At a recent party held to celebrate completion of the semester module, I met Sahir (name changed), a friend of a friend. He was an affable person, and we were soon engrossed in a conversation. He had had an interesting life, lived in five different continents and spoke the native languages of the places he had lived in. His worldview impressed me. Knowing that I was from Nepal he asked if I was familiar with Bollywood. He was thrilled to know that I was: he was a huge fan of Bollywood. He played songs from Bollywood movies and danced to a couple of them. It was probably this instant bonhomie, marked by mirth and lively conversation that led to our becoming friends.When I went outside with some of my friends for fresh air, the conversation somehow turned toward our sexual orientation. Sahir told us candidly that he was into men. He then asked me what I was interested in, men or women. "Women, of course" I replied in the same casual manner of the question. "Not- of course!" he corrected me. His response jolted me. I realized that I might have offended him with my casual response. I felt myself withdrawing into some corner inside me, of guilt that my response could have indicated that heterosexual orientation is the norm and that the others are deviations. For the remainder of the conversation I took extra care to prevent any further damage. I told myself I needed to learn from this incident.
Now as I write this piece in retrospect, I am reminded of my previous article published in Republica ("Know them," Oct 28, 2015) in which I urged readers to be aware about their own thought processes with regard to gender and sexual minorities. In that piece, I had made a case for sensitivity and openness in dealing with the issues of sexual minorities. I believed—and still do—that is one of the best forms of help one can offer to them. It is now clearer to me that sensitivity is required not just while interacting with gender and sexual minorities but in all our conversations, as language is "a practice in its own right" and discourses are "ways of constituting views of social realities."
While our thought process may be coherent in maintaining sensitivity, we also need to understand the implication of our actions and body language.
Expressions like 'that's so gay', 'you sound gay', 'what are you, gay?' are frequently heard in everyday language. "Gay" is frequently used today to describe something as stupid, weird, or undesirable. Sometimes used by heterosexuals to intentionally offend the LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex), most often it can be attributed to internalized homophobia. Sadly, we do not even realize the extent of the adverse impact such a careless use of these terms can have on the gender and sexual minorities.
A research by Woodford et al (2012) examined the health and well-being correlates of hearing popular phrase "that's so gay" on gay, lesbian, and bisexual emerging adults. It found that participants' social and physical well-being was negatively associated with hearing this phrase, specifically feeling isolated and experiencing physical health symptoms (ie, headaches, loss of appetite, or eating disorders).
Words are powerful. They might not change reality but can play significant role in changing how people perceive those realities. Words create filters through which people view the world around them. It is precisely the reason why 'disabled people' was replaced by 'people with disability', 'blind' by 'visually impaired' and 'deaf and dumb' by 'hearing and speech impaired'.
The use of 'working with the clients' instead of 'working for the clients' shifts the power relations between service providers and users, bringing them into an equal partnership. It's just words but words make a difference. People might try and get away with expressions like 'that's so gay' by pointing out that they are only saying it and nothing derogatory was implied.
But we should not forget that these are unacceptable words. Nadal et al (2010) strongly argue that "that's so gay" is, in fact, not just an insensitive expression but an example of a sexual orientation micro-aggression. If the intention is not to make gender and sexual minorities feel unwelcome and excluded, such language should neither be used nor tolerated.
Words and phrases that harass any particular group and can have a negative impact on them should not be used. Policies should be developed to address diversity and reduce any form of harassment. It is further important to develop practices that counteract poor well-being associated with such harassment. As significant contributors of change through dialogue, educational institutions, in particular, should be more sensitive in these areas. Offices should create an environment free of language that could be offensive to gender and sexual minorities.
Even jokes stereotyping them should be discouraged and removed from everyday conversations as they perpetuate this latent discrimination. Nepal, which has created a history by having the first national constitution in Asia to include explicit rights and protections for LGBTI people, should be an example in this, too. To begin with, let's use the right words. After all they have the power to change things.
The author is an Erasmus Mundus Scholar specializing in issues of families and children
dahalsanjeev@gmail.com
Related story
Navigating the Digital World with Netiquette
