Sample Qualitative Research

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES 1
‘BAKLA’ AND ‘BADING’ LABELS AND EPITHETS IN GAMING:

SITUATING MEANINGS, INTERPREATIONS, AND USES IN THE
COMMUNICATIVE PRACTICES OF HETEROSEXUAL MALE
MOBA GAMERS
A Thesis
Presented to Faculty of the Graduate School
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Sta. Mesa, Manila
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master in Communication
by
Earl Jaynus S. Guzman
September 2021
i
CERTIFICATION
This thesis, ‘BAKLA’ AND ‘BADING’ LABELS AND EPITHETS IN GAMING:

SITUATING MEANINGS, INTERPREATIONS, AND USES IN THE
COMMUNICATIVE PRACTICES OF HETEROSEXUAL MALE MOBA GAMERS
prepared and submitted by SHERWIN JOHN C. MALUBAY in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree, MASTER IN COMMUNICATION has been examined and
recommended for Oral Examination.
Evaluation Committee
DIVINA T. PASUMBAL, PhD

Adviser
KRIZTINE ROSALES – VIRAY M.C. EDNA T. BERNABE, DEM

Member Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVAL
Approved by the Panel on Oral Examination on August 25, 2020 with the grade of ___.
EDNA T. BERNABE, DEM

Chair
KRIZTINE ROSALES – VIRAY, M.C. EMELYN Q. LIBUNAO, DBA

Member Member
Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Master in Communication.
ELMER G. DE JOSE, PhD

Dean
Date of passing the Comprehensive Examinations: September 28, 2018

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study, which was inspired by my own experiences as a gay gamer, is a
product of laborious work that spanned since seven years since I entered the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines Graduate School in 2014. This would not have
been possible if it were not for the contributions of the following people:
I would like to express my profoundest gratitude to my thesis adviser and
mentor, Dr. Divina T. Pasumbal, whose patience, kindness, and wisdom inspired me to
complete this work. Likewise, I extend my gratitude to my panel of evaluators, Dr. Edna
T. Bernabe, Prof. Kriztine Rosales – Viray, and Dr. Racidon Bernarte for their invaluable
contributions and insights to the improvement of this study/
To my mother, Aadalia ‘Janet’ Guzman, who supported me all the way through.
Her words of encouragement are deeply appreciated.
I would also like to thank my students and friends for their unwavering support.
Their inspiring messages and confidence in my ability to finish what I have started were
a source of encouragement, especially during times when I felt inadequate and
uncertain.
My deepest thanks to my friends and relatives who extended their support so
that I could finish this study. Thank you to Bro. Sherwin Malubay for the moral support.
My thanks, too to Ms. Princess Nicola Guzman, Ms. Czarmagne R. Cabran, and Ms.
Maribel G. Rafols for their financial contributions.
Finally, my gratitude to my participants who were kind enough to spare me
some of their time so that they could share their stories.
With love and thanks.
iii
CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that the research work presented in this thesis, ‘BAKLA’ AND
‘BADING’ LABELS AND EPITHETS IN GAMING: SITUATING MEANINGS,
INTERPREATIONS, AND USES IN THE COMMUNICATIVE PRACTICES OF
HETEROSEXUAL MALE MOBA GAMERS for the degree MASTER IN
COMMUNICATION at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines embodies the result
of original and scholarly work carried out by the undersigned. This thesis does not
contain words or ideas taken from published sources or written works that have been
accepted as basis for the award of a degree from any other higher education
institution, except where proper referencing and acknowledgment were made.
EARL JAYNUS S. GUZMAN

Researcher
__________________________
Date Signed (13, August, 2020)
iv
ABSTRACT
Title :
Researcher : Earl Jaynus S. Guzman
Degree : Master in Communication
Year : 2021
Adviser : Dr. Divina T. Pasumbal
Homophobic expressions like gay and faggot have been part of gaming culture much
like their local counterparts ‘bakla’ and ‘bading.’ Although the use of homophobic
language and similar homosexually-themed discourses have recevied scholarly
attention abroad, local studies that looked into this phenomenon in the local Philippine
gaming context is still scant. This study examines and situates homosexual-themed
utterances that feature the gay labels and epithets ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’ in the
communicative practices of heterosexual male MOBA gamers. Framed through a
symbolic interactionist lens, I explore how straight male gamers and gay gamers
imbued the words ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’ with different meanings and interpretations.
Beyond mapping out the different meanings of bakla and bading, I also examine how
these words are used in gaming, how communicators interpret homosexual-themed
utterances, and how these meanings shape straight male gamer and gay gamer
interactions. Data generated through in-depth interviews with 10 straight male gamers
and gay gamers revealed that: (1) heterosexual male gamers act toward gay gamers
with ambivalence, (2) homosexual-themed utterances fulfill several metacommunicative
functions because of their polysemy and multivalence, (3) communicators relied on a
host of contextual cues for interpretation, and (5) bakla and bading are powerful
metaphors for gaming failure and a failure of gaming masculinity.
Keywords: gaming communication, gaming and gender, symbolic interactionism
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title page i
Certification and Approval Sheet ii
Acknowledgments iii
Certification of Originality iv
Abstract v
Table of Contents vi
List of Matrices ix
List of Figures x
1 The Problem and Its Setting 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Theoretical Framework 4
Conceptual Paradigm 9
Scope and Limitations of the Study 10
Significance of the Study 10
Explication of Terms 11
2 Review of Literature and Studies 14
Philippine MOBA Gaming and Culture 14
Gender and Gaming 18
Bakla, Bading, and Homosexuality 21
Homophobic Language Across Contexts 24
Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature and Studies 36
vi
3 Methodology 37
Research Design 37
Tradition of Inquiry and Data Generation Method 39
Sources of Data 39
Instrumentation 40
Ethical Considerations 40
4 Results and Discussion 42
Profile of the Participants 42
A gradient of ambivalence and solidarity 45
Bakla: Multipurpose metacommunicative tool 66
Nonverbal cues that aid in interpreting
homosexual-themed utterances 106
Bakla: Meanings that arise from social interaction 120
Bakla: Connotative meanings 130
Bakla: Not man enough for DoTA2 and LoL 141
Bakla: A different kind of ‘noob’ 152
5 Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 164
Summary of Findings 164
Conclusions 168
Recommendations 170
References 174
APPENDIX 1: Research Instrument 189
APPENDIX 2: Sample Interview Transcript 192

