Can we retire the term 'gayborhood' ?

[sharkey]

Market St. -- I know what steering is; I am a real estate broker. That is why I acknowledged in my post that the housing laws don't apply to street signs---but again I'm sure other anti-discrimination laws do apply to such matters.

[thoth]

Those things described above are all forms of discrimination. Anytime you designate an area for a particular protected group, you discourage those outside that group from living in that area. You also, to maybe a lesser extent, push members of the group to not locate outside of their their "special area." Again, the fact that the discrimination is not 100% effective (non-Koreans live in Olney, non-Italinas in Italian Market, straights in Gayborhood) does not negate the existence of the discrimination. Whatever people want to call their neighborhood is fine with me, but the City opens up a can of worms when it starts putting up special signs with ethnic or sexual preference designations on them. In S. Philly, many people are proud to live in a particular Roman Catholic parish and often identify their neighborhood by their parish. Do you see any problem, for example, if the city would recognize this fact and put maybe a logo on the street signs in that parish, under the street name. The logo maybe could have a crucifix and the name of the patron saint of the parish. Many of these churches have been in existence for 80-100 years and are an integral part of the neighborhood, certainly longer than the area around 13th and Locust has been a gay haven.

None of the other indicators included religion iconography, so that seems like a false analogy to me, since you're baiting people into a "church and state" argument that doesn't exist in the other situations. The church is also a literal institution, not an amorphous group of people. I would mention that in many cities, there are neighborhoods that are officially known by their parish name, that gets printed on banners etc, and no one really seems to care.

The problem you seem to be having is that you're interpreting a rainbow flag or Chinese characters or italian flags as "preference", but there is nothing actually preferential going on. It's a sign. These areas were inhabited (some no longer) by certain groups of people that shaped their identity, and the street signs acknowledge that, in a fairly passive way. It's like saying the state shouldn't have the authority to put up historical markers that mention a particular ethnicity or gender, because that's "preferring" that ethnicity or gender over another.

You also mentioned "protected group" by which I assume you mean protected classes, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with these designations outside of your own mind.

It's pretty boring arguing about this, because really the biggest test your logic fails here is that literally no one else ever has been offended by these stupid, barely noticeable signs. In case you didn't realize this, the city has also "named" some streets after people and bands etc, but no one else seems to interpret that like they only want former members of the Dixie Hummingbirds living on Poplar Street.

[MarketStEl]

Market St. -- I know what steering is; I am a real estate broker. That is why I acknowledged in my post that the housing laws don't apply to street signs---but again I'm sure other anti-discrimination laws do apply to such matters.

Basically, thoth has pretty much summed things up, but that's never stopped me in the past. And while I'm not a broker, if you've been following along of late, you know I work in the industry too.

Laws do forbid the government to discriminate in the provision of services or access to facilities and public accommodations, but as far as I know, putting up a flag or banner associated with a particular group on a public street has never been interpreted as equal to putting "white" or "colored" signs over drinking fountains. While it's true that flags indicate possession, they also have a purely expressive function; if they did not, the Benjamin Franklin Parkway would be contested territory.

Possession, however, does not necessarily imply restriction of access. You can walk right up to the front door of most foreign embassies on Massachusetts Avenue NW and enter at will; it is not necessary for you to be a citizen of the country whose flag flies over the embassy. Ergo, no discrimination. Were it found that the cops were checking your papers on Locust Street to make sure you were gay, or if the Wilmington, Del., police were doing something similar on Lincoln and Union streets, on whose lampposts Italian flags fly, you might have an argument. But such displays do not prevent those not sharing the (ethnic|racial|sexual) orientation from entering the area, using services and facilities in it, or even moving there if they so chose.

