Talk:gay

=2004=

Usage notes
Don we now our gay apparel

This appears to be less than straight forward and very Yoda-like.


 * Many gay people prefer not to be referred to by this noun, feeling that being known as "gays" depersonalises them and reduces them to little more than their sexual orientation. The terms they prefer use gay as an adjective only (as in "gay men").

I hardly think that the use of "gay" for homosexual can be considered slang anymore. It has become over the past 30 years the primary meaning of the word and today the previous meanings can be considered obsolete. "gay" as a synonym for "lame" or "boring" or "uncool" certainly should be labelled as slang.

I don't see any difference between meanings 3 and 4, 'homosexual' and 'pertaining to homosexuals'. We should combine them. The translations are all the same, too. RSvK 02:59, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The difference is slight but there is one. A "gay bar" is one intended for homosexuals but is not itself homosexual.  Some of the translations do differ - see the Finnish (assuming these are correctly numbered).  Some languages use a prefix for the "intended for homosexuals" sense but a separate word for the "homosexual" sense.  So I feel this distinction is justified. &mdash; Paul G 08:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that gay in (the former) definition 4 is an adjective at all. It is a noun. Consider something like salad dressing, which is a dressing intended for salads, but salad certainly isn't an adjective. Ncik 10 Mar 2005

"while others feel that political correctness is hindering the natural progression of the language."

Oh, honestly... If someone is so irked by the statement that a pejorative usage actually does offend the people it is intended to insult, as to raise the tired old bugbear of "PC"...  I suggest deleting the entire paragraph, and changing meaning 5 to indicate that it is pejorative slang, so that bigots may read this entry free from moral chastisement. Or would that yet be too "PC?" Baixue June 17th, 2005

Etymology
I've been looking up the etymology of the word. i don't see anything that supports the idea that it comes from gaudium--tho no one really knows and i didn't find anything that says the meaning homosexual comes from arabic and then french. i might not have looked in the right places so i didnt want to delete those statements. but if someone does get a chance to research some more that'd be great.

Arabic word
(Though the homosexual sense of the term is said to have come from an Arabic word via French.) 11 mar 2004

Funny, according to the archive on wikidtionary this sentence has been added the day of the terrorist attack in Madrid. I would like to know what is this arabic word.


 * [|Online etymology dictionary]


 * gay
 * 1178, "full of joy or mirth," from O.Fr. gai "gay, merry," perhaps from Frank. *gahi (cf. O.H.G. wahi "pretty"). Meaning "brilliant, showy" is from c.1300. Slang for "homosexual" (adj.) is first recorded 1951, apparently shortened from gey cat "homosexual boy," attested in N. Erskine's 1933 dictionary of "Underworld & Prison Slang;" the term gey cat (gey is a Scot. variant of gay) was used as far back as 1893 in Amer.Eng. for "young hobo," one who is new on the road and usually in the company of an older tramp, with catamite connotations. But Josiah Flynt ["Tramping With Tramps," 1905] defines gay cat as, "An amateur tramp who works when his begging courage fails him" Gey cats were also said to be tramps who offered sexual services to women. The "Dictionary of American Slang" reports that gay (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense since at least 1920. Ayto ["20th Century Words"] calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song "The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store," by U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays. The word gay in the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a gay house was a brothel. The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back to 1637. Gay as a noun meaning "a (usually male) homosexual" is attested from 1971.

=2005=

Archaic
Is the "happy, joyful, and lively" usage for gay archaic? 24 22:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it is. It still meant that less than fifty years ago. I'm going to remove the tags. --84.71.118.198 12:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why appending homosexuality to 'gay'; how did it come to that homosexuality was being placed under 'gay' term (with its foremost meanings of 'being lively, joyful, bright, merry')? Implying that not-gay men are then not-lively, not-bright, not-...? --193.95.200.174 08:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because homosexual is what it usually means in Modern English. It is rarely used in the meaning of joyful and merry anymore except in a few stock phrases and traditional songs, and even those are usually avoided because they tend to be misunderstood. —Stephen 08:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual as a medical term
I disagree that homosexual is a medical term. This word was the first word to be invented to identify gays, back in the 1860s. I feel that gays reject homosexual because it sounds too old-fashioned and old-school clinical (i.e. prior to the 1970s when homosexuality was technically considered a mental problem). The word used for gays in the medical community is Men who have sex with Men
 * That would be a phrase rather than a word, but I can see this may be intentful sarcasm. Ty 03:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not sarcasm, and that I phrase truly is a medical term (rather than a word as you duly noted); however, they're not exactly correct that "men who have sex with men" (MSM) in the medical community is the "[term] for gay"; the term means literally exactly what it says, no more or less. That person maybe was ignorant as to what the words "gay"/"homosexual" actually mean; believe it or not, some folks do think that it literally means anyone that ever does anything with the same sex ever in their life... 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:8C1F:9EF9:22CB:BDB2 18:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

=2007=

"Pejorative"?
I feel like adjectival sense 6 doesn't say quite what it's trying to. Firstly, it's labeled "pejorative", which seems very obvious from its content (is there a non-pejorative way to call someone annoying, boring, negative, or unappealing?); I think the intent was to indicate that it's an offensive extension of senses 3–5, but it's too much to expect the word pejorative to convey this. Secondly, I don't think the word means "disliked" in any real sense; to call something gay is to express one's own dislike for it, certainly, but that's really not the same as saying that it's disliked. I think the solution to this is to completely remove the content of the sense, and only give a label; perhaps something like the following:


 * 6. (By extension) (offensive) used to express dislike.

Thoughts? —RuakhTALK 05:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely Ruakh...
 * I don't. Part of what a dictionary does is mark the obvious, which is why dictionaries are gay. I think marking it vulgar slang or slang alone is fine.  Compare lame.--Halliburton Shill 01:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh? Are you saying you want to change it back to how it was when I posted my comment? At the time, it read thusly:
 * 6. (pejorative) (slang) Annoying, boring, negative, unappealing; disliked.
 * —RuakhTALK 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but it's more pejorative than it is offensive. I'm saying that the "offensive" is over-doing it and vulgar may be a better alternative.  It seems to be less offensive than being called lame, which is more like being called gay and a poser simultaneously.--Halliburton Shill 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! We've been mis-communicating. The term is offensive in that it's offensive to gay people to use a term for us as a generic pejorative. I see how that could be confusing, though; can you think of a less ambiguous sense label for that? —RuakhTALK 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I was going to ask you. The thing is that gays, at least from the references provided so far, have no problem with and may even like the sense.  My opinion is basically formed from how we've marked other terms. Nigger is marked normally offensive, often vulgar.  Poser is (maybe was as I think I'm about to change it) marked derogatory (maybe pejorative would be better there as it's not applied to a fixed group but to anyone). Faggot (including fag), the equivalent for gays of calling someone black a nigger, is marked only as pejorative. Fairy and queer are marked as derogatory (and probably are offensive 90% of the time to gays). Bitch is marked as derogatory, vulgar, and slang, son of a bitch as pejorative slang, redneck as slang, motherfucker as strongly vulgar. Spic is marked derogatory and an ethnic slur, but not offensive. Chink is marked as an ethnic slur and pejorative slang, but not offensive. Nip is marked as ethnic slur, but derogatory and not as slang or offensive. I guess I'm saying from this brief study that there's a lot of inconsistency in Wiktionary in how words I view as worse than gay and as easy candidates for offensive are marked.  All slurs, racial or otherwise, should at a minimum be marked derogatory or pejorative, and probably vulgar.  Whether they are derogatory seems to depend on whether it includes a group by definition.  Whether they are offensive or not seems to depend more on the perception of the group that's at the receiving end.--Halliburton Shill 11:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "The thing is that gays, at least from the references provided so far, have no problem with and may even like the sense.": Eh? I can't speak for anyone else, but I find it offensive when people treat the word gay as an insult, because what they're really doing is using the word in sense 3, and consider it an insult to call someone homosexual. I think that the reference provided implicitly recognizes that it's offensive to use the word gay as an insult, because otherwise it would be meaningless to speak of "reclaiming" the phrase. It's like how the n-word is offensive, but black people have reclaimed it, and some use it among themselves both as a compliment and as an insult.


