Orientation, not preference
A Sun reporter who used the phrase sexual preference in an article got a swift rebuke from a reader who admonished that sexual orientation should have been used instead.
The reference slid past the copy desk and into print, perhaps in part because our in-house stylebook did not address the issue. (It does now.)
In the entry gay, the Associated Press Stylebook says, in part, “Include sexual orientation only when it is pertinent to a story, and avoid references to “sexual preference” or to a gay or alternative “lifestyle.”
The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage entry on sexual orientation gives an explanation” “never sexual preference, which carries the disputed implication that sexuality is a matter of choice.”
Curious things happen when terms become politicized. Sexual preference might have been innocuous in an earlier age in the context of a man’s finding red-headed women attractive, or a woman’s liking tall men. But the intense emotional charge on the matter of homosexuality — witness the odd uproar over J.K. Rowling’s mentioning that she thinks of a character in her Harry Potter novels as gay — means that responsible journalists will choose neutral terms over inflammatory ones.
No one will dispute that sexual behavior is a matter of individual choice, but political/scientific/religious disputes over whether homosexuality is inborn or learned make it important for the paper not to appear to take sides.
Comments
Isn't 'orientation' as biased as 'preference', just to the other side of the issue?
Posted by: steegness | November 2, 2007 9:51 AM
Hmm. Maybe "orientation" is biased ... to the scientifically accurate side of the issue!
Posted by: KB | November 2, 2007 10:39 AM
No, "orientation" is not biased -- it means, roughly, a tendency or inclination. Whether you think homosexuality, bisexuality, or hetersexuality is a choice or inborn trait or something else, "orientation" still works. It's the more neutral word. "Preference" implies only choice.
Posted by: Jessica | November 2, 2007 3:48 PM
Each term - preference and orientation - is biased, prejudicial and politically charged. The usage speaks to the opinion of the speaker, hitting the reader with the writers opinion, eliciting either a warm fuzzy or cold, hard feeling.
I think that using well defined, accurate terms over euphemisms would improve the report, unless the example that started this was an opinion piece.
Posted by: Bruce Robinson | November 3, 2007 11:56 AM
But what then is the option, Bruce? What one- or two-word phrase would objectively hit the same notes as "this person finds members of their own gender sexually attractive"?
Posted by: steegness | November 5, 2007 9:27 AM
In response to steegness query: without reading the original piece to determine context and the intent behind the usage (why would this fact be important to the story), it is hard to answer you.
My comments reflected my preference for clarity and my opinion that the terms "sexual preference" and "sexual orientation" are euphemistic terms (not homonyms) for "homosexual", that soften a word that too often elicits an emotional response.
Posted by: Bruce Robinson | November 7, 2007 8:00 AM
The public editor at The News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C., addresses a similar situation:
http://tinyurl.com/2rnfd9
Posted by: Andy Bechtel | November 7, 2007 12:43 PM