Homo-sexualist in charge of Belgium gives us hope

[Lateralthinking1]

Surely if it is inflated, it should be big Peeanist.

[Stillhomewardbound]

'Homosexualist' is a much used term by myself. It is a a lighter and chirpier alternative to the rather pious 'gay', while also mocking 'homosexual' which makes us sound more like an affliction than a gender, especially when it is uttered as 'hommo ...'.

[Lateralthinking1]

It is quite wry and not at all like "Socialist". Perhaps when Ed Balls becomes leader, Labour could change their name to the "Socials".

[Chris Newman]

It is quite wry and not at all like "Socialist". Perhaps when Ed Balls becomes leader, Labour could change their name to the "Socials".

Or the Ballistics.

[Lateralthinking1]

[ahinton]

Or the Ballistics.

Or the Minor Balls; we had the Major Balls earlier, as some may recall.

That said, the prospect of Ed Miliballs becoming leader of anything is exceedingly remote.

[Chris Newman]

We should copyright these jokes, Alistair, otherwise they'll be used on "Have I Got News for You?" or "QI".

[Lateralthinking1]

Shock news just in. Clarkson changes his gender in China and says to friends "Call me Kelly".

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8Ez4XgV5X17odEEMr3F9HT3z2MGqD66zN1KLCJgZDyd60pbsFPA

A BBC insider, who refused to be named, said: "Yes it's true. Jeremy finally relented about not having a woman on Top Gear. However, he insisted that in the circumstances it would have to be him".

Clarkson denies that the sudden change has anything to do with the recent controversy on The One Show. In fact, he has already signed up to be the new politics editor for The Sun.

His first piece, entitled "It's all gone pinko in Belgie-Welgie" is expected to be published on Saturday. Meanwhile, William Hill predict that he will be the first man to top the Christmas dvd charts while also being the top selling female music artist.

[Frances_iom]

Shock news just in. Clarkson changes his gender in China and says to friends "Call me Kelly".
A BBC insider, who refused to be named, said: "Yes it's true. Jeremy finally relented about not having a woman on Top Gear. However, he insisted that in the circumstances it would have to be him". ....

now you understand why he bought a getaway cottage at the bottom of a lighthouse (symbolic?) on Isle of Man

[ahinton]

now you understand why he bought a getaway cottage at the bottom of a lighthouse (symbolic?) on Isle of Man

I thought that he'd only done that because of IOM's tax haven status.

[Lateralthinking1]

Cottage? You've got to be joking - and that's just the holiday home.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/01/article-1372185-0B6BF77500000578-686_468x297.jpg

[MrGongGong]

I thought you meant "cottage" in a George Michael sense

[handsomefortune]

big peeanist might already be sending jokes in to 'the daily mashist'.

i'm quite partial to 'hommofrowny' for hommophobic..... but like shb, also can't stand 'hommosexual' ..... it sounds really awful, is more often used in a horrible voice.....by quite horrible people. melanie phillips for instance might practically choke on the word, and load it with even more extra baggage.

i also loathed the recent r4 news item that was repeated adinfinitum for a couple of days, about 'scotland electing a 32 yr old lesbian conservative candidate ... ' 'news' delivered (to my ears) practically with a triumphant 'so there' after it, for some annoying reason. never has someone new to politics been 'advertised' to listeners in quite such a personally detailed fashion, though they did forget to mention her height, i suppose! essentially, other than her specific political perspective - precisely what/who decided on the newsworthiness of such personal details initially?

(imv something very odd going on with diversity generally of late).

i think the thatcher example, upthread, proves exactly why assumptions are dangerous. i hope younger generations are savvy to this - (though perhaps it doesn't matter too much because they don't bother to vote anyway...or perhaps due to recent events, that's 'used not to bother')? hopefully, the voting population will see straight through the juvenile, almost chavish blag of current interpretations of political rhetoric. (no offence whatsover to chavs intended...as at least chavs don't pretend they know about political leadership, or see the subject of diversity merely as something to be exploited, in the event of candidates having few/no other redeeming features).

[ahinton]

big peeanist might already be sending jokes in to 'the daily mashist'.

i'm quite partial to 'hommofrowny' for hommophobic..... but like shb, also can't stand 'hommosexual' ..... it sounds really awful, is more often used in a horrible voice.....by quite horrible people. melanie phillips for instance might practically choke on the word

Can we have that in writing, as well as video evidence?

i also loathed the recent r4 news item that was repeated adinfinitum for a couple of days, about 'scotland electing a 32 yr old lesbian conservative candidate ... ' 'news' delivered (to my ears) practically with a triumphant 'so there' after it, for some annoying reason. never has someone new to politics been 'advertised' to listeners in quite such a personally detailed fashion, though they did forget to mention her height, i suppose! essentially, other than her specific political perspective - precisely what/who decided on the newsworthiness of such personal details initially?

(imv something very odd going on with diversity generally of late).

i think the thatcher example, upthread, proves exactly why assumptions are dangerous. i hope younger generations are savvy to this - (though perhaps it doesn't matter too much because they don't bother to vote anyway...or perhaps due to recent events, that's 'used not to bother')? hopefully, the voting population will see straight through the juvenile, almost chavish blag of current interpretations of political rhetoric. (no offence whatsover to chavs intended...as at least chavs don't pretend they know about political leadership, or see the subject of diversity merely as something to be exploited, in the event of candidates having few/no other redeeming features).

I do agree that using terms such as homosexual (however it be pronounced), lesbian and so on when the sexuality of the subject is not the issue under discussion is invariably gratuitous, particularly as one would almost never hear the term "heterosexual" in a similar context. As to the best term to use when its usage is contextually appropriate I am not sure; "gay" has required a complete revision of its earlier meaning but, whaever its faults, it does at least have the advfgantage of being monosyllabic. What about "unisexual", which would have the advantage of being applicable to people of both sexes whose predilections were for same sex partners?

[Lateralthinking1]

I should have thought that the interest is in firsts and perhaps seconds - as in she is the first. Compare with Obama. Generally, I would see the battle to include previously excluded groups as having been won at society's upper levels. That is not to say that there won't or should not be more years of ensuring that there isn't slippage. It is though to say that people have become people.

There are some notable exceptions. The Church is one. I think too that new categories can emerge, ie Moira Stuart and the strange case of the BBC and older women. But overall my feeling is that the slow shift should be towards a more mature understanding, and indeed defining, of vulnerability. This I think has at least two features - one which doesn't involve diversity and a second which does and where there might often be additional needs for accommodation because of the two components involved.