Talk:Swish (slang)

Butch? Clone??

This article has an excessive LGBT and/or gender studies "implicit context" that makes it unclear; there is a lot of apparently appropriate but very perplexing jargon, both in the article and in previous comments below, that should be defined and cross-referenced to other entries for the benefit of the general public:

• Butch
• Clone
• Pre-Stonewall / post-Stonewall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.220.47.150 (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Clone in the LGBT sense doesn't have a separate article, but this article addresses "clone" in a clear way. Cabaretchatnoir (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It actually does - Castro clone. I've fixed it and jargon is fine as long as we explain it. With the exception of post-Stonewall gay men, which I've tagged for clarity, I think we're on the right path. -- Banjeboi 03:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment from article

The following comment was written in the article by anon user 160.39.246.147. Natgoo 20:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This author's comment that swish may be turned on or off comes from her/his prejudices, supported by her/his interpretation of the quotation that follows. The author's passive voice construction implies that she/he intends that a given individual may turn swish on or off, at will--that swish is controllable by the person doing the swishing, as it were. But the quotation makes no explicit statement that its author perceives the individuals who formerly acted swish now act clone. Rather, it implies that as a *group*, male queers/gays have largely converted to a clone/butch identity, giving no indication that he perceives this to be controllable by the individual. Thus the quotation does not serve as evidential support for the author's claim (as the latter's colon indicates she/he intends it to). Further, the author reads all of this as implicitly a response to post-Stonewall gay identity, which is dubious (c.f. pre-Stonewall figures such as "rough trade"). Why am I analyzing? Because the conceptual difficulties of arguing in the author's way are great, the political implications even greater, and we need to take this into consideration. Lastly, lest I be chided or censored for raising these issues on a forum that is supposed to be factual, let me close by stating that I've already demonstrated that such objective, factual, encyclopedia entries are impossible. We're all, already, committed.

The article includes a citation for "Henry, 1955, p.291" but doesn't include any article by a person with the last name Henry in the bibliography.

I think Henry was quoted from Levine. Wikipedia, in general is moving to inline citations to help clear this up. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to "switch" a personal expression "on and off" like this, compare the Stearn quotation in Effeminacy#Gay men. It's by no means limited to gay cis men: Most people adapt to their surroundings to some (major) extent.

However, it is widely accepted that any individual person has a personal expression (or several) they are comfortable with, and others they are less comfortable, or downright uncomfortable with, and not infrequently only adopt an expression or persona to "fit in" and avoid censure (due to gender-role policing, and other forms of social control). Therefore, it is assumed that some people are naturally more comfortable with a more feminine expression, and others with a more masculine or androgynous expression, but may try to suppress it in many contexts. (However, every individual person has a "feminine" and a "masculine" side to their personality, and people may find it relieving to occasionally act out a side of their personality that may not even be naturally dominant.)

In some cases, individuals "overachieve" and adopt a hypermasculine or hyperfeminine persona in stark contradiction to their "natural" gender expression. Especially in individuals assigned the male gender at birth and perceived as male, this can be a source for vicious homo- and transphobia.

Though it may be assumed that most post-Stonewall gay men view acting swish as internalized homophobia, a concession to stereotypes of gay men as less than manly. (from the article)

I find this attitude highly problematic because it implicitly treats manliness as desirable in men and femininity or effeminacy as undesirable (not as a personal preference, but in general), which is indirectly misogynist because it implies that being "like a typical woman" is bad. And that is an extremely widespread, possibly (near-)universal societal bias (even among feminists of all people).

It is widely accepted that some men are naturally feminine or "effeminate", and other men are naturally "butch", or comfortable with a butch expression. Where the homophobia comes in is when gay men are stereotyped as all being effeminate. In reality, the gender expression an individual person is comfortable with does not correlate with sexual orientation at all (nor with gender identity or gender assigned based on anatomy, hormones, chromosomes, etc.). The reality is diversity, making generalisations hard or even impossible (except perhaps in a statistical sense).

In fact, stereotypes such as "(only) gay men are effeminate" do not only harm gay men, but everyone, due to "splash damage".

By the way, the term "Castro clone" already implies that this too is an affectation for many, rather than the way they are naturally (or at least an expression that they are completely comfortable with). For men (or people read as male) perhaps even more so than for women (or people read as female), especially in US and to a somewhat lesser extent also European culture, "simply being yourself" is made very difficult because of gender policing and other forms of policing that try to control the way people express themselves. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

no references?

If someone has references besides "Henry 1978", could they provide them? Otherwise the notations are useless. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to message User:Hyacinth about the references Sonenschein, Tripp, Henry, Warren, and Helmer, since he was the one to put them in when he started the article.
—Leif Arne Storset 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

Why did we change the citation style from the one established to the current one? Hyacinth 05:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't clear enough for a subject area that some flks may be passionate about, It's a short article and more of the sources are likely online so we should be able to address any concerns. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What Makes Sammy Run?

• "The use of the word in this or a related sense goes back many decades. Wentworth and Flexner define swish as a noun meaning "a male homosexual, esp. one with obviously feminine traits" and cite a use in Budd Schulberg's 1941 novel, What Makes Sammy Run?"

I moved the definition above to the first paragraph. I removed the first sentence, as it is unclear (many decades from when?). Lastly, I removed the 1941 use because there is no reason given to find it notable (and it only goes back two, and not many, decades frfom Stonewall). Hyacinth 05:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Removing unverifiable tag thingy

Google scholar seems to have over two thousand hits as of January 2008 and Google books has over 600 leads. Benjiboi 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref improve

Why does "Most post-Stonewall gay men view acting swish as internalized homophobia" need verification? Hyacinth (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a broad generalization that relies on gender and sexual constructions of a binary opposition between male and female, and it's a specious opinion. It implies that the majority of men view other men whom express feminine traits as hating themselves. It is material likely to be challenged (since it has been), and needs to be backed up by a reliable and verifiable source. Also, swish was only sanctioned Pre-Stonewall? -Phyesalis (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this longer-term, eventually it will all have to be referenced, line by line. Reference X supports idea X thus it's not wikipedia engaging in original research. Benjiboi 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)