Real estate agents face the restrictions they do on the language they may use because for many years, they did use such terms and phrases as code for "You want to live here, not there" (or its inverse, "You can't live here, you have to live there"). It may well be that we are talking about a distinction without a difference here, but I will note that in the time I've lived here, the presence of Italian iconography never kept me out of the Italian Market, nor did I somehow feel I was trespassing as I passed under the Gate of Heavenly Peace on North 10th Street, while I refused to set foot in Fishtown for years without a single visible sign there telling me I wasn't welcome - I could come to that conclusion by reading the stories in the newspapers.* That may be why, as thoth pointed out, most of us don't get worked up over publicly sponsored displays relating to the heritage of an urban district.

*The same applied to South Boston in the years I lived in that city. There seems to be something about the racism of poor Irish-Americans that makes it an order of magnitude worse than similar sentiments held by their Italian-American counterparts; I never felt uncomfortable roaming either South Philly or East Boston.

[sharkey]

None of the other indicators included religion iconography, so that seems like a false analogy to me, since you're baiting people into a "church and state" argument that doesn't exist in the other situations. The church is also a literal institution, not an amorphous group of people. I would mention that in many cities, there are neighborhoods that are officially known by their parish name, that gets printed on banners etc, and no one really seems to care.

The problem you seem to be having is that you're interpreting a rainbow flag or Chinese characters or italian flags as "preference", but there is nothing actually preferential going on. It's a sign. These areas were inhabited (some no longer) by certain groups of people that shaped their identity, and the street signs acknowledge that, in a fairly passive way. It's like saying the state shouldn't have the authority to put up historical markers that mention a particular ethnicity or gender, because that's "preferring" that ethnicity or gender over another.

You also mentioned "protected group" by which I assume you mean protected classes, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with these designations outside of your own mind.

It's pretty boring arguing about this, because really the biggest test your logic fails here is that literally no one else ever has been offended by these stupid, barely noticeable signs. In case you didn't realize this, the city has also "named" some streets after people and bands etc, but no one else seems to interpret that like they only want former members of the Dixie Hummingbirds living on Poplar Street.

Not a false analogy. When speaking of "discrimination" what we usually mean is discrimination against protected groups. I.E. You can discriminate in housing and many other things in many ways. You can't discriminate for some reason, such as race, ethnicity sex, religion etc. Religion is a protected group just as race is and (in Phila.) sexual orientation.

[thoth]

Not a false analogy. When speaking of "discrimination" what we usually mean is discrimination against protected groups. I.E. You can discriminate in housing and many other things in many ways. You can't discriminate for some reason, such as race, ethnicity sex, religion etc. Religion is a protected group just as race is and (in Phila.) sexual orientation.

That could be relevant if we were talking about discrimination, which we aren't.

[MNG1324]

One way signs are discriminatory because they make you go straight.

[thoth]

One way signs are discriminatory because they make you go straight.

zing!

[Voodoo]

As for "formerly known as...", I don't think that term's going to go anywhere either. As I said on that interminable thread about What To Call This District, it seems to me that both terms can coexist.

I think it's rather curious that in over 100 posts, nobody has mentioned the last official name of the neighborhood. (Unless I missed it) It's not Gayborhood or Midtown Village. The neighborhood wore this name for over a century. Anyone?

Feel free to google.

[Volanova]

Washington Square West?

[MNG1324]

The community group for zoning is Washington Square West.

[Voodoo]

The neighborhood was known as MidCity East or later just MidCity. It got it's name from the MidCity East Post Office at Juniper & Walnut Sts. The name was reflected in the names of many businesses in the area. Just off the top of my head. (I'm sure there were more)

MidCity Restaurant, 13th & Chancellor Sts.
MidCity Camera, 13xx Walnut St
MidCity Business Machine, 13xx Sansom St.
MidCity Hardware, 1xx S 12th St.

If MidCity or MidCity West can lose it's century long identity in less than two decades, anything can happen to any newer moniker. I tend to be a traditionalist so I would like MidCity to revive and survive. I also respect evolution so I'm okay with rebranding. As long as it's not too cutesy or commercial.