 * Re: "I guess I'm saying from this brief study that there's a lot of inconsistency in Wiktionary in how words I view as worse than gay and as easy candidates for offensive are marked.": Well, is this inconsistency a problem? As long as each is labeled acceptably, even if different acceptable labels are used, I think that's fine. (Consistency would of course be preferable, but would probably require a Beer parlour discussion, and I'm currently getting a bit sick of those; recently they've tended not to accomplish much, either because people don't participate, or because people dig in their heels.) - RuakhTALK 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (moving back to the left...) Alright, I think I see what you're saying. If John calls Richard (a random heterosexual person) gay due to Richard being totally lame, John doesn't mean it as an offensive (ie, ‘I'll never speak to you again!’) remark, and Richard doesn't take it that way; it's only mildly negative &mdash; hence the label pejorative. However, it is offensive to the homosexual community if John uses the word in the described manner, because it equates gay (= homosexual) with stupid, lame, bad, unwanted, disliked, etc. Personally, I think that the context labels in the definitions of words should reflect their immeadiate connotations, whereas wider implications should go in usage notes. So, what do the two fo you think of giving the definition ‘ # An adjective used to express dislike of something. ’ (re-written as such, by the way, because our current definition suggests that a ‘gay film’ is a ‘film used to express dislike’!), and then pointing out in a usage note that this usage is offensive to homosexuals? — Beobach972 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes to the definition, no on the usage note, at least as worded. I'm not aware of gays requesting that "gay" no longer be used as a generic pejorative.  It hasn't been cited yet anyway.  I agree with Ruakh in principle that it would seem potentially offensive and at least derogatory, but that doesn't apppear to be the case.  Marking it as pejorative slang, however, is enough warning to lamers that they probably don't want to use it that way in court or a job interview.--Halliburton Shill 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, but "gay" isn't a noun meaning "An adjective used to express dislike of something", either. If we're just going to describe the sense (as I originally thought necessary; see above), then I think an italicized Used to express dislike is sufficient. That said, it does seem possible to define the sense as something like "Lame, uncool, crappy", and I think that's probably the ideal. As for the sense label, I really don't think it's necessary to label a term "pejorative" whose definition makes that clear. The label "pejorative" is really mostly useful for something like the n-word, where the (ordinary) definition is simply "black person"; it's not a pejorative because of its definition, but because it's a pejorative word with that definition. (That said, I don't particularly object to labeling it such, if you think we should.) And as for the usage note, it's probably best to say that this use can be offensive to homosexuals. As the Salon.com article notes, some urban gays and allies had started to reclaim the term in 2000, but that's not (in my experience) its most common use, and I'm sure that even those people who have reclaimed it would be offended if they heard someone use it and mean it — in the same way that blacks who have reclaimed the n-word would still be offended if they heard a white person use it pejoratively. (By the way, in comparing this use to the n-word, I'm in no way claiming that it's as offensive; I'm just drawing a comparison to a clearer-cut case.) —RuakhTALK 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, another thought would be to define it as disliked by the speaker or such. Or dislikable (hmm, on second thought, maybe not). — Beobach972 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the pejorative label, I almost agree with you &mdash; but then, I suppose there are non-pejorative ways to express dislike. You actually make this point (‘it's not a pejorative because of its definition, but because it's a pejorative word with that definition’) with regard to nigger... John could say Richard and his disagreeable suggestions! or Richard and his gay suggestions!, but one of those sentences is pejorative (and if you were a non-native speaker who had never before encountered the sentences, you couldn't figure out which one). To address Halliburton Shill's concerns: if we don't include a pejorative tag, I think the slang tag will alert speakers to the term's register, and stop them from using it in a job interview. (Sorry, I forgot to sign both paragraphs. — Beobach972 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Re: the "pejorative" label: I'm not sure I see the difference; "Richard and his disagreeable suggestions!" also seems to be "disparaging" and "belittling" — to use terms from our definition of pejorative. (I'd also say it's "derogatory" in the traditional sense, but that word has taken on connotations of bigotry or chauvinism, and disagreeable does not fit that bill.) If you see a difference, though, then I must reiterate that I really don't object to a "pejorative" label, it just seems unnecessary to me. —RuakhTALK 03:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagreeable is disparaging, and perhaps belittling, but gay is somehow more so... disagreeable doesn't exactly merit a disparaging label, because it's a formal word (and therw isn't a non-disparaging way to disparage somebody), but gay might &mdash; or perhaps all of the connotations are covered by slang. I'm indifferent but could support including the pejorative label, and Halliburton Shill has included it, so I suppose we'll leave it. — Beobach972 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed for now. I'm not 100% on pejorative.  It may be that slang is enough, but I guess the point is that it's being used outside it's standard meaning and in a negative way.  In terms of connotations/usage, it's more like a statement that the gay thing has something wrong with it as opposed to perception only.  Check out ghey, which I noticed browsing Category:Pejoratives.--Halliburton Shill 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I do find it amusing that no one of us is really in support of the pejorative label, yet we seem to agree on placing it there... :-p heh. — Beobach972 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job on the example sentence for the disliked sense, Halliburton Shill. I've added a ‘translation’ of sorts, like we do for foreign language quotations, to address (my own) concerns about misunderstanding of the definition. I've also added the more gay adjective forms to the entry, on the model of homosexual, after verifying that they are in use (NB: for all senses, not just the homosexual sense). — Beobach972 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Should we semi-protect this entry? (Then users would have to register and log in in order to edit it.) The Protected page guidelines say that "unless there is good reason to protect a page, it should be unprotected"; I'm not sure if "vandalized by anons about once a week" is a good enough reason, especially since anons (possibly guests from the other Wiktionaries) do occasionally help by adding translations. Any thoughts? —RuakhTALK 02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The definiton is fixed enough and the abuse, though almost always silly and obvious, is frequent enough that if it's annoying you enough to ask because of the reversions necessary, semi-protect. It's probably too much to create some sort of guideline, but for articles that are essentially finished and the targets of those that should be spending a lot more time reading than writing, I support semi-protecting them all.--Halliburton Shill 06:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, unlike at Wikipedia, no entry here will ever be "finished", because there are thousands of languages we'd need to add translations for. —RuakhTALK 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I say don’t protect, for two reasons : firstly, as you said, anonymous contributors do add useful, helpful information; secondly, making the vandals log-in wouldn't help, because as it is, we can block the IP addresses for a few days and (I believe, but I could be wrong) prevent them from creating accounts to continue vandalising stuff, whereas a user whose username is blocked can (again, I could be wrong) log-out and create another. (The first reason should be enough to leave the article unprotected.) As for vandalism concerns : currently, the vandalism is easy to revert, so I don't think it merits protection... if editors were vandalising this article every five minutes, I'd be of a very different opinion. — Beobach972 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K., I'm convinced. Thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 20:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

=2010=

Dated and slang
I noticed that some of the older uses of the term are tagged 'dated', as to imply they are not in use. One thing I found about the emergence of the pejorative use of 'gay' was that it seems the larger populace was trying to find uses for the term of their own volition outside of homosexual reference. I believe this includes (perhaps in a whimsical fashion) the resurgence of the use of traditional definitions such as happy as people take an interest in the etymological roots.