vii
APPENDIX 3: Biographical Statement 205
viii
LIST OF MATRICES
Number Title Page
1 Profile of the Participants 44
2 A gradient of ambivalence and solidarity 64

3 Multipurpose metacommunicative tool 104
4 Nonverbal cues that aid in interpreting
homosexual-themed utterances 117
5 Bakla: Meanings that arise from social interactions 129
6 Bakla: Connotative Meanings 141
7 Bakla: Not man enough to play DoTA2 and LoL 151
8 Bakla: A Different Kind of ‘Noob’
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
1 Symbolic Interaction Process 6
2 Conceptual Framework 9
3 McCormack’s Model of Homosexually-themed Language 29
x
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
In this chapter, an overview of the thesis is provided along with the rationale. It
then proceeds to explain the objectives and problem of the study. The theoretical and
conceptual framework used in this study, is briefly outlined. Finally, an explication of
terms is provided.
Introduction
Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) games such as Defense of the Ancients
2 (DOTA2) and League of Legends (LoL) are two of the most played computer games
in the Philippines. DoTA2 and LoL, along with the MOBA genre, have enjoyed a steady
rise in popularity over the last decade and turned what was once considered a pastime
played in cyber cafés (computer shops) by amateurs into a serious and highly
competitive sporting event.
In these highly competitive settings, MOBA gamers communicate with each
other to strategize, synergize actions, socialize with fellow players, engage in friendly
banter, and on many occasions, vilify teammates and opponents. During these
episodes, players employ very specific language to convey all sorts of things. These
usually include curse words, taunts, racial slurs (eg. ching chong -- a Filipino slur used
to refer to Chinese players), and of course, the focus of the present study: gender-
based pejoratives, particularly gay labels and epithets (eg. faggot, gay, bakla, bading).
The use of gay labels and epithets (also referred to as gay slurs, anti-gay
comments, homophobic language, homosexually-themed language, homosexual-
themed utterances, homophaulisms throughout this study) is a communication
phenomenon that is considered to be a pervasive feature of video games as much as

sexism, misogyny, and other forms of toxicity. A recent and well-publicized example of
the use of a gay epithet by a MOBA gamer during gameplay involved DoTA2’s ‘most
decorated player’ Johan ‘N0tail’ Sundstein. On December 2019, N0tail was banned
from Twitch (a popular live streaming website for gamers) for his repetitive use of the
words gay and faggot to describe some DoTA2 heroes (used interchangeably with
champions to refer to playable characters in DoTA2 and League of Legends) during his
live stream. Similarly, professional CS: Go (Counter Strike) player Mohamad ‘moE’
Assad prompted an ‘unexpected debate’ about the use of gay slurs in gaming (Myers,
2018) when he typed faggot in the team chat followed by a quip about ‘not being able to
use the word faggot’ when in CS: GO or while streaming.’ In both cases, members of
the gaming community engaged in interesting discussions about the acceptability of gay
slurs in gaming without ever reaching a consensus.
Although the Philippine gaming scene has yet to see high profile cases like the
ones mentioned, it does not mean that the local counterparts of the Western labels gay
and fag – bakla and bading – have not been employed in similar ways. Bakla and
bading are two words that have had a long history of being used as insults. It was not
long ago when a Twitter feud between singers JK Labajo and Darren Espanto set
Twitter ablaze when they hurled gay labels at each other. While far from the context of
gaming, the resulting discussions from the feud were equally divisive and similar in
what is happening in the gaming community – people cannot quite agree if the terms
gay and bakla are homophobic or not. What scant resources that touched on the usage
of the labels bakla and bading in gaming does little to elaborate and expand
understandings (see Pujante, 2021); it merely confines the terms into a fixed
generational meaning: to be labeled bakla in the world of gaming is to be a coward.

