that of them being a subclass/subhuman/whatever).
When you call someone or something gay, you aren't calling them a prancing fairy who practices sexual acts on men. You aren't. It has nothing to do with homosexuality and homophobia, and trying to censor the rest of the population because of LGBT activists hang-ups is absolutely ridiculous and disgraceful. People really need to find something better to be offended about.

Well actually using the term "gay" with negative connotations could have a detrimental affect on young people struggling with their sexuality. It's associating their sexual orientation with something bad. It is an insult, end of. I agree that most people don't use it in an intentionally homophobic manner but perhaps it's about time that people just used another word that wouldn't be offensive or hurtful to anyone!

crayolastereo

crayolastereo wrote: »

@ConnorStuff: The word gay has not evolved, its being misused. You could say it had evolved if it didn't mean homosexual anymore, but it does, and its really the only word going for homosexual. If you were a sexual minority, who wasn't out and everywhere you turn, coupled with your own self hatred, shame and trouble with family, you had you're friends calling everything that was **** gay how would you feel? Not great I'd say.

There was a time too when gay meant both happy and homosexual. By your line of reasoning, using it to mean gay was 'misuse'.

Your other line of reasoning is really just ignoring context. You can tell by the way a person says the word; their tone, their inflections; which version they mean.
If you don't feel great when people use the word in that way, I'm sorry to hear that. I'd stop using it around gay friends if they raised the issue with me. I don't know a lot of gay people, but one of the few I do actually uses the word to mean '****' himself, so I'm certainly not going to use it full stop.

If using gay to mean '****' is wrong, then using the word f**k must be doing people who have sex wrong..?

tl;dr Words have multiple meanings - people use context to distinguish them.

Tragedy

crayolastereo wrote: »

Section 37 of the Equality Employment Act 1997 states that:

This basically says that I can be fired for being a lesbian. I want to be a doctor and work in a hospital, a large percentage have some kind of religious tie. Schools are even worse.

Firstly, isn't it the EEA 1998?
Secondly, it only applies to employment. They can choose not to hire you if they feel you will undermine their religious ethos(but they will need a good prima facie case that it would be true), they can't fire you for sexual orientation or religious faith - they can only discriminate at the interview stage.
Thirdly, this section targets people of different faiths far more than it does LGBT community, specifically because it qualifies the right to discriminate sexual orientation with "that the relevant characteristic of D is or amounts to an occupational qualification for the post in question."

How many cases of sexual orientation discrimination have you heard in schools/hospitals? Implying LGBT can't work in the majority of public services is quite a serious/damaging implication, and one that to my knowledge is broadly untrue.

But it should come up. It shouldn't be OK that SPHE does not deal with alternate sexualities at all. It should not be OK that I hear teachers making homophobic comments fairly regularly, notices for BeLonGTo's services are taken down, plays are cancelled for gay characters. It shouldn't be OK that I don't exist in my school. Was it a non issue for the gay kids I assure you were getting bullied for it?

Why should the majority be forced to learn it for a tiny minority? I have and had no interest in learning about it in school, why should I have to to suit the minority?

KnifeWrench I'm not attacking you, assuming you are straight, I don't expect you to know any of this. I think its important that people gay and straight realize the giant obstacles we still have to overcome.

Unfortunately, I'm firmly in the belief that while there are still large societal obstacles to overcome, the largest obstacle lies with the LGBT community seeing persecution and discrimination everywhere and acting accordingly.

Cavehill Red

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

It's unfortunate, because it decreases the supply of blood to blood banks, but living in the UK during the BSE crisis is a circumstance subject to chance. Being homosexual isn't.

Doesn't really make a difference, does it? It's still discriminatory. My blood is good enough for me to donate in Belfast but not in Dublin. Why? Because there's a whiff of the Brit about it. No science involved whatsoever. No rationale based on risk assessment.

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

My point is, while the CJD ban affects all people who have lived in the UK during the BSE period, when you blanket ban a select part of a community due to skin colour or orientation, something they can't change, it's wrong.

And why is it NOT wrong to blanket ban people on the basis of their nationality?

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

The main problem lies with the blood tranfusions services: the means of testing blood for these diseases is there, and has improved dramatically, but most services are either too poorly funded, or lazy, to do it. The Red Cross have called the ban "medically and scientifically unwarranted". So where's the issue?
Anyway, I said I wouldn't wade, I'm done wading!

As I said earlier, my issue is that the blanket ban on gay men donating gets discussed all the time, even though there is some legitimate rationale for it (scary rates of HIV and Hepatitis) whereas the ban on people who lived in the UK from donating never gets discussed at all.
There are hundreds of thousands of potential donors affected by the UK-related ban. Looking at things from the point of view of blood recipients, that's the ban that needs lifting first, because here is a cohort of many potential donors who have been banned only because they once lived outside the state.
The ban on gay men isn't based on their sexuality so much as on the rates of HIV and Hepatitis among that community. There's no ban on lesbian donors, after all. It's not a gay thing.
Is it an ignorant thing? Well, it was a blunt instrument introduced at a time of blood infection scandal. That time hopefully is past. I think it should definitely be reconsidered.
But my point is that sometimes gay people see discrimination where there isn't any, and they sometimes fail to see discrimination when it doesn't affect them.
This is a prime example of both.
Sorry for diverting the thread but this issue is close to my heart. On topic, I would say that I don't see a tremendous amount of homophobia, but I do still encounter quite a bit of ignorance out there among today's youth. My kid reports that the classmates don't pick on gay kids at all, but do use the term gay to mean rubbish, uncool or sad.

Tragedy

crayolastereo wrote: »

@Tragedy.
You're argument was that its ok to call something bad gay because gay people are no longer called names. I refuted that.

You didn't refute it, because I never said homosexual people are no longer called names.

Please quote me saying that, please please please? Or are you seeing LGBT discrimination even here?

@ConnorStuff: The word gay has not evolved, its being misused.

It's being misused by the LGBT community. Yes, yes it is.

You could say it had evolved if it didn't mean homosexual anymore, but it does

It didn't mean homosexual in the first place, and I'm sure there's a lot of people on this board who has memories of their grand parents using gay in the traditional sense and coming out with really inappropriate things as a result.

If you were a sexual minority, who wasn't out and everywhere you turn, coupled with your own self hatred, shame and trouble with family, you had you're friends calling everything that was **** gay how would you feel? Not great I'd say.

That's the persons hang-ups, not mine, not the other people saying gay, not the rest of societies.

So when a girl breaks up with her boyfriend and is completely devastated and depressed, no-one in society can mention the word boyfriend or relationship because she'll feel sh!t about herself?
It's the same logic, and it's the same oppressive censorship by a tiny minority.

unknown13

crayolastereo wrote: »

This is a different thing. Since several institutions are catholic run, and since it is a sin to be gay, I am against the ethos of the institution, so I can be fired for that reason, or more simply just not hired. The LGBT branch of the INTO is always giving out about it, as it can still and is still used.

I will believe this once it is backed up with a written, reliable and neutral source.