MOYLES' GAY CONFUSION

The BBC governor's clearing of Chris Moyles' use of gay in its modern sense has sparked a bit of outrage from the gay theorists: Most notably, Tim Lusher writing in The Guardian is pretty upset:

What is surprising, though, is that the BBC has once again leapt to the defence of their £630,000-a-year, strike-busting star (last May he chose to break a 24-hour strike by BBC staff over job cuts). First the BBC told us that the racist moment wasn't actually a racist moment; now, after a listener complained that Moyles' ringtone comment last July was homophobic, the board of governors has declared that the word gay "was often now used to mean 'lame' or 'rubbish'. This is a widespread current usage ... among young people".

Intrestingly, Lusher is quick to make it clear that he doesn't believe Moyles to be homophobic - he points out that Moyles and Will Young text each other, for example.

The problem, of course, is the shift in the meaning of the word from being "homosexual" to "a bit crappy." Lusher goes further, suggesting that it would have been okay in a younger man:

While it is true that since the 1990s the word "gay" has become a youth-speak synonym for stupid, second-rate and feeble, that doesn't make it a good thing. In fact, in case Moyles is still unaware of this, the casual use of "gay" - when used other than to accurately describe homosexual men and women - is cruel and derogatory.

The BBC may argue that Moyles (age 32) is supposed to be down with the teenagers - that's who the show is meant to appeal to. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he should behave like one. [...]

Tony Thorne, head of the languages centre at King's College, London, believes that the gay/rubbish linguistic connection is one that only the under-28 age group can make comfortably. "It is true now that it is very widespread among young speakers and it is not used with any homophobic intention at all - and that is difficult for people to get their heads around," he said yesterday. "Even if a person does not mean to be homophobic I do not think there are many gay people who would be able to laugh it off. A lot of people have not caught up with it yet. Many people over 30 are surprised to hear young people use the term in this way."

So, were Moyles four years younger, it would have been okay, but as he's past the (presumably scientifically arrived-at) 28 year-old cut-off point, he's overstepped the mark?

Apparently, the age of the governors is also an issue:

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, agrees that the offence is probably unintended, but adds drily: "He's not especially homophobic because, as Halle Berry pointed out the other day, he's racist as well." Summerskill says he's unsurprised by the BBC governors' response given the "inexcusable" lack of an openly gay board member. "They are presuming to be down with the kids. It's like a dowager duchess turning up at a dinner party in a rubber mini-skirt and pretending she's hip."

It's interesting how the negative stereotyping of homosexuals is wrong, but it's fine to create lazy stereotypes about older people.

This railing at the shift in the meaning of language is, amusingly, reminiscent of the frothing of the right when queer people started to use "gay" to define themselves - it's only a matter of time before someone from Outrage pops up to wail over the loss of a good, old-fashioned English word.

Moyles shouldn't have described the ringtone as gay, not because it was homophobic to do so, but because the shift in usage hasn't travelled far enough to allow the new meaning to be tossed around without causing offence: He can be accused of thoughtlessness rather than offensiveness.

What's fascinating, though, is the struggle on the part of some politicalqueers to try and shore up what was in itself a temporal slang term: maybe you should let it go, and fight the more important battles, people?

Lusher shows why his focus on this small spat, and the confusion of a shift in language with a cause that needs fighting, when he cites the taunting and murder of a child in the context of a silly spat over one word on a radio programme:

Does any of this matter? Is it so bad if the meaning of "gay" changes, if the intent is not homophobic? Damilola Taylor comes to mind, bullied at school and called "gay boy".

(Taylor was murdered, by the way, in 2000; long before the new 'gay' became part of the lingua franca)

The bullying of Taylor was a terrible thing, certainly: but is Lusher really trying to tell us that when they called him "gay boy" they were having a go because they thought he was rubbish? No. Taylor was the victim of homophobic bullying - and it's that which needs to be addressed. It doesn't matter if 'gay' means good, bad, or even 'liable to write think pieces in the liberal press.' The bullies will find words and fists to use to attack those who don't match up to their version of normal. Homophobia isn't created by the change in the meaning of a word - and more than it was ended by the re-defining of the word "queer."

And while kids are having their lives made miserable in playgrounds, you're sitting around debating if its okay for a dj to use a phrase already in wide circulation to describe a ringtone.

music chris moyles queer