This presents a problem, especially in a gaming culture that is becoming more and
more accessible to non-binary identities.
Related studies on computer gaming have allotted more attention to issues of
representation (or lack thereof), heteronormativity, gender identity construction through
video games, discrimination and exclusion, and toxic behavior and language (racist,
sexist, misogynistic), particularly in Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) (see
Szablewicz, 2015; Condis, 2015; Omori, 2017; Söderlund, 2015; Neto and Becker,
2018). Despite growing literature about computer games, the use of gay labels and gay
epithets in gaming has yet to receive that same specific academic focus. The need for
increased attention to the intersections of language, gaming, and gender cannot be
understated because of the growing relevance of computer gaming to the lives of non-
heteronormative individuals; Filipino gay menhave found more freedom to operate in
more social contexts and that includes gaming cultures. In addition, recent years have
also seen changes in attitudes towards sexual minorities, particularly on issues about
homosexuality. This gradual decline of prejudice and anti-gay sentiments has been
observed in the US and the UK and if recent findings are to be believed (see
Manalastas et al., 2017) the Philippines is also experiencing a decline in homophobia,
albeit in an unevenly. Against the backdrop of increased gay visibility and penetration
vis-a-vis a changing climate that sees the rise of more pro-bakla attitudes, views, and
beliefs, our understanding of what it means to be bakla and bading may need to change
as well and the deeply embedded connotations we have for these words and identities
may get in the way of progress.
The discursive environment of sexism and more specifically, homophobia
deserves critical attention because of its prevalence and centrality in gaming cultures
(Nakamura, 2014). For this reason, this paper attempted to offer a preliminary analysis
of the use of gay labels and gay epithets, mainly bakla and bading in the discursive
practices of heterosexual male gamers during gameplay, particularly in the games
DoTA2 and LoL. Drawing from a symbolic interactionist perspective, I argue against
the notion that the terms bakla and bading are exclusively pejoratives, even if the
negative connotations of these words are not entirely lost and may still be there.
Drawing from existing literature, personal scholarly narratives and observations, and in-
depth interviews with self-identified gamers, I attempt to to map the meanings,
interpreations, and uses of the labels bakla and bading in gaming.
Statement of the Problem
To better understand the meanings heterosexual male gamers assign to the gay
labels they use and how these labels are interpreted by homosexual male gamers,
answers to the following questions were sought:
1. What are the profiles of the participants?
2. How do heterosexual male gamers act towards gay gamers?
3. How are homosexual-themed utterances used in gaming as a result of the
meanings and interpretations gamers have assigned to them?
4. How do heterosexual male gamers and gay gamers interpret homosexual-
themed utterances?
5. What are the different meanings and interpretations assigned by
heterosexual male gamers and gay male gamers to homosexual-themed
utterances that are part of their communicative practices?
Theoretical Framework
This study rests on the symbolic interactionist framework that is generally
attributed to George Herbert Mead and popularized by Herber Blumer. Symbolic
interactionism has a long tradition and use in the study of gender and sexuality
construction (West & Zimmerman, 1987; Plummer, 1996; Plummer, 2002; Plummer,
2010; Whitley, 2013; Martin et al., 2015;), stigma (Goffman, 1963), deviance labeling
(Becker, 1953), and the construction of the self in online spaces (Robinson, 2007).
Although symbolic interactionism has had its fair share of criticism, it continues to
produce research and stimulate inquiry in substantive areas of everyday human
experience, which makes it a compelling theoretical foundation for this research.
Symbolic interactionism is an approach to research and thinking whose primary
emphasis is on the creation of meaning in social situations (Martindale, 1984). The SI
framework can be summarized through its three most important premises: (1) humans
act towards social objects based on the meanings we have for these objects, (2) we
create meaning through social interaction or our on-going talk, and (3) meanings are
not fixed; they change as we interact with one another (Blumer, 1969). Central to the of
the symbolic interactionist perspective is the assumption that people act towards things
on the basis of meanings they have assigned to those things. These things or social
objects include everything that we recognize in our world or everything we can name or
represent symbolically such as physical objects, people, intistituions, beliefs, values,
actions, activities, and everyday encounters (Baccam, 1999). In other words, what we
do is our subjective and idiosyncratic response to our definition of what is happening or
what we are experiencing.
Another core concept of symbolic interactionism is that the meanings we assign
to things are derived from and arises out of our social interactions with one another
(Carter & Fuller, 2016). From an SI standpoint, people develop shared meanings and
interpretations for certain words and actions over time through symbolic interactions. It
is through these shared meanings that people come to understand events and
experiences in similar ways (Littlejohn, 2017). That is, our realities are a negotiated
order that we constantly modify, adjust, refine, and agree upon. Our understandings of
our everyday social realities such as dating, organizational lives, conduct and behavior,
teasing, group conversations, and even activities such as swimming, doctor’s visits, and
gaming, are constantly negotiated with others.
Finally, SI posits that meanings are not predertemined in nature; meanings
change as we interact with one another and are modified by our invidual thought
processes. As people, we are constantly in the process of interpreting situations we find
ourselves in and these situations will only make sense to us through our own
interpretations and definitions of the situations. Objects and events will not mean
anything to us aside from whatever meanings we assign to them through the course of
our daily interactions. Taken together, these concepts describe what we call symbolic
interaction where interaction happens through the use of symbols such as words.
Charon (2007) presented this process in what may be considered a schematic
representation of SI, which I have expanded here to include shared meanings and cues
to interpretation to reflect how this model can be applied to the rpesent study:
Figure 1: Symbolic Interaction Process (adapted from Charon, 2007)

