Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

NYT Insider: How a Times reporter eluded a ban on the word "gay"

I know "homosexual" was originally the much-too-clinical term for being gay, but I had no idea the NYT banned the word "gay" all the way up to 1987. (Gee, only six years after a massive plague began destroying the gay community...) I was admittedly in middle school at the time, but still.

--------------------------

The Advocate, a national L.G.B.T.Q. newsmagazine, took The New York Times to task in its issue of Dec. 9, 1986, for what the magazine regarded as this newspaper’s indifference, if not hostility, to the gay community. Among the articles in The Advocate was “The ‘G’ Word,” about The Times’s refusal to adopt the word “gay.”

At the time, there was an explicit prohibition in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: “gay. Do not use as a synonym for homosexual unless it appears in the formal, capitalized name of an organization or in quoted matter.” Gay men found this rule to be demeaning. I know, because I was one of them. As a closeted young reporter on The Times’s Metro desk, however, I didn’t stand a chance of persuading the publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (1926-2012), or the executive editor, A.M. Rosenthal (1922-2006), to overturn a ban they had put in place in 1976.

So I waged guerrilla warfare instead. Whenever I wrote articles of particular concern to gay readers, I peppered the text with “gay” as much as I could — in accordance with the stylebook rule. I also tried to limit use of the clinical, antiquated “homosexual.”

The point was not to be subversive, but to leave readers with the impression that my articles were written in idiomatic English. For instance, 42 years ago, I covered the transformation of a former New York City public school in Greenwich Village into what is now the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center. “Homosexual” appeared only once in the article (apart from the headline, “Sale of Site to Homosexuals Planned,” which I didn’t write). But “gay” appeared six times, in the names of organizations and in direct quotations.

That 1986 Advocate issue is in the Museum at The Times, as is a copy of the old stylebook, opened to the “gay” entry. The editor to whom the book belonged, Thomas Feyer, drew an “X” through the entry in June 1987, when the rule was superseded by a memo from Allan M. Siegal (1940-2022), an assistant managing editor.

Today, the stylebook says: “gay (adj.) is preferred to homosexual in most contexts.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2June 8, 2025 5:29 AM

Archive link for OP

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1June 8, 2025 4:15 AM

Now that “gay” has been shoved aside for the exhausting LGBTQ+ alphabet soup or worse, the reclaimed-by-academics-but-still-cringe “queer”.

by Anonymousreply 2June 8, 2025 5:29 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!