I believe we may be making terms seem more outdated than they actually are by the age of some of the reference, like going back to the 1800s, when clearly Fred Estaire was in the 'Gay Divorcee' so it was still in use in the traditional fashion for some time prior to the sexual revolutions of the 60s/70s. Furthermore I am wondering: when the term 'gay' initially developed as a positive expression of self-identification for the homosexuals, wouldn't it have been slang? Do we not consider the application of gay to homosexuality slang anymore because it has been use for so long? What I am wondering is, how do we determine what the Wiktionary policies should be in terms of how long and how popular slang must become before we consider it a standard part of the language and not slang anymore? I imagine there might be people who would contest both adding 'slang' (indicating newness or improperness' to the third numerical bullet (homosexuality) but that I would similarly face opposition adding 'outdated' to it. It seems like a complex issue: how long do we need to observe the pejorative use of 'gay' until that ceases to be slang and becomes as valid a use for the word as homosexual? Ty 03:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

=2012=

Footnote
The second footnote for the adjective is too long, so i think it should be shortened. Also the footnote makes stereotypes and generalized sweeping statements which can be offensive to some. I will make an edit to address that. Pass a Method (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not a footnote, it is an example of usage. It does not matter if an example makes stereotypes or sweeping statements, or even if it is offensive to some. It is only there to serve as an example of how the word is used in that sense. —Stephen (Talk) 08:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually it does matter if it uses stereotypes or is offensive to some. Should we illustrate women with a sentence "Women are generally less intelligent then men."? Why we need made-up sentences to illustrate when we could and should have citations in their place is beyond me, but if we are to have example sentences, they must be good examples, and the instant you've offended the reader or made them start arguing with your example, you've distracted them from their usage of the dictionary. Unlike a citation, you can't distance yourself from an example; a Wiktionarian wrote it, and other Wiktionarians didn't edit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks prosfilaes for seeing my point. Pass a Method (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And the offensive stereotype would be what, exactly? (BTW, you've repeatedly edited this page to try to introduce the term . That seems to have been your main goal. If you give up on that, then I for one will be much more inclined to listen to any other points you might have.) —Ruakh TALK 13:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The stereotype is that young people today would rather end up as domestic partners. That is an offensive stereotype to me. 78.144.245.127 06:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see where you're getting that from. The sentence mentions neither "young people" nor "domestic partners", and the whole sentence is about how not everyone is doing the same thing — almost the exact opposite of a stereotype.
 * That said, I'm not terribly attached to the sentence. As I recall, my main goals when I wrote it were something like (1) to exemplify the phrase gay wedding, whose entry was being discussed at RFD (and was soon deleted — see Talk:gay wedding); (2) to exemplify both the phrase gay and lesbian and the word gay alone, to drive home the point (made in the definition) that this sense of gay sometimes means same-sex and sometimes means both-male; and (3) to exemplify some common modificand of gay and lesbian. I still think that those are all good goals for an example sentence for this sense, and I'd prefer that if it's changed, the new sentence fulfill those goals as well; but I'm open to other ideas for what the sentence should do instead. There are always trade-offs; a single sentence can never do absolutely everything we might want.
 * —Ruakh TALK 13:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost every edit that "Pass a Method" makes is to promote his own view or to (silently, without warning) remove any legitimate content that opposes his view. He is dangerous and I agree with his block. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Equinox, i mainly discourage the use of the word "straight" because it indirectly implies that gays are crooked. I have actually seen people use it in that way. Not sure how you could interpret that as a dangerous view. Pass a Method (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What would you think if I decided that the work gay is offensive (because it implies that heterosexuals people aren’t ), and started changing every occurrence of the word gay to homo? You can’t just decide out of the blue that something is offensive and start changing it. It might be, I don’t know, but at least discuss in the Beer Parlour. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats actually a good point you made there. Hadn't thought of it that way. Pass a Method (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RFV
"Sexually promiscuous (of either gender)" was added as a definition of gay recently. I suspect that even if there is a citation or two, they can be interpreted as a use of another sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can it really? Being promiscuous and being homosexual are not the same thing. On the other hand there seemed to be quite many "homosexual" senses. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably should wait to see the citations before questioning them; there may be some perfectly clear citations here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added some citations that I think cover this. I also found a nice citation that points to the origin of this sense at . But at this point, the meaning is still along the lines of "filled with joy." Is there a way to include this to illustrate how the meaning changed? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Passed. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

=2013=

70s
Was reading here:
 * The use of "gay" in this particular way was first recorded at the end of the 1970s and developed among US high school students, says Mr Throne. It's not only youngsters in the UK who have recently adopted it, the same has happened to the German equivalent, schwul, he adds.

Not sure who Throne is, only mentioned once, but this "first recorded" thing interests me. I'm wondering if we could get more info like a specific date. This is for gay number 7 (pejorative) either 1 or 2, not sure. We're really lacking of literary examples of the pejorative used in this non non-sexual schoolyard fashion, with earliest being late 90s rather than 70s. Etym (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (It's Thorne, not Throne.) He comments in the article that "every generation grows up with a whole lexicon of homosexual insults, in my day it was 'poofter' or 'bender'" &mdash; so it seems he agrees about the origins not being from the "merry, happy" sense. Equinox ◑ 22:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this really dated?
Under English - Etymology 1, on definition #4, is it really true that calling something "gay" instead of "uncool" or "lame" is a dated use of the word? I personally find myself using it, and I have seen many others use it, especially on YouTube.

RudeGuyGames (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate this usage but still, I think it is current. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a bit less common now because of more awareness of its being offensive (like "retard"), but yeah, still seems current. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

=2015=

dated: Gay = LGBT (sic including the T)
Publications in the 1960s and 1970s described a number of things (e.g. Stonewall, Stormé DeLarverie) as "gay", and Wikipedia in its articles on these subjects has footnotes saying "at the time, gay was used to refer to the entire LGBT movement"; particularly in the case of Stonewall, it seems to have included not only homosexual people and transgender/genderqueer people but even transvestites. Accordingly, this sense had been in the entry: #  Homosexual or gender-nonconforming; of or pertaining to homosexuals, transgender and genderqueer people, or transvestites. However, Stormé is lesbian (so calling her "gay" is plausibly interpreted as just the "homosexual" sense). - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Stephan Cohen's 2007 The Gay Liberation Youth Movement in New York: ‘An Army of Lovers Cannot Fail’ ISBN 1135905681 has a quote from Sylvia Rivera which it explicitly says uses this sense:
 * "'If you want Gay Power, then you're going to have to fight for it. And you're going to have to fight until you win.' For Rivera, 'gay' meant non-heteronormative (or 'queer' in today's lexicon), crossing sexual and gender boundaries to include lesbians, gay men, and transvestites, as well as the street youth who had participated in Stonewall[.]"
 * - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Related to this is the tendency of many bisexuals to describe themselves as gay (as well as as bi); here too the term is being used broadly. But finding unambiguous citations is difficult. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Tentatively added as usage notes: diff. - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Offensive!
Definition 4.4 of 1.2.1 is very offensive, and I'd appreciate it if that was removed.