Figire 1 shows the symbolic interaction process. The process begins with one’s
interaction with one’s self and his / her significant others and generalized others who
also serves as his / her reference group. The shared meanings between self and
society shape our perspectives, beliefs, and points of view, which in turn guide us in
defining the many different situations we encounter and experience. Whatever actions
we take are based on our definition of the situation. But just as we define the situation,
our actions are also interpreted and given meaning by others, which can alter our (us
and other actors) perspective and definition of the situation. As these meanings and
interpretations shift, so do our actions (Charon, 2007). The use of gay labels and
epithets during gaming can illustrate this process. Player 1 is is playing DoTA2 / LoL
with (interaction) his play peers (reference group) in a cyber café. As they play, they
communicate their observations, expectations, observations, expertise, and objectives
in about the game (perspective). At one point in the game, Player 2 fails to participate in
the melee, which to Player 1 sees as a failure of masculunity (definition of the situation),
at least within the context of that particular game. As a response, Player 1 calls Player 2
‘bakla!’ (action) for his momentary ineptitude. Player 2, upon hearing Player 1’S
response, then interprets Player 1’s utterance and action as he prepares a response.
Although the core tenets discussed above are considered by many as the main
principles of symbolic interactionist thought, there are other concepts in SI that are of
equal importance in this research, one of which is language. Words hold special
importance in symbolic interactionist thinking. Symbols such as words are used to
represent shared meanings among members of a certain group, society or culture
(Burbank & Martins, 2010).
Symbolic interactionists reject the notion that language is merely descriptive.
Indeed, Austin (1962) challenged the notion that language is reflective or a ‘mere[ly] a
tool for verification and describing states of affairs’ (Scott, 2017). Rather, Austin saw
language as performative, productive, constitutive, and transformative of social reality.
That is, language has practical consequences and is the primary shaper of meaning
and social reality. Language has the power to ‘do things’, to accomplish things, to make
certain actions possible, relegate status, and create new state of affairs. Without
language, meaning and meaningful action cannot be constructed and enacted. As
Edwards (2005) puts it ‘attitudes, beliefs, motives, perceptions, and emotions are
constructed by people conceptually, in language.’ Although the Blumerian strand of SI
has somewhat pushed language to the background, words remain a cornerstone of
interactionist thinking and an important focus for this research.
In addition to language, another concept that is pivotal to this study is self and
identity. Bakla and bading are not just labels; they are also identities. These identities
are designated, relegated, and assigned to people based on how they ‘do gender’
(West & Zimmerman, 1987).
Self and identity are important focus for Mead, especially the fluid and dynamic
process involved in the creation of self and identity. For many interactionists, there is no
fixed, immutable self. Rather, selfhood is relational – a product of a ‘a symbolic and
communicative process by which actors understand themselves through their relations
with others’ (Scott, 2017). Since the self is fundamentally social in origin and shaped by
our interactions with others (Stryker & Serpe, 1994), we only become selves in so far as
we reflect on the definitions, evaluations, judgments, and perspectives of others about
us. As such, selfhood is not static nor it is finished. Rather, we are in a constant state of
becoming (Scott, 2017). Identity can be understood in similar terms. Although most
people would like to think of identity as fixed, static, and unique to each person,
symbolic interactionism makes a case against this notion by asserting the fluidity of
identity. In other words, our ideas of who we are are constantly changing. Who I am
today in a particular situation is different from who I was yesterday in a different
situation and will be different again tomorrow as I find my self in another situation. In
Erikson’s (1959) words, identity is ‘never gained nor maintained once and for all … it is
constantly lost and through social negotiation.
Besides these core concepts, this study also relies on concepts advanced by
other symbolic interactionist strands. These concepts include stigma, deviance, and
careers by Erving Goffman (1961, 1963, 1967, 1983), speech acts (Austin, 1962), and
definition of the situation (Thomas, 1928) among others.
Conceptual Paradigm
Figure 2: Conceptual Paradigm
Figure 2 is a graphical representation of how different concepts in this study
interact with each other or are interrelated. It shows how the different concepts used in
this research interact with each other or are interrelated.
It begins with heterosexual male gamers using gay labels and gay epithets as
part of their communicative pracitce. The most commonly used gay labels and epithets
bading, and bakla are enclosed in overlapping circles to indicate that both may be used
as category labels (gay labels) or derogatory labels (gay epithets). A broken arrow was
used to connect both labels and epithets to gay gamers to indicate the possibility that
they may not be the targets of such labels and epithets despite their presence in
environments where these words are used. Likewise,
Scope and Limitations of the Study
