joe@emacs.UUCP (Joe Chapman) (10/19/85)
<>
In the Boston chapter of ``States of Desire'' Edmund White relates a
conversation he had over dinner which touched on the topic of deafness:
Why are there so many gay deaf people? One theory: their
deafness prevents them from being socialized into concealing
their sexuality and so the natural incidence of homosexuality
that would occur in any population becomes more evident.
I originally looked up this passage after reading Ray/Jason's posting on
careers; I was going to argue that we computer-gnurds are an arrogant
and talkative bunch, and so we resist being socialized into concealing
our sexuality, etc., etc.
In the midst of hashing over this and a few derivative notions, some
friends of mine turned the conversation back to the deafness theory; it
suddenly occurred to me that I've never seen the word ``homosexual'' in
American Sign Language. When I talked with a deaf friend a few years
ago we invented a sign for ``gay''. I believe the Jerry Falwell
interpreter spells the word, though I rarely tune in and have never
caught a really homophobic eisegesis. Nothing, either, in the big
dictionary with every sign imaginable in it.
During the earlier discussions on the net about nomenclature, I believe
a few people made the point that the existence of precise terms and
definitions for minority groups is necessary for and evidence of
oppression of these groups. It would seem to me that either I'm guilty
of spreading misinformation, or the possible explanation offered at Ed
White's dinner party could true at a cultural level in addition to the
individual explanation he offered.
Any comments?
[ If anyone's curious, the sign Pat and I used for ``gay'' was an
effeminate flick of the wrist: hardly politically correct, but it lent
itself well to a common method of word-construction. Words like
``king'', ``emperor'', and ``queen'' [regina] are signed with an
identical motion, but with the hand held in a position corresponding to
a different letter. Our sign could be made with the hand in the L
position for ``lesbian'', or Q for ``queen'' [cinaedus], or C for the
verb ``to camp'', and I with my bad eyesight could follow it. ]
--
Joe Chapman decvax!cca!emacs!joe emacs!joe@cca-unix
``Try a boy for a change. You're a rich man. You can afford
the luxuries of life.'' ---Mrs. Prentice, to her husbandbradr@ucbvax.ARPA (Brad Rubenstein) (10/22/85)
In article <105@emacs.UUCP> joe@emacs.UUCP (Joe Chapman) writes: > >Edmund White relates a conversation [...] > Why are there so many gay deaf people? One theory: their > deafness prevents them from being socialized into concealing > their sexuality and so the natural incidence of homosexuality > that would occur in any population becomes more evident. I think we are taught >through language< that sexuality (especially gay sexuality) is bad and wrong; that it is something we shouldn't TALK about. Since, until recently, most deaf children went to boarding schools, where, if sign language was used at all, it was used in dorm rooms when others weren't watching, it doesn't surprise me that their radically different linguistic experience is manifest in different attitudes about sexuality. It seems to me that not only are a large number of my deaf friends gay, but many deaf people I know are in Computer Science. What is the connection? Sometimes I think that I see so many gay deaf people because I socialize with gay people, and the Deaf are visible as such when they are socializing (you won't see much sign language in the board room). Not too surpising, eh? Correlation doesn't imply causation... Just my perspective as a hearing person (hopefully both gay and deaf sensitive). >[...] >In the midst of hashing over this and a few derivative notions, some >friends of mine turned the conversation back to the deafness theory; it >suddenly occurred to me that I've never seen the word ``homosexual'' in >American Sign Language [...] > >Joe Chapman decvax!cca!emacs!joe emacs!joe@cca-unix Hearing folk have media (radio and TV) which act to homogenize the language, so people from New York and California can understand each other (mostly). Since sign language does not have this, it is not so standardized on the linguistic fringe (though American Sign Language has a large lexicon that everybody agrees upon). Topics which we don't discuss freely have sign language vocabularies which vary widely from region to region. Computer Science and Homosexuality are two good examples (I know five or six regional signs for "computer"). There are a bunch of signs for homosexuality, though some are considered derogatory in certain places, and others are only comprehensible in specific contexts (funny, english has the same bug/feature). My source book in such matters (people in netland seem to have a passion for references) is "Signs of Sexual Behavior: An Introduction to Some Sex-Related Vocabulary in American Sign Language" by James Woodward. It lists signs for "gay", "gay-male", "gay-female, lesbian", and "queer, gay". (I'd show you what they look like, but I don't transmit well at 9600 baud). The names given to the signs are somewhat arbitrary. The one I see (and use) most frequently here in San Francisco is the last of these, which Woodward says tends to be derogatory back East. The sign is made by touching the thumb and index finger (a "g" handshape) to the point of the chin. "Lesbian" is made similarly, but with an "L" hand shape. I don't think I've ever been misunderstood with these signs, nor do I think I've offended anyone who wouldn't be offended by the word "gay". Any comments? Any Deaf folks out there have an opinion? Brad