VirgoRetti (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)VirgoRetti


 * I do not understand what you mean by 4.4 of 1.2.1. What does the definition say? In any case, offensiveness is not relevant. If the definition is correct, and if it is properly written, then it has to stay. The only reason for removal is if the definition is incorrect. —Stephen (Talk) 13:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the table of contents, it's "In accordance with stereotypes of homosexual people:" We don't remove definition based on a single user's personal opinion. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Imagine dictionaries conforming to every reader's 'likes' and 'dislikes'. I suggest that you instead create a blog to spread your Orwellian political correctness. --82.209.248.78 18:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point; However, is that really even a definition, or an insult? Are people who use that definition really calling people "gay," or are they just insulting people, as done in the fifth definition of that adjective? VirgoRetti (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)VirgoRetti


 * Saying that something is "in accordance with stereotypes of homosexual people" is not the same thing as holding those stereotypes to be true. It isn't insulting, but a neutral observation. Equinox ◑ 00:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * However, the only citation currently under that sense looks like it's just using the usual sense, "homosexual", and indeed could be replaced by "homosexual". Perhaps an RFV is in order? Or RFD? Calling someone "X" even though they're technically not "X" seems like a broad phenomenon; compare (Drake, etc); we don't have a sense at black for "in accordance with stereotypes of black people". You can even apply it to people who are "X";, . - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that after reading the two previous replies I may be starting to realize why that definition is still there; You're saying that that definition, along with that of "black," generally means "appears to be," right? Well, I checked the definition of definition, so that is the meaning of "gay" according to who? Honestly, do you think anybody actually says that without intending to be offensive or insulting?


 * If words were removed for being insulting, then we wouldn't have fuckwit or shithead either. They're words that exist. We are making a list of words that exist. Equinox ◑ 11:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that wasn't my point. If that definition is insulting, isn't is just the same as the fifth definition? VirgoRetti (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)VirgoRetti

RFV discussion: September–November 2015
Rfv-sense "fun, fabulous, tasteful; fashionable."

These are all stereotypes of gay men, but that doesn't automatically make "gay" a synonym of "fashionable", any more than No Sex Please, We're British makes "British" a synonym of "sexually repressed". The two citations given both seem to refer to gay men (the Lewis Black quote specifically refers to "queers") – are there are any hits where it doesn't mean "homosexual"? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With a fair bit of digging, I found the edit where this was introduced. I've left the user a message but he/she has no edits since 2013 so I'm not optimistic of a reply. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. The usex "her decor is quite gay just in time for the new season" looks more like the "gay old time" (joyful / festive) sense. The two citations just seem to mean homosexual, as noted above:

- -sche (discuss) 17:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Robin Williams.
 * ‘We had gay burglars the other night. They broke in and rearranged the furniture.’
 * 2000's, Lewis Black.
 * Maybe there's a group of gay bandidos. They travel from village to dell. And as night falls, they travel to that cul-de-sac, where only one house stands. And in the window, you see a family, just setting down to their evening meal. And these queers... these queers... don their black hoods, and matching pumps, very tasteful.

= 2016 =

overestimation of importance
Hello, guys! Are you completely sure that this article needs such a long etimology section and two pictures as illustration? 87.97.82.123 22:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. DTLHS (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

= 2018 =

Archaic?
Hi,

I reckon that the "Happy" and "Brightly coloured" senses now fit our definition of archaic. They may have still been in use as late as the 1960s or even the 1970s, but they have totally dropped out of use very, very quickly since then. In my experience, very few dare to use these senses any more, and when they are, it evokes an earlier time. What do others think? Adam9007 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This was discussed some years ago at, above. I don't know if they're archaic or just dated. Some dictionaries I checked label those "older" senses, others put no restrictive labels on them. I note that Appendix:Glossary holds them up as 'textbook' examples of "dated" terms. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually think that most of those dictionaries are out of date. Heck, the Oxford English Dictionary still lists "strange" as the primary meaning of queer, and with no temporal labelling to boot! I've had several incidents over on Wikipedia about using this word in those senses (on my user pages and talk pages), and at one point, an editor there suggested I should have been indefinitely blocked for that alone. It's therefore abundantly clear to me that, on Wikipedia at least, these senses are more than merely dated (by our definition). and  are 2 editors who have been involved in said incidents (pinging them in case they have something to say about this). I never thought that it would cause such a fuss, but it did. I am therefore forced to conclude that these senses are too old-fashioned to safely use these days, especially on the web. Even in real life, my family disapprove of my use of this word in those senses: they consider it inappropriate in this day and age. The Oxford English Dictionary and others may be decades out of date, but that doesn't mean we have to be. And my research online strongly suggests that most people consider "gay" to mean only homosexual these days, which reinforces my belief that archaic is the better tag to use, as dated implies that it's still okay to use. I personally believe that they're still okay to use, but it's not what I think that counts.  Adam9007 (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have some idioms where I wouldn’t call it archaic “We had a gay old time”. I’d consider its usage outside of specific phrasing like that to be archaic, or, at least you’re going to be shocking people by using it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If older people still use it in this sense (which I haven't heard), or if younger generations still understand it that way in context, then I would be inclined to call it dated. Otherwise, I would say it's archaic or archaic and literary (if it's still used by modern poets, for instance). Another possibility is to label it dated and have a usage note explaining that it is virtually unused even by older speakers, due to the more modern connotations of the word. There's also the possibility that the sense of "vibrant, bright" is still used in reference to inanimate things (e.g. "gay colours") but the "happy" sense is archaic. (Tony's example of "we had a gay old time" would probably not be heard in North America, so there may be a pondian difference as well). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One further point to keep in mind is that marking something "archaic" implies that it faded out of use some time ago. I think the average user, seeing that, would think we meant something like "this hasn't been in regular use in 100+ years," which is clearly not the case. I think if people who are still alive can remember it being regularly used, it probably shouldn't be marked archaic. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with our definition of archaic is that it doesn't specify how long ago it must have fallen out of use: it just says no longer in general use. I don't think anyone, including those who grew up with these meanings will disagree that they have fallen out of general use, even if recently (by linguistic standards). The earlier discussion (which was well over a decade ago) says 50 years, and we are definitely approaching that. From what I understand, those who still believe that gay can mean happy or brightly coloured (I'm one of them) are a tiny minority. Also, our definition of archaic doesn't necessarily mean it is no longer understood (we have the "obsolete" tag for that), just no longer used. I have no proof of this, but I daresay most younger people (especially those of Generation Z and newer) will misunderstand statements like "this game has gay graphics" if gay here means brightly coloured: they will very likely take that to mean the pejorative meaning. Adam9007 (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * THE QUESTION as put - "Are the senses "happy, joyful, and lively" and "festive, bright, or colourful" dated, or archaic?", and where Archaic has the meaning "No longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts that aim for an antique style, like historical novels or Bible translations.".
 * With respect, I'd say that this is still a premature notion. In my usage, "Gay" has not exhausted its sense related to those states listed in the first sentence, to the point that the sentiment "Gay" could reasonably be considered to be "archaic"; That said however, of course the Glossary already asserts "Gay" is "Dated" as in - 'Formerly in common use, and still in occasional use, but now unfashionable; .. and gay in the sense of "bright" or "happy" are all dated. Dated is not as strong as archaic or obsolete.'  So, I reckon that the Answer to the original muddled Question is already - 'Yes, dated in part; but mostly No, not archaic'. That was because those "Gay" senses of being classed as "dated" were nominated first, but being "dated" is weaker than its being deemed "archaic".  Of course "Gay" is not at all Obsolete. Obs. Being - 'No longer in use, and (of a term) no longer likely to be understood. Obsolete is a stronger term than archaic, and a much stronger term than dated.' Context still give the word's sense. A quite recent example is to be found in "Why is this page so colourful and gay?", which use is not at all 'dated', seemingly. (source Adam9007 in wikipedia)


