Washington Post violates own policy about using the word "homosexual"

In today's BEST.GAY.WEEK.EVER! column one of the things I discuss is how some straight guys seem to think the various anti-gay "F" words aren't offensive when used as an insult to mean someone who is weak, powerless, cowardly, etc. Therefore I found this blog post by John Aravosis at Americablog on the usage of homosexual to be quite timely. John discusses a recent pro-gay editorial that ran in the Washington Post about same-sex marriage. The editorial is fine, but the writer's insistence on using the word "homosexual" instead of "gay" really set John's teeth on edge. And for good reason.

Homosexual is a word like "liberal" or "welfare" that certain folks on the right -- in this case religious wingnuts -- have seized upon and demonized for their own ends. How often do we hear about the "homosexual" agenda after all? Or homosexual rights? Those folks don't use the word by accident.

Homosexual is clinical and reductive, seeming to imply what is most important about us is the "sexual" part. It's also an old word and dates back to a time when we were considered "other" and "alien" and for most gay folks it still carries that meaning. After all, when was the last time you used the word to describe yourself, a friend or a movie? Imagine if the title of my column were BEST.HOMOSEXUAL.WEEK.EVER! Ewwww....

What's really odd about the Post's usage of the word is that it violates their own style guide which clearly explains why the use of the word "homosexual" is usually offensive.

Gay is generally preferred to homosexual. Homosexual should be reserved for a clinical or biological context. Be wary of using homosexual as a noun. In certain contexts, it can be seen as a slur.

I guess it must be time for some remedial education in the Post's editorial room.