As there are a number of different variations of gay labels and epithets in the
Filipino language, this study will only focus on the most widely used gay labels and
epithets: ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’ as they are used by heterosexual male MOBA gamers,
particularly those that play Dota2 and LoL in cyber cafés. The game was also limited to
the two most popular MOBA titles played by Filipinos computer gamers. It is also within
this locale where I have observed gay labels and epithets are [more] frequently heard
(as opposed to playing by yourself at home). Furthermore, I only focus on the meanings
ascribed by users (heterosexual male gamers) and interpretations espoused by gay
gamers who have been exposed to such language.
Significance of the Study
While foreign literature that discussed homophobic language abound, it is
surprising that only a handful of studies have attempted to investigate the use of gay
epithets in the Philippine setting. This mirrors the scarcity of scholarly work that about
homophobia and homophobic attitudes of Filipinos. This study seeks to fill that void by
contributing to the scant body of academic work devoted to understanding the interplay
between communication, masculinities, and homophobia grounded on oriental
perspectives. But apart from adding to scholarship, this study is also beneficial to the
following:
Gaming, Communication, and Gender Researchers as this represents
another contirbution in the field and one that potentially fills a gap in local literature and
research.
Gamers as it will allow them to better understand the nuances of the words they
employ as part of their communicative practices, particularly epithets that have the
strong oppressive and marginalizing connotations. Through this study, gamers will
develop greater gender sensitivity and become active participants in promoting
inclusivity.
Gay gamers, especially those who have felt disparaged or discriminated
against whenever they hear other gamers levy gay epithets with little care for its
potential to harm or cause stigma. The results of this study will enable gamers who self-
identify as gay to better discern when a remark is homophobic and when it is not so that
they make take active steps to combat homophobia in all its forms.
Game developers have exerted considerable effort to increase GLBTQ
presence and create friendly spaces for gay gamers (as well as lesbians and
transgendered women) to participate in the gamer culture. Despite their efforts
however, toxic behavior remains difficult to regulate and gays often find affected by the
fallout of toxic language that employ homophobic remarks maliciously. Insights from this
work will help game developers in formulating policies that will help stamp out
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Explication of Terms
Gay epithets. Highly offensive derogatory labels with strong negative
connotations that are used against gay people / homosexuals. Ex. faggot, ‘jokla’,
‘shokla’, ‘bading.’ Epithets are mostly used with an intent to malign and dehumanize the
target or to express contempt for the derogated group.
Gay labels. Category labels used to describe gay people / homosexuals. Ex.
gay, bakla. Unlike gay epithets, gay labels tend to be neutral and at times, positive and
prosocial in its meanings and uses.
Heteronormativity. The belief that there are only two sexes and genders: male
and female and that each sex must conform to their respective gender roles (Cao,
2017). Anyone outside the male – female gender binary is treated as inferior.
Homohysteria. The fear of being homosexualized or being labeled a
homosexueal.
Homophobia. In this study, the term homophobia is used to refer to
heterosexual people’s negative attitudes toward homosexuals or homosexuality. It may
also refer to the fear and hatred of gay and lesbian people and of their sexual desires
and practices or as an irrational fear and dislike of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people which may lead to hatred and result in physical or verbal abuse
(Douglas Scott et al 2004 p.31). Homophobia is likewise used interchangeably with anti-
gay bias, homonegativity, homoprejudice, and sexual stigmatization, though it should
be noted that despite their similarities, these terms represent different underlying
contructs.
Homophobic Language. Labels, markers, epithets, phrasese, or any language
used to express contempt, prejudice, malice, and dislike of gays, often uttered with the
intent to disparage, hurt, ridicule, or devalue a person regardless of their actual sexual
orientation or gender identity. These include terms such as bakla, bading, gay, and
faggot.
Homophaulism. Linguistic expressions used to derogate homosexuality. In this
study, homophaulism, gay epithets, and homophobic language may be used
interchangeably.
Homosexual-themed utterances. Homosexual-themed utterance is
understood as gay labels and epithets bakla and bading or any statement that features
the words bakla and bading.
Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA). Within the context of this study,
MOBA is used to collectively refer to the games DoTA / DoTA 2 (Defense of the
Ancients) and LoL (League of Legends).
Non-participant observer. A non-participant observer is a researcher who
watches the subjects of his or her study with their knowledge but does not take an
active part in the activities being observed.
Video games. For the purpose of this study, the word video games is used to
collectively refer to any designed, interactive digital experience that considers or
establishes itself as a game. This includes computer games, e-Sports games, MOBAs,
RPGs, MMORPGs, MMOGs, and FPS games played on a computer.

