Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site emacs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!emacs!joe
From: joe@emacs.UUCP (Joe Chapman)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Gays, deafness, and problems of Linguistics
Message-ID: <105@emacs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Oct-85 13:58:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: emacs.105
Posted: Sat Oct 19 13:58:33 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 07:04:47 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Uniworks Inc., Wellesley, MA
Lines: 47

<>

In the Boston chapter of ``States of Desire'' Edmund White relates a
conversation he had over dinner which touched on the topic of deafness: 

    Why are there so many gay deaf people?  One theory: their
    deafness prevents them from being socialized into concealing
    their sexuality and so the natural incidence of homosexuality
    that would occur in any population becomes more evident.

I originally looked up this passage after reading Ray/Jason's posting on
careers; I was going to argue that we computer-gnurds are an arrogant
and talkative bunch, and so we resist being socialized into concealing
our sexuality, etc., etc.

In the midst of hashing over this and a few derivative notions, some
friends of mine turned the conversation back to the deafness theory; it
suddenly occurred to me that I've never seen the word ``homosexual'' in
American Sign Language.  When I talked with a deaf friend a few years
ago we invented a sign for ``gay''.  I believe the Jerry Falwell
interpreter spells the word, though I rarely tune in and have never
caught a really homophobic eisegesis.  Nothing, either, in the big
dictionary with every sign imaginable in it.

During the earlier discussions on the net about nomenclature, I believe
a few people made the point that the existence of precise terms and
definitions for minority groups is necessary for and evidence of
oppression of these groups.  It would seem to me that either I'm guilty
of spreading misinformation, or the possible explanation offered at Ed
White's dinner party could true at a cultural level in addition to the
individual explanation he offered.

Any comments?

[ If anyone's curious, the sign Pat and I used for ``gay'' was an
effeminate flick of the wrist:  hardly politically correct, but it lent
itself well to a common method of word-construction.  Words like
``king'', ``emperor'', and ``queen'' [regina] are signed with an
identical motion, but with the hand held in a position corresponding to
a different letter.  Our sign could be made with the hand in the L
position for ``lesbian'', or Q for ``queen'' [cinaedus], or C for the
verb ``to camp'', and I with my bad eyesight could follow it. ]

--
Joe Chapman	decvax!cca!emacs!joe	emacs!joe@cca-unix
	``Try a boy for a change.  You're a rich man.  You can afford
	 the luxuries of life.''  ---Mrs. Prentice, to her husband