Glossary of Gay Slang Terms

http://andrejkoymasky.com/lou/dic/dic00.html

These slang terms were collected from a variety of sources, and among others the following ones:

* Ken Cage, Gayle: The Language of Kinks and Queens, A History and Dictionary of Gay Language in South Africa
* Robert Owen Scott’s Gay Slang Dictionary
* Gay & Black Glossary by Roedy Green
* Rebecca Scott, A Brief Dictionary of Queer Slang and Culture
* Wei Lee, Dictionary of Gay Slang
* Gary Bowen’s: A Dictionary of Words for Masculine Women.

We also thank here all our readers who sent us new terms, with the needed explanations, origin and so on. It is also thank to them if our dictionary is becoming one of the most complete and exhaustive in the Net.

" Gender Blending Females: Women And Sometimes Men"

http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/WomenSometimes.html

Devor, H. (1987). ” Gender Blending Females: Women And Sometimes Men”. American Behavorial Scientist, 31 (1): 12-40.

In the course of everyday life persons recognized as men are normally males and individuals identified as women are females. In some cases, in public interactions involving persons who are strangers to one another, females are addressed and responded to as men. Some of the females that this happens to are purposely attempting to be perceived and accepted as men, but there are also a number of such women who do not consciously intend to be thought of as men. I call the people in this latter group “gender blending females.”

Gender blending females are those people of the female sex who project gender cues that can be socially interpreted as sufficiently masculine to earn them the social status and some of the privileges of men.1 But, as gender blending females, they do not do so in a consistent or purposeful fashion. Among their friends and acquaintances, and to many strangers, they are clearly women. The intriguing aspect of their gender status is that they have clear female identities and know themselves to be women concurrently with gender presentations that often do not successfully communicate these facts to others.

Once there was a fellow who had just moved into a new house. His neighbor came to meet him that day and they got to talking.

“What kind of job do you have?”, asked the neighbor, and the fellow replied “I’m a Scientist of Deductive reasoning”.

“Deductive reasoning?”, asked the neighbor. “what’s that?”

“Well, let me give you an example”, the scientist replied. “I see you have a dog house in your back yard”.

“Yes”, the neighbor (whose name was Bill) replied.

“Well, by that I can deduce that you have a dog”, replied the scientist, whose name was Fred. “Yeah,” Bill said.

“And since you have a dog, I can assume that you have a family,” said Fred. Bill nodded.

“And since you have a family, I can assume that you’re married,” Fred continued. Bill continued to nod.

“Well, since you’re married, it’s safe to say that you probably have a wife”.

“Yes, I have a wife,” Bill replied.

“So, then, I can conclude that you are a heterosexual,” finished Fred, “and that is deductive reasoning”.

“Wow, that’s interesting,” said Bill. And so, the two went there ways for the day.

The next day, Bill was at his own work, and a co-worker said to him “I heard you have a new neighbour”. “Yes, I do”, said Bill. The co-worker replied “What kind of work does he do?”.

“He’s a Scientist in Deductive Reasoning,” replied Bill.

The co-worker asked “What’s deductive reasoning?”

“Allow me to give an example,” Bill said. “Do you have a doghouse?”

“No,” the co-worker said.

“FAG!”

http://www.ncf.ca/freenet/rootdir/menus/sigs/life/gay/humor/reason

What To Do When You Meet A Queer Person: Hints For Heterosexuals

http://www.ncf.ca/freenet/rootdir/menus/sigs/life/gay/humor/hethint.faq

1. Do not run screaming from the room. This is rude.

2. If you must back away, do so slowly and with discretion.

3. Do not assume she/he is attracted to you.

4. Do not assume he/she is not attracted to you.

5. Do not assume that you are not attracted to her/him.

6. Do not expect him/her to be as excited about meeting a straight person as you may be about meeting a queer person.

7. Do not immediately start talking about your boy/girlfriend or husband/wife in order to make it clear that you are straight.

8. Do not ask them how they got that way. Instead, ask yourself how you got the way you are.

9. Do not assume they are dying to talk about being gay.

10. Do not expect them to refrain from talking about being gay.

11. Do not trivialize their experience by assuming it is a bedroom issue. They are gay twenty-four hours a day.

The female bots received on average 100 malicious private messages a day, exceeding by far the totals of any of the other bots

http://horning.blogspot.com/2007/05/stunning-research.html

A paper by Robert Meyer and Michel Cukier, “Assessing the Attack Threat due to IRC Channels,” in Proc. International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN06), is thought-provoking, and to me, stunning. Their Experiment 2 studied the impact of (perceived) user gender on the attack threat.

