{"id":7557,"date":"2017-06-20T10:48:52","date_gmt":"2017-06-20T05:03:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pahichan.com\/?p=7557"},"modified":"2017-06-20T10:48:52","modified_gmt":"2017-06-20T05:03:52","slug":"how-the-times-gave-gay-its-own-voice-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pahichan.com\/en\/how-the-times-gave-gay-its-own-voice-again\/","title":{"rendered":"How The Times Gave \u2018Gay\u2019 Its Own Voice (Again)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

\"\"<\/a>Kathamndu (Pahichan) June 20 – I\u2019m gay.\u00a0I could not have written those words in The New York Times 30 years ago. \u00a0Not out of fear. My family, friends and colleagues had known for quite a while.<\/p>\n

No, I could not have written those words because our Manual of Style and Usage prohibited it:<\/p>\n

gay.<\/strong> Do not use as a synonym for homosexual<\/em> unless it appears in the formal, capitalized name of an organization or in quoted matter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Liberation arrived on June 15, 1987, in a note to the staff from Allan M. Siegal, who was then an assistant managing editor. \u201cStarting immediately,\u201d he stated, \u201cwe will accept the word gay as an adjective meaning homosexual.\u201d<\/p>\n

By saying \u201cgay\u201d in its own voice, the newspaper that set the standard for press coverage throughout the country was acknowledging the existence of a community and a movement far broader and richer than \u201chomosexual\u201d \u2014 clinical, confining and imposed by others \u2014 could possibly convey.<\/p>\n

In conventional histories, therefore, 1987 is a milestone.<\/p>\n

But there is a longer and more complicated story about the acceptance, banishment and subsequent reappearance of the word \u201cgay\u201d in these pages.<\/p>\n

More than a half-century ago, The Times reviewed John Rechy\u2019s novel \u201cCity of Night,\u201d<\/a> a graphic account of a gay hustler\u2019s transgressive travels through America. \u201cThe excitement of this \u2018gay\u2019 world, as Rechy paints it, consists so much in its illegality, in its furtive, on-the-lam quality,\u201d the reviewer, Peter Buitenhuis<\/a>, wrote in 1963.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

In 1969, an essay in the Arts & Leisure section<\/a> made plain that outlaw sex was only one facet of gay life. The piece appeared four months before the violent and history-making demonstration by gays at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village. In the article, a gay man, who was writing pseudonymously, expressed his yearning to be depicted in popular culture as something other than a tragic, doomed sociopath. \u201cUnless art has no effect on those it portrays, the American Gay Boy and Lesbian must certainly view themselves, at least subconsciously, as second-class citizens,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cGay\u201d was even making its way into headlines \u2014 \u201c5 Gay Candidates Are in State Contests,\u201d<\/a> \u201cChristopher Street: From Farm to Gay Center,\u201d<\/a> \u201cReligious Order Founded Here By One-Year-Old Gay Church,\u201d<\/a> \u201cFinally \u2014 Two Films Dealing With the Issues of Gay Lib,\u201d<\/a> \u201cThe Gay Life: Cartoon vs. Reality,\u201d<\/a>\u201cThe \u2018Gay\u2019 People Demand Their Rights,\u201d<\/a> \u201cA Catholic on \u2018Gay\u2019 Life\u201d<\/a> and \u201cIs Gay a \u2018Security Risk\u2019?\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

Just as the word \u201cgay\u201d was entering into mainstream conversation in the late 1960s and early \u201970s, so its use seemed to be increasing organically at The Times \u2014 not necessarily encouraged, but not entirely resisted.<\/p>\n

That slow progress came to a full stop on April 6, 1975, when The Times published a freewheeling, knowing and uninhibited account by Clifford Jahr<\/a> of a luxury cruise through the Gulf of Mexico for lesbians and gay men, many of whom were closeted. \u201cThe All-Gay Cruise: Prejudice and Pride\u201d<\/a> was the lead article of the Sunday Travel section.<\/p>\n

On his way to an unexceptionable conclusion (\u201cthe week passed in a warm spirit of moderation and mutual respect\u201d), Mr. Jahr paused to record a few events on board like a \u201csadomasochistic fashion show of leather get-ups, including harnesses and G-strings.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whether it was that detail or the account of two chickens made to inhale a sexual stimulant, leading one into a \u201clust-crazed tussle with a Gucci carryall,\u201d the article did not amuse Iphigene Ochs Sulzberger<\/a>, then 82 years old, who was the behind-the-scenes force at The Times for much of the 20th century.<\/p>\n

Photo<\/span><\/p>\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>
A page from The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, showing the old policy on the use of \u201cgay.\u201d<\/span>Credit<\/span>Tony Cenicola\/The New York Times<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In fact, Mrs. Sulzberger was outraged, according to \u201cThe Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind The New York Times,\u201d by Susan E. Tifft and Alex S. Jones.<\/p>\n

She expressed her displeasure to her son, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger<\/a>, known as Punch, who was \u2014 as the publisher \u2014 in a position to do something. He ordered The Times to avoid the subject of gay life for a long time, Max Frankel, a former executive editor, wrote in his memoir, \u201cThe Times of My Life and My Life With The Times.\u201d And he banned the word \u201cgay,\u201d Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones wrote.<\/p>\n

Mr. Frankel, who was then the Sunday editor, objected to the order but complied. The managing editor, A. M. Rosenthal, was already apoplectic about the travel piece, Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones wrote, and may not have needed much persuasion to impose a ban.<\/p>\n