Talk:Gay disease

Do epidemioligists actually use this term? It sounds like degoratory slang to me. -- Stephen Gilbert 20:15 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's mainstream usage: but it crops up now and then, because it describes an existing phenomenon. And it's shorter than the clumsy phrase disesase which at first rapidly spreads in the gay community. On the other hand, I can see how it could sound derogatory. What do you suggest? --Uncle Ed 20:22 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

In the early 1980s, MDs in the US really, really did refer to it as GRID: Gay Related Immune Disorder. Slrubenstein

That's a single disease, since renamed, not a class of diseases. Epidemiologists certainly do not use this term. This is just another example of Ed Poor writing his anti-gay bigotry into the Wikipedia.

I have no comment on Ed's politics. But GRID was not a single disease -- when epidemiologists used the term GRID they really weren't sure what it was -- changing the name to AIDS was not semantics, it reflected a real shift in the understanding of the disorder. It also reflected a political process and regardless of Ed's motivations, I do think there is a larger point here about the relationship between medicine and politics. I am not accusing Western medicine of homophobia, but the fact that AIDS was once refered to as GRID was an example of the way diseases are socially constructed and often under political conditions. Slrubenstein

Apparently there is some controversy around the concept (or term) gay disease. How to present information about a new disease is of concern to the medical community. Particularly when a disproportionate number of sufferers are homosexual, it would appear.

"We were very sensitized to this stuff real early on. The people who succeeded in AIDS were people who could deal with the politics, and gay politics was a big part of it. We were quite sophisticated from a practical point of view about presentation of the disease at the beginning of this epidemic. We would give talks to gay audiences. Michael [Gorman] and I went to Pat Norman and presented our data. And then immediately this rumor started running around that we were doing something anti-gay, even though Michael is gay. We were trying to close the bathhouses; people thought this was homophobic. We were in that kind of minefield right from the beginning.

"We were all incredibly oversensitized to the issue of positioning the disease. We backed away from it. We under-presented it as a gay disease for that reason. In the early days, we spent a lot of energy in toning, toning everything down, minimizing, so as to not freak people out." [1] (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:2020/dynaweb/teiproj/oh/science/aids2/@Generic__BookTextView/11340)

Mkweise, did you read the quote above? These are doctors using the term "gay disease", one of whom himself is gay. I don't think your description, "applied ... primarly ... by persons who disapprove" is apt in the article's first paragraph:

The slang term gay disease is sometimes applied to an illness or syndrome whose first appearance to epidemioligists is primarily among homosexual patients by persons who disapprove of said lifestyle.

--Uncle Ed

I vaguely seem to recall that the term was originally coined by a televangelist. Perhaps it is now more widely used by gay people, I don't know. Mkweise

I removed "by persons who disapprove of said lifestyle." because it is untrue. The phrase "gay disease" is used by supporters of said lifestyle as well, as demonstrated by these usages at [2] (http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature?sernum=474) and [3] (http://www.watermarkonline.com/health.htm) (both are Gay/Lesbian publications). --º¡º

I have to say, one or two examples of using the term gay disease does not a trend make. I think it's misleading and POV to make a point out of claiming that the term has widespread or common use in the gay community - from my own experience I've rarely heard anyone other than those opposed to homosexuality use the term. What is more, one of the articles you cite[4] (http://www.watermarkonline.com/health.htm) doesn't appear to even use the phrase! (the other is out of date and requires re-linking)

Indeed. Both of the examples I used above have since changed. I assure you that they did at one time contain use of the phrase, but that really doesn't matter much at this point. -º¡º

While a minority gay people may use the term, its worth pointing out that a minority of gay people also believe there is something wrong with themselves (e.g. reparative therapy) and it is commonly held that they are far from representative of the community. Also, I do not believe the term itself has any official scientific usage: AFAIK there is no such thing as a "gay exclusive" disease. Any disease that can be caught by a homosexual is also transmittable to a heterosexual. Although gay men have been vectors of diseases from time to time (and had disproportionally larger media coverage - for example, I understand Hepatitis A and B are far more common and kill more people than AIDS) the homosexual act also makes it harder to catch some other STDs. The NPOV of this article would be greatly improved by mentioning these things. -- Axon

---

We need more material about why people like using -- or take pains to avoid using -- or get political mileage out of protesting -- the term gay disease. Sorry, but I don't have any more time tonight. Catch you all tomorrow... --Uncle Ed 22:42 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I don´t believe we need any such material. The term gay disease seems inherently and incurably derogatory to me. Would you require material to explain why spanish disease (formerly for syphilis) sounds derogatory? And even if you had such material, would you continue to use said phrase in an encyclopedia to describe a phenomenon (as opposed to mentioning the existence of such a phrase)? You might argue that there are indeed diseases that don´t spread much outside the gay community (and that this may, or may not, have been so with syphilis and the spanish/italian/whatever people), but that´s not the point. I think that to express the association of a disease with any group of people, be they otherwise subject to discrimination or not, you can´t possibly use any phrase that sounds remotely like slang. Disesase which at first rapidly spreads in the gay community may be clumsy but it is NPOV, and there may be better ways to express this. Kosebamse 15:49 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I concur, Kosebamse. I've been working to make this once highly POV and prejudicial article into something more rounded and informative but the fundamental permise of 'gay disease' is itself highly perjorative. Check the article history and this talk for claims that the term has widespread usage in the gay community!

I've been reluctant to delete it altogether, but I think the text could be re-worked into something more useful. I would advise moving this article to something like 'Gay Health[?]' or 'Homosexuality and Medicine[?]' or something similar and turning it into a discussion of the history and the various issues. Axon 16:49 May 6, 2003 (BST)