They connected silent bots to various chat rooms, differing only in whether their screen name was feminine (Cathy, Elyse, Irene, Melissa, Stephanie), masculine (Andy, Brad, Dan, Gregg, Kevin), or ambiguous (Nightwolf, Orgoth, Redwings, Stargazer), and recorded the malicious messages each received.

The female bots received on average 100 malicious private messages a day, exceeding by far the totals of any of the other bots, with the other attack types being roughly equal. It is interesting to note that the bots with ambiguous names received significantly more malicious private messages (on average 25) than the male bots (on average 3.7), but less than the average between the male and female bots (which is around 52). This experiment shows that the user gender has a significant impact on one component of the attack threat (i.e., the number of malicious private messages received for which the female bots received more than 25 times more private messages than the male bots and 4 more times than the bots with an ambiguous name).

Original paper: http://www.enre.umd.edu/content/rmeyer-assessing.pdf

Duke Library: Lesbian Pulp Fiction Collection

http://library.duke.edu/specialcollections/bingham/guides/lesbianpulp/

In 1950, twelve years after Pocket Books published the first mass-market paperback, Fawcett began to feature the twilight world of women-loving women with its successful Gold Medal imprint series. Other publishers followed suit; soon the genre was so firmly established that readers could choose among several formulas or subgenres of lesbian pulp fiction: lesbians in institutions, love triangles, lesbians “saved” by straight men, etc. With their camp cover art and lurid prose, many of these books appealed to readers across lines of gender and sexuality, desires and tastes; although the narratives undoubtedly satisfied the prurient interests of many straight readers, they also catered to an entire generation of lesbian readers, who were anxious to find a reflection-albeit distorted and often cruel-of their own lives in a work of fiction.

Lesbian pulps were titled and pictured in “codes” that helped lesbians pick them out from amongst a drugstore rack filled with similar, often lurid, titles: a cover with a brunette towering over a reclining blonde, often with a man in the far background; titles with “strange”, “odd” or “shadows” in them. The pulps gave some women a glimpse into a world that wasn’t easy to access outside of large cities. The popularity of the pulps made them available to women across the country, providing some sense of comfort and inclusion. However, lesbian characters rarely fared well in these novels, their potential for happiness ruined by censure typical of the period: a woman engaged in illicit pleasures of one kind or another had to suffer a downfall to balance out the licentiousness of her actions. This “moral lesson” redeemed lesbian pulps from the ranks of mere pornography under the pretense of providing a public service. In addition, these stories sent a not-so-subtle message to lesbians about their place in society. “Frank” (code for “sexually explicit”) stories warned readers about: the predatory older lesbian; the dangers of a poor father-daughter relationship; the susceptibility of orphans; the perils of the big city; the “immaturity” of lesbian sex; and the general misery of a lesbian existence.

“Scientific research” was another popular premise around which to base these novels. Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior of the Human Female came out in 1953, and Masters and Johnson’s Human Sexual Response was published in 1966. Although these books were not intended to be prurient, the case studies apparently sparked the imaginations of pulp authors. Once again, pornography could be disguised as something socially acceptable, and the books had the added lure of being “based on a true story.” Bea Campbell’s Orgy of the Dolls, for example, claims to be comprised of “actual case histories”, and offers a bibliography. However, “Orgy of the Dolls” is not a particularly scientific title, and the “case histories” are filled with an incredible amount of detail for something sprung from a therapist’s notes. One of the “patients” even refers to Kinsey’s book in regard to her “condition.” Group living situations-or female-oriented workplaces, such as department stores or hospitals-were a popular setting for lesbian pulps; apparently, prolonged proximity among women inevitably results in a hotbed of lesbianism.

LRK on: Kate Martinelli

http://www.laurierking.com/etcetera/kate-martinellis-world/lrk-on-kate-martin...

Laurie King on her character Kate Martinelli

In 1993, when A Grave Talent was published, it was easy to imagine a lesbian cop in the closet. In 2006, in the world of The Art of Detection, that same cop would have to be provided with deep neuroses to explain why she remained behind the closet door. Part of the pleasure of the Martinelli series, I think, lies in this arc of social and personal freedom: The rainbow family life depicted in The Art of Detection would have seemed a romanticized idyll in 1993; on 2006, gay men with adopted daughters and lesbians on the school board are just daily life in the City by the Bay.

Similarly, in 1993, there was no woman homicide detective in the SFPD. In 2006, there are two.