 * That sounds dated to me, and the user Adam9007 seems to have a vendetta about making this word "not dated"; see his edits. Equinox ◑ 12:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the label to "dated, possibly archaic", which seems to cover the range of possibilities, as there have been reasonable arguments that it is only dated and reasonable arguments that it is archaic. - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

= 2019 =

Adjective: spotted
We do have a sense "festive, bright or colourful" but Chambers 1908 also defines it as "(prov.) spotted" where prov. means provincial, i.e. regional dialect. I wonder if that's truly separate. Equinox ◑ 03:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gamilaraay etymology
How is that an etymology? Should it just be deleted? 2WR1 (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

= 2020 =

gay woman, gay man, gay house
GAY has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel https://www.wordreference.com/definition/gay --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * These are mostly covered by our current sense 3, which I expanded to mention prostitution. On the subject of other meanings: Patridge's Routledge Dictionary of Historical Slang and Farmer's Slang and Its Analogues Past and Present (1893), page 126, has "gay it" as 19th and 20th century slang for "have sex" (I could only find two citations), and Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2006), page 450, has some examples of "(all) gay" to mean "(all) serene, correct, excellent". - -sche (discuss) 06:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

very
The use in Scotland and Northern England as an intensifier is NOT obsolete. As the page is locked, I can't change this, but please delete "probably obsolete" from Adjective sense 8 and from the adverb. Here is a current source for the adverb: That transcription is available on-line as a PDF, but for some reason Wikipedia is blocking me from posting the URL. If you google "It’s gay cold out there" (with the quote marks) you'll get it as your first hit. Please note also that in Scotland when gay is used in this sense, it is pronouced /gaɪ/, or at least, that's the way we always say it in Glasgow. Thanks. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2017, Joe: It’s gay cold out there, eh? Miro: Sorry, Joe, can you repeat that, please? Joe: I said it’s ‘gay cold out there’ – it means it’s very cold, like. (From the textbook English for Health and Socal Care Workers (see p. 3 of the transcription of listening exercises).
 * I might add, in that quote the word "like" does not sound Scottish, so I suspect this is a northern English speaker. You will find almost the same sentence in this Cumbrian glossary: https://www.cumbriandictionary.co.uk/. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And if I had just read the thing properly I would already have known that that speaker is from Newcastle.--Doric Loon (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've removed "possibly obsolete" from the label. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

=2021=

same sex, same gender
, I see that there's been some back-and-forth on the wording of a couple senses between "attraction towards members of the same sex" vs. "attraction towards members of the same sex or gender". I would suggest that, (assuming -sche isn't satisfied by the explanation in the edit summary of the latest revert), it would be good to have a discussion about this before any further reverting.