jeff@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Mattson) (10/23/85)
About ASL signs for "gay": > The one I see (and use) most frequently here in San Francisco is the > last of these, which Woodward says tends to be derogatory back East. > The sign is made by touching the thumb and index finger (a "g" > handshape) to the point of the chin. "Lesbian" is made similarly, > but with an "L" hand shape. According to an old ASL teacher of mine, over here (in Boston) the sign you gave for "gay" IS derogatory, but the one for "lesbian" is acceptable. The less derogatory sign for "gay" is simply to finger-spell the word. -- ---------------------------------------- Don't dream it; BE IT! ---------------------------------------- Jeff Mattson Jeff@MIT-Eddie 497-3980 (work) 424-7226 (home) 24 Westland Ave. #10 Boston, MA 02115
das@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/26/85)
In article <105@emacs.UUCP> joe@emacs.UUCP (Joe Chapman) writes: > ... > it suddenly occurred to me that I've never seen the word ``homosexual'' in > American Sign Language. At least in Southern California, the sign is G (for `gay') held with the middle joint of the index finger touching the chin. [For those who don't know, the letter G is a "We're number one!" hand turned so that the index finger is pointing left, with the back of the hand facing the "listener".] The reference is to a beard and also a woman, being in the lower portion of the face. [Many gender-related signs are made in the top portion of the face for males, and the bottom for females; "bastard" and "bitch", for example, are the same sign, but at different heights.] The woman from whom I took a sign language course tells of being at a national conference for interpreters, in which most of the conversing was done in ASL. She and some friends were explaining that they taught at Pierce Junior College in Los Angeles. The sign for Pierce is the thumb and forefinger grasping and wiggling the earlobe, a pun on "pierced (ears)". An interpreter from New York saw them and started chuckling -- she came over and explained that that sign is New York ASL for "gay". -- David Smallberg, das@locus.ucla.edu, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!das
strick@gatech.CSNET (henry strickland) (10/29/85)
In article <10761@ucbvax.ARPA> bradr@ingres.UUCP (Brad Rubenstein) writes: >There are a bunch of signs for homosexuality, though some are >considered derogatory in certain places, and others are only >comprehensible in specific contexts (funny, english has the same >bug/feature). My source book in such matters (people in netland seem >to have a passion for references) is "Signs of Sexual Behavior: An >Introduction to Some Sex-Related Vocabulary in American Sign Language" >by James Woodward. It lists signs for "gay", "gay-male", "gay-female, >lesbian", and "queer, gay". (I'd show you what they look like, but I >don't transmit well at 9600 baud). The names given to the signs are For those of us who sign, could you describe them (as you describe the two signs below) ? >somewhat arbitrary. The one I see (and use) most frequently here in >San Francisco is the last of these, which Woodward says tends to be >derogatory back East. The sign is made by touching the thumb and index >finger (a "g" handshape) to the point of the chin. "Lesbian" is made >similarly, but with an "L" hand shape. I don't think I've ever been >misunderstood with these signs, nor do I think I've offended anyone who >wouldn't be offended by the word "gay". > >Any comments? Any Deaf folks out there have an opinion? > > Brad I've seen the above two signs on the chin used by the son of deaf parents in Atlanta. I have a hearing friend from North Carolina who has worked in the National Theatre of the Deaf for several years. He was once telling a story in which he was asked (because he wore an earring) by a deaf person if he was gay ... the sign David used in this story is the handshape for "feel" (middle finger bent inside and perpendicular to the palm -- a common handshape in signs, kind of meaning "sensitive" -- it's used in signs for feel, pity, excited, lucky, sparkling (as a diamond ) -- to be fair, it can also mean empty, or absent ) -- the palm is down, above the head, with the finger just above the hair, and it's brought forward as if drawing a mohawk. Is this derrogatory? Used elsewhere? -- -- henry strickland -- the clouds project { akgua allegra hplabs inhp4 } -- school of ics / ga tech !gatech!strick -- atlanta ga 30332