Chapter 2
RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
The literatures presented in this chapter were grouped into different themes,
each focusing on some aspect of the study. The first theme provides a brief introduction
to DOTA2 and LoL and moves on to discuss the Filipino MOBA culture. The second
theme presents a discussion of how games have become identified primarily as a
masculine activity. The third theme looks at homosexuality in the Philippines and traces
the roots of the labels bakla and bading. The last theme talks about previous studies
about homophobic language.
Philippine MOBA Gaming and Culture
Defense of the Ancients and League of Legends
Defense of the Ancients (Dota) is one of the most enduringly popular computer
games in the Philippines (Enverga, 2011). The game’s immense local and global
popularity resulted in the development of a sequel aptly called DOTA2. DOTA and
DOTA2’s game structure are virtually the same and both are fairly easy to understand:
players choose a playable character they want to use; they are assigned to either one
of two competing teams (Radiant or Dire); and they must work together with their
teammates (if they are not playing solo) to defeat the other.
In DOTA2, a player chooses one character or ‘hero’ from a roster of 117 heroes
(number of playable heroes as of 2020), which is imbued with a unique set of skills and
attributes. Character types are grouped into different categories based on their
attributes (STR or strength type, INT or intelligence type, and AGI or agility type) and
skills (nuker, disabler, healing, etc). On the other hand, players usually classify heroes
based on roles (carries, tanks, soft support, hard support, farming, mid, and damage) or
positions they occupy (pos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). The hero pick depends entirely on the
player, though most players will apply some level of strategy in hero selection. One
strategy is choosing a hero based on the hero’s perceived strength. In examining the
discourses of Filipino DOTA gamers, Envarga (2011) indicated the centrality of a hero’s
perceived strength based on player appraisals as a criterion for hero selection. His
analysis of chat exchanges between players as well as comments from game observers
revealed the complexity of hero selection and its potential to affect match outcomes.
Character picks that are perceived as disadvantageous are usually met with light
criticism, incredulity, and sarcasm.
The main objective of each team in DOTA2 is to destroy enemy structures such
as towers, turrets, barracks, and ultimately, the “Ancient” (similar to a keep) while
defending their own. This can be achieved through skirmishes, coordinated attacks on
bases, and effective management of resources to build ‘items’ that improve their hero’s
potency in battle. All of these are considered crucial to achieving victory. DOTA2
matches can be as short as 20 minutes or as long as an hour and a half (or more),
depending on how tightly each team is competing or how well they are holding out
against each other.
Another MOBA title that has become a significant part of the Filipino gaming
culture is League of Legends. Developed in 2009, League of Legends is currently the
world’s largest MOBA game with over 100 million players around the world per month,
surpassing DOTA and World of Warcraft (WoW) (Tampa, 2013). LoL’s game
mechanics are essentially the same with DOTA2: both carry fantasy themes that appeal
to male players; they are highly competitive; both can be played solo or with friends,
there are plenty of opportunities for social interaction in both games, and they also
share a common language (Abel, et al., 2016). Much like in DOTA2, players choose
from a roster of 148 champions (as of January 2020) based on their individual
preferences, game strategy, or play style with each champion possessing a unique set
of skills that can either decimate or disable opponents or help and save allies; teams
work toward the common objective of ‘pushing’ enemy structures with the ultimate goal
of destroying the opposing team’s nexus.
MOBA and the Kompyuteran
In developing countries such as the Philippines, people rely on public internet
access terminals such as cyber cafés for web and computer use (Rogers and Shukla
2001; Alam, Abdullah, and Ahsan 2009). Such may have been the case in the country
decades ago, but today, most cyber cafés have evolved from public internet access
terminals to gaming hubs for digital gamers. From the game posters plastered on walls,
windowpanes, and interior, to the hardware installed (computers, mouse, headphones,
keyboards) – just about everything in a cyber café suggest that they are all about
gaming. Two of the largest cyber café chains in the country, Mineski and TNC, even
have their own professional DOTA2 and LoL teams. The transformation of the cyber
café to the kompyuteran reflected the changing demographics of its clients and their
usage of cyber cafés. In a series of interrelated studies conducted in 2013, Bringula et
al. (2013) provided a profile snapshot of cyber café visitors in Manila as well as their
purposes for visiting a cyber café. Bringula et al. found out that young, college men
were the most frequent visitors of cyber cafés in Manila. The study also revealed that
computer gaming was one of the 5 main reasons why Manila residents visit cyber
cafés. Among respondents that cited computer gaming as their primary reason for
going to a cyber café, 47% answered they play DOTA, making it the most played game
in cyber cafés in Manila at the time of the study. In a follow up study that focused on the
profiles and gaming purposes of cyber café visitors in Manila, Bringula et al., (2013)
surveyed 418 respondents in an attempt to paint a portrait of Manila gamers based on
their demographics and gaming habits. The findings of their study revealed that majority
of the respondents (57%) played DOTA more than any other game. Interestingly, more
than half these respondents indicated they already have PCs at home and yet, they still
preferred to play in cyber cafés. The popularity of DOTA in cyber cafés can be
attributed to the game’s playability, learnability, and sociability – dimensions identified
by Fan et al., as cornerstones of MOBA player experience. As a Local Area Network
(LAN) game, DOTA affords players with more opportunities for face-to-face interaction.
The ability to interact with other players gives the game a dimension of sociality as it
allows players not just to interact, but form relationships with other players who play the
same game or use the game as a form of bonding. In one study of the Filipino DOTA
Culture, Rayo (2012) cited the rich social interactions borne in and out of the game as
one of its defining characteristics and motivators for gamers to play. It is through these