[MarketStEl]

The neighborhood was known as MidCity East or later just MidCity. It got it's name from the MidCity East Post Office at Juniper & Walnut Sts. The name was reflected in the names of many businesses in the area. Just off the top of my head. (I'm sure there were more)

MidCity Restaurant, 13th & Chancellor Sts.
MidCity Camera, 13xx Walnut St
MidCity Business Machine, 13xx Sansom St.
MidCity Hardware, 1xx S 12th St.

If MidCity or MidCity West can lose it's century long identity in less than two decades, anything can happen to any newer moniker. I tend to be a traditionalist so I would like MidCity to revive and survive. I also respect evolution so I'm okay with rebranding. As long as it's not too cutesy or commercial.

Interesting.

I'd not heard anyone refer to this particular area by that name ever in the nearly 30 years I lived in or close to it.

I think by the time I moved here, the post office you refer to - which was located in the Witherspoon Building by that time; was it back when you're citing it - was referred to by the USPS as Fidelity Station, after the name of the bank that owned the building next to its headquarters then. (That bank still owns both buildings - we now call it Wells Fargo thanks to a series of consolidations.) Edited to add: And, of course, the U.S. Post Office that still bears a name like that is Middle City Station (19103), not far from Rittenhouse Square, in the 1900 block of Chestnut Street.

As far as I can recall, the only business of those four that was still a going concern when I moved here in 1983 was the camera shop, which suggests to me that the term as a name for what's now the northwest corner of Washington Square West had already fallen out of favor by that time.

I think "Midtown Village" makes it over the cutesy bar in a way "B3" didn't. "Gayborhood", of course, conjures up images of Fred Rogers (in fact, the first newspaper story to use the term used it in a headline that was a direct Rogers reference), but it also carries with it strong Philly connotations ("city of..."), so it too shouldn't raise hackles.

[sharkey]

That could be relevant if we were talking about discrimination, which we aren't.

We are debating whether or not street signs recognizing affiliations of neighborhoods with particular groups are a form of discrimination. Most people here seem to say they are not; that the signs merely recognize an historic affiliation that the particular neighborhood had with a particular ethnic or sexual subculture. I guess it's an out, like when colleges describe themselves as "historically Black." I think everyone would agree that if a city was overseeing residential development of a large tract of vacant land and designated areas as Koreatown, Italianland, Blackville, Gayborghood, etc., then that would be illegal discrimination.

[lucidinnature]

You work in the industry? You're a blogger who chides others. You work in no other industry besides mocking people. You try through your facebook page, and if you get enough hits? You do some politically correct b.s. on a blog to talk about it. Then you link it through phillyspeaks to get some hits. And since you're a moderator, you try to limit things like a microscopic-liberal version of Fox Splooge.

Kind of like today, when you wished to post a picture of a sign up for a daycare in 12th street gym. I watched all the idiotic replies. "The gays make it and the straights take it..." Really, man? You allow this much insensitive idiocy? So, when the same group bought my club, should I say, "the straights made it and the gays took it?" Asinine, and so below your education.

Basically, thoth has pretty much summed things up, but that's never stopped me in the past. And while I'm not a broker, if you've been following along of late, you know I work in the industry too.

Laws do forbid the government to discriminate in the provision of services or access to facilities and public accommodations, but as far as I know, putting up a flag or banner associated with a particular group on a public street has never been interpreted as equal to putting "white" or "colored" signs over drinking fountains. While it's true that flags indicate possession, they also have a purely expressive function; if they did not, the Benjamin Franklin Parkway would be contested territory.

Possession, however, does not necessarily imply restriction of access. You can walk right up to the front door of most foreign embassies on Massachusetts Avenue NW and enter at will; it is not necessary for you to be a citizen of the country whose flag flies over the embassy. Ergo, no discrimination. Were it found that the cops were checking your papers on Locust Street to make sure you were gay, or if the Wilmington, Del., police were doing something similar on Lincoln and Union streets, on whose lampposts Italian flags fly, you might have an argument. But such displays do not prevent those not sharing the (ethnic|racial|sexual) orientation from entering the area, using services and facilities in it, or even moving there if they so chose.