I'm personally not a fan of the "sex or gender" wording, but would be happy with either "members of the same sex" or "members of the same gender" (I think most lay readers would take this to mean the same thing). I've looked at our entries for sex and gender, and the Wiki article they point to at. That article equates "sex" with "the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics". So, if we use that definition, and further define gay as "attraction towards members of the same sex or gender", would that mean that it's correct to call a man gay because he's attracted to or in a relationship with a (trans) woman with a penis? That strikes me as counter-intuitive and possibly even offensive, but I'm interested to hear other perspectives. Colin M (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I mulled replacing "sex" with "gender", for the reason you get at, that in most situations attraction is based on gender and not sex. In most situations (bearing in mind we aren't talking about situations where people are having sex, but situations where someone finds someone attractive—looks at someone and thinks he's hot) you don't see someone's genitalia / don't know their sex. For now, I put "gender" back while leaving "sex" so both are present, as it was before Inqvisitor's removal just a couple months ago, but I wouldn't mind dropping "sex", for which Inqvisitor's justification is an etymological fallacy (for a different word, not even this word! lol). (One advantage I see to "sex or gender" is that while most of the time you don't know someone's sex, sometimes it's the other way around, like if a gay man sees a hot 'male' body tanning on a nude beach and doesn't know the person's gender. But this may be overthinking things. Another advantage is that the conjunction avoids taking a side in a contentious area. Attraction to "one's own sex or gender" is also how Dictionary.com words it, though several other dictionaries only lazily say "sex" and have entries which are also much less comprehensive than ours in other ways.) As to your example, it's certainly common to call a (straight) man "gay" for being in a relationship with a trans woman, though it is offensive and potentially not super illustrative of what the orientation sense of "gay" means since straight men notoriously regard all kinds of things from personal grooming to attract women to expressions of emotion to women to having sex with women (if they're using a strapon) as being gay / homosexual (hence the "fellas, is it gay to..." meme). More illustrative is that the sort of (typically feminine) trans woman the straight man might be attracted to is not someone a gay man is typically attracted to, despite theoretically being the "same sex". - -sche (discuss) 07:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As I noted, the initial reason given by -sche for his edit inserting "or gender" ("it's trivial to find people talking about gay attraction etc in terms of gender") is incomprehensible—and casts doubt on whether -sche actually understands English. -sche's more recent revert remarks ("frankly one could probably drop "sex" and -just- say gender since the average gay man would check out a trans man whereas he would not typically go for a femme, postop trans woman...") are not only wrongheaded—the exact opposite of what wording should be removed/fixed to ensure a precise correct definition of gay—but also extremely offensive in content and suggestion on multiple levels. I mean, wow. Anyway...
 * The relevant American Heritage Dictionary (5th Edition, 2018) definitions for 'gay':
 * Adjective gay: 1. Of, relating to, or having sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
 * Noun. gay: 1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex. 2. A man whose sexual orientation is to men.
 * No mention of 'gender' at all. Yet -sche is basically suggesting to totally throw out the long-established consensus definition and adopt his new fabricated alternative, as if "gay" were some new word with no clear definition, rather than a word with a decades-old universally-accepted consensus meaning. Sex is the relevant factor here. Gay means homosexual. No "etymological fallacy". "Gay" literally meaning "homosexual" is already acknowledged here on Wiktionary—listed as the primary element of the relevant definition (5) before even getting to the sub-definitions in question—have you even read the entry? Will "Homosexual" therefore have to be removed from the definition? Replace with "Homogenderal"? If anything, an additional further specific definition limited to men attracted to men is missing and should be included on Wiktionary to match AHD. Gay is in fact often used to mean specifically only men attracted to men, most obviously in the phrase "gays & lesbians".
 * To most Anglophones, sex and gender mean the same thing (which makes "sex or gender" redundant and confusing). Gender is a highly imprecise term, especially in the 2020s. If 'gender' means something different from 'sex' then the entry is broken: a definition containing the bizarre phrase "sex or gender" is contradictory and flatout incorrect; it cannot be both. They are two different things.
 * By some popular modern re-definitions of 'gender', it ultimately waters down the definition to mean nothing of significance at all. 'Gay' has a very specific meaning; there is a very specific experience to growing up and being gay. It is insulting and offensive to water it down with the weasel word 'gender', appealing to a very recently-emerged gender ideology that would count a married heterosexual man and woman as becoming "gay" if one of them as an adult decides to "identify" as a different gender or "gender non-binary" or whatever the latest new "gender identity" is...The fact is, only to a very tiny minority of extremely biased ideologically-driven activists does "gender" mean something different than sex. With his most recent edit comments, -sche revealed his agenda and made explicit the fact that he is part of this activist prescriptivist movement attempting to forcibly re-define terms according to their own personal minority ideology rather than how the words are actually used. English entries should—must—be descriptive.
 * English has no prescriptivist authority. Even if it did, it would most certainly not be random activists on the internet pushing an agenda driven by the latest campus ideological novelties to emanate from Academe that would be indecipherable to the average English-speaker who lives far outside this academic/activist bubble. And trying to redefine gay to mean "attracted to same [sex or] gender" (whatever that even means) is an offensive purely ideologically-driven activist attempt at English linguistic prescriptivism. Speculating on all these silly hypotheticals that don't happen in the real world is not useful nor relevant to the task describing/defining what these simple words mean to >99% of the people who use them—and to people learning English, seeking to communicate with those >99% who do not live in the bubble of a university gender studies department. It's not your job to re-define terms, 'prescribing' their 'correct' new meaning/usage (in your personal opinion) based on some weird ideological theoreticals you think up about some gender-ambiguous individual tanning on a nude beach (like WTF?)...
 * Gay means homosexual means people (usually men) attracted to people of the same sex (men attracted to men; less commonly encompassing also women attracted to women, based on human biological realities known as sex). The inclusion of weasel wording "or gender" in the bizarre phrase "sex or gender" would confuse normal Anglophones, and the even worse further prescriptivist activist edit suggestions/comments by -sche are just ignorant, offensive, wrong on so many levels. Inqvisitor (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw all that speculating on who gay men should be attracted to was cringe, so just to cite actual scientific data on the record: extremely trans-sympathetic researchers social psychologist Karen Blair, PhD (President of LGBTQ Psychology Canada, Chair of Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity at Canadian Psych Assoc) and sociologist Rhea Andrea Hoskin (MA Gender Studies; PhD Feminist Sociology) would love to totally abolish the concept of sex if they could. However their own data published in 2019 confirms unequivocally the fact that sex, not gender, is what really matters to lesbians and gays (and all orientations). 'Twas not even close:
 * 91% of Lesbian Women were only interested in dating persons of the same sex, regardless of gender (71% 'cis' women only+20% also trans men).
 * 92% of Gay Men were only interested in dating persons of the same sex, regardless of gender (89% 'cis' men only+3% also trans women).
 * Only 9% of lesbians and 8% of gay men would be willing to date someone who is of "same gender" but opposite sex. More lesbians would be willing to date a trans-man born female sex than trans-woman born male sex. It's just wrong to suggest the word "gay" means attraction based on gender rather than sex. 'Gender' separated from sex has virtually nothing to do with the sexual orientation and identity of gays and lesbians. (Never mind the rest of the population most of whom have no clue about any of this gender stuff, consider gender and sex the same thing, and would be totally befuddled by a suddenly-redefined prescribed use of "gay" to mean anything but same-sex relationship...)
 * 'Blair and Hoskins (2019) findings on "Willingness to Date Trans Persons by Gender and Sexuality"'':
 * Lesbian Women: trans gender-congruent (trans women only) 9.0%, trans gender-INcongruent (trans men) 19.8%, NO trans 71.2%
 * Lesbian Women willing to date SAME GENDER (but opposite sex) 9.0% vs. willing to date ONLY SAME SEX (regardless of gender) 91.0%
 * Gay Men: trans gender-congruent (trans men only) 8.2%, trans gender-INcongruent (trans women) 3.3%, NO trans 88.5%
 * Gay Men willing to date SAME GENDER (but opposite sex) 8.2% vs. willing to date ONLY SAME SEX (regardless of gender) 91.8%
 * Bisexual, Queer, Nonbinary: trans gender-congruent (trans men+trans women) 34.4%, trans gender-INcongruent (only trans men) 14.7%, trans gender-INcongruent (only trans women) 2.6%, NO trans 48.3%
 * - Blair, K. L. and Hoskin, R. A. (2019) ‘Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(7), pp. 2074–2095. doi: 10.1177/0265407518779139.
 * Inqvisitor (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to tone police, but I think it would be helpful if you dialled down the temperature. I think you have some useful points (e.g. comparing with definitions from other dictionaries), but it's wrapped up in a lot of strawmen and borderline personal attacks ("casts doubt on whether -sche actually understands English") which works contrary to the goal of moving towards consensus. Colin M (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dial down? I wish. Unfortunately -sche dragged this into offensive personal territory and won't let up. I did not make any personal attacks. I quoted -sche verbatim, I noted matter-of-factly that his stated revert reason was literally incomprehensible; 'twas not even close to coherent English. That's not an attack. Don't know what you're talking about with "strawmen", projecting onto me instead of responding to any of the cited-and-sourced evidence and factual substance of what I wrote, which thoroughly eviscerated the crazed notion that gay identity is defined by "gender" divorced from sex (a fact obvious to >90% of the population including gays). Then -sche openly admitted sneaking in the contradictory weasel words "or gender" is for biased POV ideological reasons—and just a natural logical stepping-stone to quietly erasing sex altogether to replace with "gender": which is already a logical product of inserting "or gender" which renders his given definition contradictory and meaningless.
 * There is no debate here, it makes as much sense to say "sex or gender" as to 'debate' to expand the definition to be more inclusive to say "same OR opposite sex OR gender". That is as meritorious to 'debate' this offensive 'debate'; we must find "consensus" on whether 'gay' should also include opposite sex attraction in its definition! As many or more gays/lesbians are willing to date people of same sex/OPPOSITE gender as those of opposite sex/same gender. In no way whatsoever is "attracted to the same gender" any sort of defining essential feature of being gay i.e. homosexual.
 * 100% of gay people are attracted to the same sex. That's what it means to be gay. A very very tiny minority of gay people are even WILLING to date someone of "same gender" but opposite sex—in addition to the same sex'. NO gay person is defined by exclusive attraction to the same gender but not the same sex.
 * No other dictionary mentions'gender' for good reason. The meaning of the word "gay" is settled, consensus, done, basta. Gays are homosexual, attracted to the same-sex. For decades there has been zero question about 'gay' meaning anything other than same-sex relationships, which is why dictionaries are in agreement specifying same sex, not mentioning the amorphous modern academic theoretical concept of "gender", a term with no clear definition (deliberately muddying the water, perhaps the point). But I notice there was no response from either of you to any of the ample substantive information I provided which settled this matter unequivocally.
 * This is not about (crude and offensive) theoretical speculation on who you or -sche personally believe gays OUGHT TO be attracted to, or who SHOULD constitute gay relationships, or dictate to gay people how to define gay identity, to prescripe how society broadly defines 'gay' out in the real world. It's insane that -Sche or anyone would feel entitled to arrogate to themselves the power to re-define any word with prescriptivist decrees to fit his ideology, much less a word with such vital personal implications as this one; the sheer level of chutzpah is shocking. 'Gay' means attracted to the same sex. More than 9 out of 10 gays/lesbians would only date the same sex, because that's the essence of being gay i.e. homosexual. It does not mean "same sex or gender", it does not mean "same gender" at all. That erases any meaning to the terms gay/lesbian, erases gay identity and gay people, reduced to meaningless labels defined by others driven by an arrogant activist agenda.
 * Gay people do not identify as gay. Gay people ARE gay, because gays are attracted to the same sex; it has nothing to do with "identifying" with any 'gender' whatsoever. Such hubris that -sche would still nonchalantly persist in this offensive conduct, which is not actually a debate in the real world of the English language and those who speak it. Issuing decrees about what words should mean to conform to personal ideology/opinion, rather than describe what everyone actually means when they use those words, is not the job of a dictionary but a catechism. A dictionary that attempts to force ideological prescriptivism onto English words separating the dictionary definitions from the real language rapidly loses credibility as a dictionary as opposed to ideological propaganda trying to force a particular POV onto an unwilling population who knows full well the top-down-ordered re-definitions are FALSE and nonsensical.
 * This is personal, about real lives, not for silly theorizing with hypothetical characters, pontificating about who/what -sche or you or anyone believes should be labeled "gay". There is overwhelming consensus over the decades-long established definition, this is not a close call at all. Gay = homosexual = attracted to same sex. Period.
 * Merriam-Webster Dictionary: GAY 1. of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex—often used to refer to men only
 * Merriam-Webster Advanced Learner's English Dictionary: GAY 1. sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex
 * Merriam-Webster Medical Definition: GAY 1. of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to individuals of one's same sex
 * Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: GAY 1. sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex (cf. homosexual, same-sex)
 * Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary: GAY 1. homosexual (Note: *Sometimes gay refers only to men.)
 * Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary: GAY 1. A gay person is homosexual. (Synonyms: homosexual, lesbian, same-sex)
 * Collins English Dictionary: GAY 1. homosexual
 * Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.: GAY a. homosexual now often used specif. of male homosexuals b. of, for, or relating to homosexuals, often, specif., male homosexuals
 * Penguin Random House Dictionary: GAY 1. a homosexual person, esp. a male
 * Oxford Dictionary of English: GAY 1. (of a person) homosexual (used especially of a man) 1.1 Relating to or used by homosexual people.
 * American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Ed: GAY adj. 1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. n. 1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex. 2. A man whose sexual orientation is to men
 * Inqvisitor (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "This is not about (crude and offensive) theoretical speculation on who you or -sche personally believe gays OUGHT TO be attracted to, or who SHOULD constitute gay relationships"
 * This is what I mean by "". This does not remotely resemble what I'm trying to get at here, and I don't think I've written anything in this thread that would indicate I'm trying to prescribe language or behaviour. To be clear, when I say something like "It seems like it would be offensive to describe X as Y", I mean that I think it would be offensive to many or most speakers, not merely that I find it offensive. My interest is in understanding and describing how language is used in practice, not prescribing.
 * If you truly want people to "[respond] to any of the cited-and-sourced evidence" you present, you seriously need to cool your tone. A hostile, aggrieved screed like this turns people away, because it makes it seem like you're not engaging in good faith and you're not willing to extend any charity to editors who disagree with you (or even ones like me who agree with your preferred wording, if not your reasons). Colin M (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With that I was describing what -sche has been doing in his offensive edit remarks and discussion right here in this talk section. Speculating about what you believe gay should mean with hypotheticals about trans dating partners. T is not LGB. The entry is gay. This is not about trans. It is extremely offensive to hear conjecture about who a gay person is supposed to be attracted to, and who counts as gay. Gay people know what it means. Couples of the same-sex, attracted to the same sex, an innate trait gay people discover about themselves in adolescence, and for which gay people have been bullied and persecuted for decades. If you are gay, you don't identify as gay, you ARE gay. You just discover you are attracted to the same sex i.e. gay. Governments/societies that bully, target, persecute, arrest, execute gays for sure have always known what the definition is up to the present-day: people born attracted to the same-sex.
 * Not the same thing as adolescents or adults who choose to identify as a different "gender" and all of a sudden that makes them "gay". No. 'Sex' has a specific meaning, as does 'gay'--when the definition is not tampered with by a bad faith actor with an activist agenda. "Gender" can mean anything to anybody, a bottomless pit of nothingness. Under the "same gender" definition, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could announce to Oprah that they both were coming out as "nonbinary gender", and they would become "gay", no different from the two gay men being executed for a same-sex relationship in Saudi Arabia. It totally erases the meaning of the word gay and erases gay people. Language exists to describe reality, every word must necessarily exclude what it is not in order to clarify what it is; the more precise, the better. As the word "gender" can mean anything, "same sex or gender" is beyond imprecise, a self-contradictory definition that means nothing. There is no good reason to spread the confusion that arises from the word "gender" itself onto the word "gay".
 * Saying "attracted to same sex" vs. "attracted to same gender" are two totally different things. Someone born with homosexual orientation is not the same thing as someone who identifies with a different gender. People cannot just change to become gay or not gay based on gender identity, and it's insanely offensive to gay people to suggest that is the case.
 * It's not just a matter of splitting-hair semantics about how you would theoretically label one hypothetical couple or another involving some trans person. Gay is a term to describe people with a particular sexual orientation and unique life experience. Gay is an innate identity independent of whether a gay person ever actually dates anybody of any sex or gender. I will never be able to discuss the experience of being gay with heterosexual female adult who comes out as a trans man. The terms "trans" and "queer" exist for non-traditional gendered relationships. We are just not the same thing, not even close, yet that is what adding 'or gender' to the definition would mean, erasing the word 'gay' and its specific meaning. That's a total re-definition of the word "gay" contradicting long-established useful precise definition found in literally every dictionary in publication for decades, confirmed by usage among actual gay people ourselves and gay dating practices: more than 9 out of 10 gays would only date someone of the same sex, regardless of gender. As "straight" means exclusively attracted to opposite sex, "gay" means exclusively attracted to the same sex. Inqvisitor (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And yet as I said in my first edit summary it's a simple question of use. Are trans men who are only into other men described as gay? Yes. Can the relationship of a trans and and a cis man be described as a gay relationship? Yes. Can the men or the relationship be described as straight? Only offensively. Some transphobes see things the other way, and argue that e.g. a trans woman dating a cis woman, or even two trans women dating each other, are straight ("erasing lesbians", etc); the mutually exclusive stances on what is offensive might be something to have a usage note about, but the scope of the word, as far as its definition, can plainly encompass both "sex" and "gender". - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth thinking about why people disagree about how to label this hypothetical relationship (between a trans and cis man). Suppose Alice says it's a straight relationship. Which do you think is the more likely reason she would give for this?
 * She thinks that gay is defined as attraction to the same sex, not the same gender.
 * She thinks a trans man isn't a "real man", therefore this is a (straight) relationship between a man and a woman.
 * I would think 2 is more likely. It seems to me that Alice is more likely to have "traditional" / "conservative" values, and therefore not even be up on the sex/gender distinction referred to in 1. i.e. I think just about everyone (from the very liberal to the very reactionary) agrees that a relationship between two men or between two women is gay, and that a relationship between a woman and man is straight. The source of disagreement lies upstream of that: from the fact that some people reject the gender identification of trans people - not that they're working from a different definition of "gay". Colin M (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WTF?! No, that wording has NOT been discussed extensively.... I discussed that wording extensively: I made extensive arguments on the importance of that wording, which you did not even scratch the surface of even attempting to refute. And now you are abusing your authority to just shut things down and lock the page the way you want?! Shameful conduct! Inqvisitor (talk)
 * And if the page going to be locked, it should be the status quo universally-understood definition of same-SEX attraction—in agreement with every dictionary in publication—not your homophobic fringe activist attempt to re-define the word inserting weasel words "or gender" to erase gay people and gay identity to fit a personal agenda. That's not how the English language works, that's not how the word is used, you are abusing not only your authority but abusing the whole idea of a dictionary to try to forcibly re-define a word from on-high as if you were the god of English language with authority to centrally re-define words away from their common universal accepted usage, and instead force everyone to adopt your extremely offensive homophobic activist re-definition of the word into nothingness. A personally offensive homophobic definition no English speaker actually means when they use the word (including gay people)! Not how English language works! Inqvisitor (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The community discussed this extensively. There's a certain hilarity to you [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=gay&type=revision&diff=64267933&oldid=64098380 speaking of 'gay erasure'] when you're the only one here engaging in gay erasure. Any gay guy who's only attracted once an applicant for potential partner has had a DNA test and comes back XY, or however it is you think attraction works, hey, that guy's still gay (it's "sex or gender"). But if you think a couple like [//www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/two-brides-get-married-each-other-first-russian-lgbt-wedding-9849501.html this] ([//www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29975477 ]) aren't gay, well, at least Russia's homophobic rules were initially with you on that: the two women were able to marry because they weren't assigned the same legal sex at birth. But both in everyday use (what Wiktionary cares about) and in reference works, "sex or gender" clearly covers how the word is actually used better than "sex" alone, which is why it also has consensus as the lead wording on Wikipedia summarizing what reliable sources on the topic say: why don't you go try and erase it there and see how fast other editors revert your POV there, too. (Frankly, the number of sources referring to the Russian couple as a same-sex wedding is a reminder that people don't even assign different meanings to sex vs gender a lot of the time.) - -sche (discuss) 16:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not "discussing the subject extensively"... Absolutely NOTHING of what I said here was addressed, and I put a lot of time/effort into explaining objectively but also personally with passion as to why this was so offensive. You started comment thread that didn't even involve me where you made clear you do not even try to be objective nor are you an honest good-faith actor. There was hardly any discussion in that thread. There was no community engagement with my impassioned pleas and detailed rationally argued case.
 * Not only did you not present any of my actual arguments, you misrepresented me and blatantly LIED, you made up fake arguments to try to make me and my view sound stupid. You said I made comments against "Anglophiles" I didn't follow given that we were both editing an English entry on the English Wiktionary... Wow I must be stupid to make "comments against Anglophiles" on English entry, haha what a fool...except that never happened. I literally made ZERO "comments against Anglophiles", you totally fabricated that bizarre libel. WTF?!
 * Maybe you just don't know the difference between "Anglophone" and "Anglophile" (perhaps purchase a dictionary), however regardless I didn't make "comments against" people who speak English either, which is all "Anglophone" means. You flatout lied and made up that calumny to disparage and dismiss me and everything I actually did say.
 * And you claimed something about me "accidentally demonstrating" something using a "controversial slanted survey"..? Again you lied. What is that? Are you referring to the NON-controversial peer-reviewed published study by very pro-Transgender activist researchers (indeed very slanted in your direction on this issue) with a very socially progressive Canadian population sample, which nevertheless still found that biological sex alone—NOT gender at all—defines gay identity for ~90% of gay people..?
 * This isn't about some ridiculous f'n hypotheticals you think you're so clever to speculate over. Being gay means something real. There is a real life experience to growing up gay with struggles and acceptance—and it is rooted in realities of biological sex. You don't get to re-define the word to mean just what YOU think it SHOULD mean. No, a Zoomer in school nowadays who finds it trendy to identify as a different gender is not suddenly "gay" just like me, as your weasel words "or gender" implies. That is gay erasure—and totally unnecessary.
 * You are doing nobody any favors: when I say I'm gay or put gay on my dating app profile, that's to communicate succinctly using a definition universally-understood outside fringe activist circles—the definition in every dictionary—that I am ONLY interested in persons of the same sex. I try to be polite, but you only put us in awkward situations if I have to explain to someone of opposite sex but "transmasculine gender" that by gay I mean I am attracted to the same-sex, to the exclusion to persons of the opposite-sex, regardless of how they identify their "gender". (If gay could be determined by "gender", life would be a lot easier for gay people! But it's NOT.) Sex has an objective definition. Gay has an objective definition—attracted to the same-sex. Gender is an amorphous subjective term that is meant for grammar, not people.
 * And there's nothing hilarious about gay erasure. This is extremely offensive. I hate Wiki edit wars but this is different and a deeply personal attack that cuts deep into my heart. You've made no attempt to understand where I'm coming from, despite all the virtual ink I spilled to, despite intense frustration, try to just patiently explain [with false hope you were acting in good faith], you've done nothing but ignore me and everything I said with a cruel combination of ignorance and arrogance. The rude dismissive insensitive homophobic way you've handled this and treated me last time (and now again) was so upsetting I literally stopped coming to Wiktionary for six months, and got anxiety attacks over notifications. Perhaps you are a sadist, but I don't find this whole thing funny at all.
 * No, this subject was not discussed extensively—except by me—and I was just rudely ignored...never mind the notion that this was somehow settled in favor of your personally preferred prescriptivist re-definition of the word you have no right to re-define, to mean nothing, by adding those toxic weasel words "or gender", contrary to every other dictionary and what 99% of Anglophones (not Anglophiles) mean when they say or hear the word "gay" (same sex, period.) You may have the power to abuse admin authorities to forcibly get your way on Wiki, but you don't have the authority to re-define the word. (Not your right as as Wikt editor to re-define ANY word of the English language, as a matter of principle: dictionaries describe what words mean, not prescribe based on personal speculation of what you want them to mean—you are wrong about this on so many levels,'tis not even a close call at all.) Your attitudes are haughty, homophobic, insensitive, offensive; you behave like a bully. Now my nerves are shot, so again sir, I will just reiterate this fact: your conduct has been nothing short of shameful. Inqvisitor (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Could topic-banning Inqvisitor from this page be a possible solution allowing for the page to be unlocked without having them go back to edit-warring on it? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 04:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. I definitely support any measure that would allow the page to be no longer locked. Colin M (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, how does one go about requesting a topic-ban for a particular editor? Wiktionary's corpus of policies and guidelines is shamefully sparse, with the closest bit of information I've been able to find being the blocking policy, which still isn't what I was looking for. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 01:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Order of en-adj senses
Style_guide says "it is important that the most common senses of a term be placed first, even when this may be contrary to the logical or historical sequence". Currently we have 3 dated and 1 obsolete sense before what is certainly the most common modern sense ("homosexual"). Would there be any objection to reordering the top-level senses to something like homosexual > pejorative > happy > festive > upright > quick > promiscuous > considerable?

