Is ‘Homosexual’ an offensive word?

Apparently so, say Scottish Parliament. New guidance states that civil servants must not use the word ‘homosexual’ because it is deemed offensive to gay people.

According to the Herald, the new rule states: “It is not acceptable to use the word ‘homosexual.’ This term is offensive to many people as it is the term that was used in law to make same-sex sexual relationships illegal.”

Those working on councils, health boards and quangos are also told that they should use the word ‘straight’ instead of ‘heterosexual’ because the latter can cause confusion.

The Campaign Against Political Correctness criticised the move and founder John Midgely said,

The word homosexual to most people would be as inoffensive as heterosexual. It is silly to claim they are loaded terms – they are neutral and simply describe sexual orientation. This sort of mumbo-jumbo is completely counterproductive to good community relations.”

A spokesman for Stonewall Scotland said the group supported the guidelines because the word ‘homosexual’ was a term used when being gay was considered a ‘condition’.

I’d love to know if gay people think that ‘homosexual’ is an offensive word. What if I thought ‘heterosexual’ was offensive? Would we restrict the use of that word too?

Yes my friends; it’s political correctness gone mad, and getting madder by the hour…


Dean Roberts

Dean is a Minister in the Anglican Church. Currently he is Curate in the parishes of Bedwas, Machen, Michaelston-y-Fedw and Rudry in South Wales. He was born and bred in Wales, is married to Megan, and has two dogs called Taliesin and Melyn, and two cats named Sinsir and Hâf. He graduated from Cardiff University with a BA Hons. in Theology & Religious Studies, and has studied for an MA in Theology, Ministry & Mission at Trinity College Bristol. He also holds a Cert.RSCM from the Royal School of Church Music. He loves playing music, walking, reading, blogging and horse riding as well as going to the cinema and theatre. Read More @

  • Ziz

    Of course, no one is alwelod to utter the phrase “charter schools” in this debate, because we’ve all been told, by every party on the political spectrum, that this is not, and never will be, on the cards. Which is a shame, because the only way for Catholic schools be be certain that they have a reasonable chance of defeating government interference is to either go private or become part of a charter system. (One that – be careful what you wish for – will also see the rise of madrassas-in-all-but-name in our cities.) Libertarian conservatives at places like the Post love to argue that, as long as Separate School Boards take the gov’t dime, they must dance to their tune, as a covert and not-so-covert way of arguing that we shouldn’t be getting that dime. And guess what – they’re right!As long as the gov’t funds Catholic schools, they can tell us to read from right to left or ban recess or sing “Born This Way” instead of the national anthem. Of course, the Church has no intention of giving up their state-funded status, so they’ll argue this up to the point where McGuinty just has to say “no” enough times, then they’ll shrug and tell us we all did our best. They’ll never throw themselves into the fight for charter schools – not tax-funded but our tax money spent the way we choose (what a radical concept!) – because they also believe implicitly that it’s a non-starter, and an even more doomed fight than the one they’re currently fighting for the curious privilege of state-funded autonomy.