Real estate agents face the restrictions they do on the language they may use because for many years, they did use such terms and phrases as code for "You want to live here, not there" (or its inverse, "You can't live here, you have to live there"). It may well be that we are talking about a distinction without a difference here, but I will note that in the time I've lived here, the presence of Italian iconography never kept me out of the Italian Market, nor did I somehow feel I was trespassing as I passed under the Gate of Heavenly Peace on North 10th Street, while I refused to set foot in Fishtown for years without a single visible sign there telling me I wasn't welcome - I could come to that conclusion by reading the stories in the newspapers.* That may be why, as thoth pointed out, most of us don't get worked up over publicly sponsored displays relating to the heritage of an urban district.

*The same applied to South Boston in the years I lived in that city. There seems to be something about the racism of poor Irish-Americans that makes it an order of magnitude worse than similar sentiments held by their Italian-American counterparts; I never felt uncomfortable roaming either South Philly or East Boston.

[InYourVacancies]

Those things described above are all forms of discrimination. Anytime you designate an area for a particular protected group, you discourage those outside that group from living in that area. You also, to maybe a lesser extent, push members of the group to not locate outside of their their "special area." Again, the fact that the discrimination is not 100% effective (non-Koreans live in Olney, non-Italinas in Italian Market, straights in Gayborhood) does not negate the existence of the discrimination. Whatever people want to call their neighborhood is fine with me, but the City opens up a can of worms when it starts putting up special signs with ethnic or sexual preference designations on them. In S. Philly, many people are proud to live in a particular Roman Catholic parish and often identify their neighborhood by their parish. Do you see any problem, for example, if the city would recognize this fact and put maybe a logo on the street signs in that parish, under the street name. The logo maybe could have a crucifix and the name of the patron saint of the parish. Many of these churches have been in existence for 80-100 years and are an integral part of the neighborhood, certainly longer than the area around 13th and Locust has been a gay haven.

I never thought political correctness would get this horrific...

[MarketStEl]

You work in the industry? You're a blogger who chides others. You work in no other industry besides mocking people.

1. I think you have my blog confused for Naked Philly, a common error;
2. You get the role of moderators on these forums all wrong, unless by "limit" you mean "enforce the Terms of Service";
3. You really need to read your own posts more closely.

[thoth]

You work in the industry? You're a blogger who chides others. You work in no other industry besides mocking people. You try through your facebook page, and if you get enough hits? You do some politically correct b.s. on a blog to talk about it. Then you link it through phillyspeaks to get some hits. And since you're a moderator, you try to limit things like a microscopic-liberal version of Fox Splooge.

Kind of like today, when you wished to post a picture of a sign up for a daycare in 12th street gym. I watched all the idiotic replies. "The gays make it and the straights take it..." Really, man? You allow this much insensitive idiocy? So, when the same group bought my club, should I say, "the straights made it and the gays took it?" Asinine, and so below your education.

What the hell is wrong with you? I feel like there was a time when you actually contributed something to this forum, but now every other thread I read gets hijacked by your crusading, which you are now apparently directing against Sandy. People post things to other sites they contribute to, adam has been doing it for a long time and I really don't think it's frequent enough to interfere with conversation on the forum, at least any more than your constant tirades.

[thoth]

....

[MNG1324]

You work in the industry? You're a blogger who chides others. You work in no other industry besides mocking people. You try through your facebook page, and if you get enough hits? You do some politically correct b.s. on a blog to talk about it. Then you link it through phillyspeaks to get some hits. And since you're a moderator, you try to limit things like a microscopic-liberal version of Fox Splooge.

Kind of like today, when you wished to post a picture of a sign up for a daycare in 12th street gym. I watched all the idiotic replies. "The gays make it and the straights take it..." Really, man? You allow this much insensitive idiocy? So, when the same group bought my club, should I say, "the straights made it and the gays took it?" Asinine, and so below your education.

What you got bored playing with Hal and Chris.