I don't think I've ever used the phrase. It's not a matter of context, as SM insists. I can't think of a way it can ever be used un-insultingly.

That said, it's a perfectly good insult. I'll have to remember to use it if I'm ever called a faggot by a straight person.

Isn't that how you feel about all labels?

Fine, you found an anomaly. Are you suggesting this happens with anywhere near the frequency that the inverse occurs? Even so, that doesn't disprove my point. It's all about context & intent. That guy's intent was to be a hostile a$shole.

I'm not a fan of the term breeder, it's generally thrown around as an insult and not in the same context as 'woman'. I also find it inaccurate. We (LoT) agree that you being gay is not a choice. But "breeding" (aka having a child) is a choice and anyone (gay or straight) can chose to have a child. It may be more difficult for someone who is gay (dealing with a surrogate or adoption) but it is possible.

I certainly wouldn't suggest that straights get bashed by gays with anything like comparable frequency. However, as to the term "breeder," my anomalous experience was the first time I had ever heard it in action, so the suggestion that it's used more typically as a term of affectionate distinction is news to me.

OK, SM, give us an example of "breeder" used in a non-insulting context.


I wait with baited breath for how likely an example this turns out to be.

Breeder is insulting because - and context doesn't really matter - it reduces a person to one singular aspect that they have no choice over. I was born with one half of the equipment needed to procreate. Procreation may be a choice - or, as in our case, it may not be. Reducing my identity to a term that a) doesn't apply b) is painful and c) is singular is insulting.

I've used the term once and wish I could have rewound time. I reduced a joyful moment/decision into a dismissive event.

Really? I didn't know that about myself. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Calling people names isn't nice. I think that covers it.

Calling oneself the same name affectionatley or jokingly helps to take the sting out it. (fat, gay, breeder, faghag, etc)

How frequently a term is used in comparison has absolutely no impact on whether it is an offensive term or not. Just because Homosexuals have (of course, very wrongly) been persecuted by hetero's in the past (who, more often than not, probably were hiding their own true homosexual tendencies) does not mean that using a derogatory term has any less impact. Of course content and intent has a lot to do with it; and this applies to the use of the term "breeder" as equally as it does "faggot."

Oh fine: just cut to the chase with a simple, concise reply ;)

I call myself a breeder on occasion and only in company with whom would not be offended or would misconstrue as anything other than the self-deprecating humor with which it is intended.

I use the term all the time with friends, regardless of orientation. I don't use it with the intent of insulting anyone. To me, it has the exact same meaning as heterosexual but is easier to say and doesn't sound so ridiculously clinical. I first heard the term 20+ years ago from a straight (is that an objectionable word?) friend. Both of us thought it was an apt term and have used it ever since. I have used the term, when relevant, to describe "heavy-in-the-loafers" friends and other than LoT posters, they've never been insulted.

And you're entitled to your opinion. I don't see the word and the world that way nor do I see labels that way. If I reference one aspect of a person's overall being or if someone references one aspect of mine, I don't see that as a reduction.

Having sex is a choice. Can a male who is attracted to females but has never consummated his feelings be called heterosexual? I think so. Does that prevent his orientation and/or sexual practices from changing? Of course not.

Agreed, but I don't perceive "breeder" as a name. Is calling a Korean person "Korean" a name? Not from my perspective. As I see it, calling Mr. Kim "Korean" is merely a reference that may or may not be relevant to the conversation. Mr. Kim was born in Korea to parents who were also from Korea. That doesn't mean he's not a full person who has other interests, quirks, and aspects. It just so happens that at that time, that's one thing about him which was referenced. No reductions implied. If calling him Korean is relevant, it's probably not an insult (context). If I call Mr. Kim an asshole, that's calling him a name and that is absolutely not nice.

From my perspective, you guys are trying to prohibit the use of any adjective when used to describe a person. According to NA's definition, the use of any singular adjective reduces a person to that one thing. To me, that's preposterous and impossibly limits the use of language.

Clearly I'm not going to sway anyone here. My complete lack of forensic skills isn't doing me any favors either, so may I please propose a compromise? I will do my damnedest to not use "breeder" around you if you will understand that if I slip up, I did not use it with malicious intent. Deal?