sustained interactions that players participate in what is perceived to be the defining
feature of Filipino MOBA gaming: trash-talking. The competitive nature of the game,
coupled with intense in-game moments that pit a player’s skill with that of other players
very much mimic what happens in competitive sports like basketball, hence the
shouting.
The story of modern Philippine computer gaming is heavily intertwined with the
narrative of the kompyuteran / computer shop or cyber café. Veteran gamer and
eSports blogger Knulp Calf (2017) described the kompyuteran as ‘the center of our
[Filipino] gaming culture.’ It is in the cyber cafés where noobs (newbies) are
indoctrinated to the game and its language. And as they play, they take an active role in
shaping the Pinoy gamer culture. The result is a ‘smorgasbord of street terminologies
and middle class swagger’ that perfectly encapsulates the rich and diverse
backgrounds of people in the kompyuteran (Knulp Calf, 2017). The emergence of this
subculture may be due to the culturability of the games and spaces where they are
played. Green (2001, as cited in Fan, 2017) explained that culturability is a product’s
potential to create cultures around it (ex. the Mac Culture). An ethnographic observation
of MOBA players and their symbolic interactions with one another would reveal a
unique, game-specific culture shared and shaped by people who play the game. For
instance, DOTA2 and LoL players have developed their own vocabulary, jargon, and
metaphors that enrich their social interactions and help them make sense of their
gaming realities. Words like GGWP (good game, well played), G (game), and noob
(newbie / idiot), staples of the gamer lingo have even proliferated into everyday use. But
apart from lexicon, players also participate in different kinds of rituals and practices both
inside and outside the game. An example of which involves being the target of trash-
talking and ridicule when a newbie plays with more seasoned players – a rite of
passage for many gamers who learned how to play DOTA2 and LoL in cyber cafés.
These observations are supported by similar studies that have devoted attention to
gamer subcultures (see Skoglund, 2018; Cade & Gates, 2016; Jarrett, 2016)
Gender and Gaming
This finding lines up with the findings of other scholars (Somoni et al., 2010;
Stewart & Choi, 2003) with regard to the dominant presence of men in cyber cafés.
In an exploratory study that sought to create a profile and identify the gaming
usage of cyber café users in Manila, Bringula et al. (2013) revealed that male clients
outnumber female clients (77.3% vs 22.7% out of 418 respondents). The researchers
see two reasons for this: first is that these establishments offered services that are
catered around male clients which is primarily gaming, and second, because the games
offered featured themes like fighting, sports, shooting, role-playing, action / adventure,
and strategy games. The results of their study lined up nicely with existing scholarship
that suggests cyber cafés are places for men. Although the study did not produce an
accurate portrait of the Pinoy gamer, it does succeed in producing a rough sketch: that
of a young, single college male that prefers to play Dota.
But how did gaming become so skewed towards men? In Western cultures,
gamers have always been conceived as predominantly Caucasian males (Shaw, 2010)
or young, socially inept Asian men who spend long hours in front of a screen, immersed
in first person shooter (FPS), role playing (RPG), or strategy games (DiSalvo, 2016).
Although there have been studies that deconstructed and challenged the accuracy of
the socially awkward white male stereotype (Paaßen, et al., 2016; Wellings, 2010;
Grifiths et al., 2003), the fact remains that gaming remains strongly associated with the
male sex.
The enduring ideology that ‘games are made by men for men’ can be attributed
to the predominantly male-led historical narrative of video games. According to
Newman & Vanderheof (2014) video games emerged during a period when technology
and entertainment started to cross paths. The early games that emerged during the 60s
and 70s heavily featured masculine themes and interests such as sports, sci-fi, racing,
and fighting. These themes carried over to the 80s and by that time, games already
have developed a devoted market among boys and adolescent men. Researchers that
studied video game consumption at home during this period also found out that boys
played games far more frequently than girls. As video games continued its conquest of
western homes, video arcades started to pop up and establish themselves as
recreational spaces for men (Kocurek, 2012, p. 196 as cited in Newman & Vanderheof,
2014). But apart from video games and arcades, the intimate relationship of technology
and masculinity can also be seen in PCs and its function as a ‘male hobby’ (Newman &
Vanderheof, 2014). As Jenkins (1998) put it, play and gaming are spaces where
children can experience their boyhood, a staging area where they learn to develop and
define their gender as they go along.
Video games have come a long way since they were first introduced more than
half a century ago. But despite giving birth to different kinds of genres and taking active
steps to push for increased diversification, the masculine underpinnings of games (in
broader terms) remain firmly intact. This may be so because video games have become
instruments in the construction gender, whether intentionally or not (DiSalvo, 2016).
DiSalvo (2016) further elaborates on this using Judith Butler’s (1988) theory of
constructed gender which posits: gender is a dynamic identity that is contingent on a
person’s biological appropriation. Rather, gender is ‘created through a repeated
process of invocation and repudiation’ of gendered norms (Pascoe, 2007). In other
words, gender is something that we do and we become ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ by
virtue of the actions we perform. In this regard, we can say that playing video or
computer games is a way for men to ‘continually refine what it means to be a man
(DiSalvo, 2016).
As Condis (2015) points out, gender plays a central, if not, the (emphasis mine)
central role in the social construction gamer culture.’ Analyzing an expansive archive of
games, novels and films about gamers, press releases made by game developers, and
blog and forum posts made by players, Condis (2015) was able to illustrate how media
productions always present the performance of white masculinity as the best template
for enacting gamer identities. Her study also exposed how the gamer subculture
glorifies patriarchal presentations that emphasize dominance over the self,
environment, technology, and anything conceived to be ‘un-masculine’.

