> On May 5, 10:08 pm, Dave Smith dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> Is 'effeminate' more insulting than 'butch' ?

>
> You raise an interesting question. Is it possible to order words in
> terms of the level of insult they contain?

> according to language ('wanker' has little force where it isn't
> understood, for example). I wonder if it is possible, in the abstract,
> to produce an ordered list for a group sharing a common language.
>
> I'm not sure that it is, though the article on the ordering of
> dictionaries by complexity that Lance posted might have some bearing -
> a complex insult is, likely to have a different force from a simple
> one.
>
> I'd have thought though, that so much depends on context that such
> orderings would, apart from extremes ('silly billy' is likely always
> to be considerably less insulting than 'turd'), have little meaning.
>
> 'Butch' would have little force applied to Marylin Munroe because it
> would hold little weight, it might have been less welcome to, say,
> Golda Meir or some of those East German shot-put champions (where it
> would probably be a rather brave thing to say). Similarly for
> 'effeminate'.
>
> Insults usually only have an effect if there is an element of truth in
> them.