Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site nlm-mcs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!nlm-mcs!miller
From: miller@nlm-mcs.ARPA (Nancy Miller)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss,net.singles
Subject: Re: homosexual associations
Message-ID: <4608@nlm-mcs.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 12:11:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: nlm-mcs.4608
Posted: Wed Aug 29 12:11:22 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Sep-84 08:07:05 EDT
References: <4061@fortune.UUCP>
Organization: NLM/LHNCBC, Bethesda, Md.
Lines: 18

Frankly, the only reasons I can think of are habit and visibility.  It does
seem as though male homosexuals are more talked about.  Habit is because of this
and because of the misconception Trish stated that "homosexual" is taken to
refer to only males.  Correct me if I am in error, but I heard some years ago
that there are more male homosexuals than female ones.  If true, this may also
contribute to people's impressions.

I must add that I, too have used "homosexual" in context where I felt it would
be taken as referring to a male, whereas I usually refer to female homosexuals
as lesbians.  However, I believe that most people realize that "homosexuality"
can describe the persuasion (I couldn't think of a better word for it, offhand)
of both men and women.

In sum, I think people don't mean to offend by the usage of the word.  You have
the right to correct people on this.

Nancy Miller
(miller@nlm-mcs.arpa)