It isn't offensive to gays. It has nothing to do with gays. It's a schoolyard taunt, meaning wuss.

-- Ann Coulter, on the correct usage of the word "faggot"

On the Hannity and Colmes show recently, Ann Coulter maintained repeatedly that she was joking, did not mean to insult gays, and that the word "faggot" means something else:

...what they say about me, they literally misinterpret a joke. Liberals like Kerry get caught calling our troops dumb and then go back and say, oh, I botched a joke. No, I didn't botch a joke, and I didn't use an insulting word. I used a schoolyard word about a married man with children, 28th billionth time, and the audience knew that. I mean, the joke wouldn't have worked if I had inserted the name of a gay Democrat. Any other Democrat, the name could have been inserted. It could have been Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton, because it's a schoolyard taunt meaning wuss, meaning nerd, meaning...

The new definition carries with it Ann Coulter's recognition that the word is insulting if it is directed towards gays, and as she conceded, it was used wrongly by Isaiah Washington. But if directed towards someone who isn't gay, it becomes just a schoolyard taunt, and a not very insulting one. This sounded a bit counterintuitive to me, almost in defiance of common sense. Ann Coulter elaborates:

COLMES: Was Isaiah Washington wrong to use that word to -- when he used it to describe T.R. Knight?

COULTER: Yes. He used it incorrectly, but I still don't think he should go to rehab for using a word. I think that's crazy. I think all of America outside of Hollywood thinks that's a wee bit crazy.

COLMES: So he used it incorrectly, but you used it correctly?

COULTER: Yes. Yes. I would say that of pretty much every Democratic politician. It could have been John Dean, but he's not running for president. It could have been a different word...

At any event, it would seem that Ann Coulter is urging upon us the following, very novel definition of "faggot."

Correct usage: a) a schoolboy who is considered by another schoolboy to be "weak or timid" and b) pretty much every Democratic politician -- male or female, specifically including Hillary Clinton. (Um, does Bubba know?)

Incorrect usage: any homosexual.

I'm wondering whether her audience understands the new meaning. I mean, if the language has evolved and she is right, then there ought to be no more objection to being called a "faggot" than to being called a "wuss" or (I suppose) even a "bitch." Or even a "cunt." After all, it's quite apparent that Edwards is not a woman. Honestly, I was just kidding around when I uploaded the photo of him in drag (it involved my temporary Marcotte's Syndrome exacerbated by the fuss over Giuliani's drag).

The problem with my thinking here is that because I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with unmanly men, I tend not to see this taunting in the same way that others might. Is Ann Coulter breaking new barriers for tolerance and understanding in this regard?

I'd like to hope so. But I just wonder -- especially about the people who cheered her on. There was a time not that long ago when calling a heterosexual man a faggot was the worst insult you could bestow on him. It was considerably worse than calling him a "wuss," and that's because not all wusses are homosexuals. According to the popular stereotype prevalent at the time, however, all homosexuals were wusses. So, if you called someone a faggot, it carried extra weight.

Now we are told it no longer does, because the word "faggot" does not carry the imputation of homosexuality. It only means "wuss" -- and the "wuss" factor is completely detached from the gay factor.

If calling a heterosexual a faggot is no longer insulting for the additional reason that there's nothing wrong with being gay, I am delighted, because that means prejudice against homosexuals has disappeared.

I want to believe her.

Should I?

What then, am I to make of her earlier "Bill Clinton may not be gay, but Al Gore is a total fag" remark? If "fag" is a schoolyard taunt meaning "wuss," then I'm confused. But then she said it was a joke. But what was the joke? The idea that "gay" and "fag" might be mistakenly seen as synonyms? Or was it a joke for her to suggest that Al Gore is a wuss? No, that can't be it, for had she stated that Al Gore was a wuss, she would have been serious, and would not be backing off the remark. For it is her contention that "pretty much every Democratic politician" is a "faggot" meaning "wuss."

Maybe what I'm missing is that it's serious to call Democrats wusses, but that it's a joke if you call them "faggots" and you mean "wusses."

Hey, I'm trying to be serious here.

What I'm still trying to figure out is why I found it funnier when Howard Stern used the same word. I guess it was because he always made it clear that above all, he liked the "homos" he'd gently rib, but that his real goal was to ridicule the word. He'd put his gay co-workers on the air, that sort of thing.

Is there some reason why Ann can't do that? Is she personally anti-gay? I have no idea, really. But sources as widely divergent as Ace and Counterpunch have examined this and don't seem to think she is.

I think what will matter most is what the ordinary voters remember about this after the Republicans stop fighting each other about it and the dust settles.

Will this resonate as Republicans-think-it's-funny-to-call-people-faggots?

With emotional issues like this I'm not sure nuanced arguments will matter.

If I'm having trouble getting to the truth after years of blogging about such things, I think it would be unreasonable to expect the same thing of ordinary voters.

Again, I think Rand Simberg got it right when he said she was fragging her own troops.

Whether she meant to do that is a much more complicated question.

MORE: Sean Kinsell has analyzed the Coulter phenomenon, and is not offended:

I never figured Coulter was anti-gay*. I have friends who've seen her out having drinks or dinner with prominent artfags, for one thing. And for another...well, generally speaking, a lot of loudmouthed, high-strung, unmarried urban professional women are fag hags. I'm pretty sure she's against gay marriage and abolishing the DADT policy in the military, but those are specific policy positions, not overarching attitudes. Not that I gave it much thought.

[...]

Now, of course, it's suddenly become impossible to open a browser without encountering a solemn discussion of what exactly Coulter meant when she mentioned John Edwards and the word faggot in close proximity to each other. Her explanation strikes me as sincere. "You can't understand the joke I was trying to make without bearing in mind that I operate at the developmental level of a second-grader" sounds about right, doesn't it?

So while I think she's wrong about the way the word is used in contemporary American English by adults, I wasn't particularly offended. I agree with Connie that fetishizing words is a bad idea, and I think it's especially bad in this case. The last thing we need as gays is to look yet again as if we were easily-bruised creatures who need to be protected from hurt by big, strong, kind-hearted straight people.

people need to get over the name calling thing. Yes, all the usual can be said about it, bad manners, rude, and crude, but the counter balance to it of "... but names can never hurt me" needs to be brought back into the lexicon.

I have kids. One of the annoying things they do is annoy each other. They test boundaries. They poke-poke-poke until the other explodes. Then the other pokes-pokes-pokes until they get a reaction to their reaction. This goes on constantly. Without going all Bill Cosby on them and declaring, "Don't any of you ever talk or touch each other again!" you have to let them sort it out.

One of the clues I've given to them is to stop being annoyed by something the other does. If you allow it to annoy you, they will keep doing it. If it never causes a reaction, it will stop. It's a akin to pretending that being tickled isn't ticklish. So most of the annoyances are avoided by CHOOSING not to be annoyed.

And I think that's key.

Words cannot harm anyone. They aren't magic spells. They don't have any power besides the power we've decided they have. They can't harm you UNLESS you choose to allow them to harm you--you CHOOSE to be hurt/offended by them. That is a very bad thing and a very unhealthy thing for a supposedly sophisticated and civilized society.

I don't think this reduces itself to a game of "BINGO! YOU JUST USED A WORD ON THE FORBIDDEN WORD LIST, SO YOU'RE A CERITIFIED BIGOT!" but I do think common sense is involved.