(I ask because I know official policy pages aren't always necessarily in step with de facto norms.) Colin M (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is objectionable to place a slang usage first when there is an ordinary meaning. Steepleman (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Homosexual (etc.)" is the ordinary meaning of the word nowadays, and has been for decades.  your proposed ordering sounds good to me. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 23:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an ordinary meaning, but the “dated” meanings are also ordinary meanings of the word. Perhaps promiscuous or quick could be moved, but it is also desirable to group senses together. I don't see the problem with the current order anyway—the policy is an unofficial informal policy and common-sense suggests to me for this entry that “homosexual” should not be the first-listed meaning of the word. Steepleman (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Common sense suggests to me that "homosexual" should be the first-listed meaning, given that it's overwhelmingly the most-common and most-familiar use of the word (probably 90 to 95 percent of people, when they hear the word "gay", are going to think first of the "homosexual" meaning), and it and the pejorative meaning derived from it are the only meanings of "gay" that are still current and aren't dated or worse. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 01:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW, to Colin's initial question, I don't know if there's a firm consensus on how definitions in general should be ordered; this search finds some of the past discussions (and some unrelated discussions, but I can't think of a search that filters them out, sorry). In practice entries rarely follow either a strictly chronological or commonness-based sorting, because closely related senses are often grouped together, e.g. all the orientation-related senses, because following either a strict chronological or strict commonness sorting would in many entries result in things like "# sense A; # sense B; # (by extension) sense closely related to sense A" which would be unhelpful. As to whether this entry should move the sexuality sense up, shrug. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)