The presumption that masculinity is the norm (or the only norm) in gaming also
contributes to the maintenance of a strictly male gamer culture. Kendrick (2015)
attributes the construction of a gamer identity that is naturally male to the ingrained
social gender roles in society that associate men with technology and its use. Indeed,
there is a powerful association between the male sex and technology. The celebration
of the accomplishments and contributions of male innovators such as Tesla, Edison,
Bell, and their contemporaries in the world of tech such as Gates, Jobs, Musk, and
Zuckerberg, in different circle such as in the media feeds the narrative that technology
and masculinity naturally go together. This ‘powerful association between video games
and masculinity which is reproduced and reaffirmed throughout the discourse of gamer
culture and the perception of gaming as a gendered technology has positioned males
as the natural users of game technologies’ (Kendrick, 2015).
Bakla, Bading, and Homosexuality
The words bakla and bading have a long history of being used as an insult and
derogatory label for gay men. While gathering literature for this study, however, I was
astonished by the scarcity of academic work that dealt with the usage of the words
bakla and bading in Philippine society. If we are to understand what heterosexual male
gamers really mean when they use these terms, it is necessary to first expand our
understanding of the bakla.
According to Cruz & Manalansan (2007) Filipinos have a very broad definition of
homosexuality. Bakla as a term has been used to encompass any one or more of the
following: effeminate man, cross‐dresser, drag queen, transgender, homosexual, gay,
and queer. Anyone who fails to embody the ideal heteronormative – heterosexual male
mold is categorized as a homosexual or bakla. Bases for someone to be categorized as
bakla include physical appearance, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sexual
roles. Tan (2008) explains that the words lalake, babae, bakla and tomboy are more
than just sexual signifiers; they also carry concepts about gender and sexuality that run
against western definitions. It is widely believed that bakla is a conjugation of the words
lalake – referring to men – and babae – referring to women. Generally, bakla refers to
males that act and speak like women. It may also refer to men who are attracted to men
and engage in sexual intercourse or develop intimate romantic relationships with them.
With regard to the latter definition, Tan warns of possible confusions when bakla is
translated to English. A man who has sex or romantic relationship with a bakla might
not necessarily identify as homosexual, but when western definitions are applied,
however, such a guy would be considered gay. Aside from denoting sexual orientation,
bakla may also be used to label men who do not conform to the ideal Filipino male
traits, most notably, bravery.
In addition to functional definitions, the word bakla also carries contextual
meanings buried in its rich history. As Garcia (2004) explained in the article Male
Homosexuality in the Philippines: A Short History, the pre-colonial bakla were cross-
dressing men who fulfilled feminine roles in society such as that of the babaylan
/catalonan or men with ‘pusong bababe’ (heart of a woman) but none of the
reproductive capabilities of women (Garcia, 2004). Despite being unable to bear
children, the bakla enjoyed the same privileges accorded to women, including
cohabiting with a man or taking a husband. Furthermore, their role in indigenous
spiritual traditions meant that the bakla were respected members of pre-colonial
Philippine society. The arrival of Spanish colonizers with their brand of machismo and
our indoctrination to the Catholic faith, however, set the course for the bakla’s
‘homosexualization.’ Once respected, the bakla became denounced for their
nonconformity. Our ‘liberation’ from the Spanish rule by the Americans did little to
reverse colonial erosion of the bakla. Instead, it further jumbled up our concept of
gender / sexuality. Where our ancestors saw gender and sexuality as one concept,
American psychology separated them into two distinct categories. This resulted in the
bakla to be defined by her sexual desire rather than her performance of femininity.
Pinoy gamers often use the word bakla as a substitute for the words duwag
(coward) and sometimes bobo (stupid). I have always wondered how this association
came about. To shed light on this, I turn to Quintos’ (2012) investigation of homosexual
experience in the Philippines, particularly during the Spanish colonial era. Quintos’
thorough analysis of Spanish missionaries’ records (confesionarios, diccionarios, and
manuals) revealed that the word bakla first appeared in the Spanish Vocabulario de la
Lengua Tagala in 186, then spelt bacla. The Vocabulario, provided four distinct
meanings for the word bacla, one of which is the trait of being cowardly or fearful.
Nabacla, a variation of bacla also appeared the Passion ni Jesus Christong Panginoon
natin na Tola by Gaspar Aquino de Belen. Quintos explained that the use of the word
nabacla in Jesus Christ’s dialogue hints at his disciples’ change of plan out of being
fearful. From this, ‘we can infer that the word bacla was used in the pasyon as a
synonym for cowardice’ (Quintos, 2012). And so the bacla became synonymous to
‘coward’, an adjective Spanish missionaries used to describe the asog, bayoguin and
binabayi, the bakla’s predecessors.
It is worth mentioning that not all definitions of the word bakla are negative. The
passage of time, changing attitudes, and increased visibility of gay and queer culture
has allowed the bakla to take on a more positive meaning (Manalansan, 2015). Taking
its place is the word bading, a variation of the word badap, which essentially means the
same as bakla in modern parlance. Today, bakla has found usage as a term of
endearment for gay – female peers. In some rare cases, heterosexual males have also
adopted its use as a sort of nickname for a close pal.
When it comes to attitudes toward members of the gay community, available
literature present contradicting pictures. For example
Homophobic language across contexts
Language plays a crucial role in the construction of our social realities and how
we interact with the world. The way we describe individuals and groups affect the
nature of our interactions and relationships with them. Conversely, our relationship with
other individuals influences what kind of language we choose to use when referring to
them. Over the last couple of decades, a growing body of research in sociology, social
psychology, gender studies, and communication research explored the power of
language to convey much more than their intended meanings, spread norms and social
mores, and in some cases, discriminate, alienate, and disempower. Examples of these
are group labels such as those that classify people into race, religion, ethnicity, national
group, sex, and gender orientation (ex. Filipino, Jew, Lumad, man and woman, gay,
lesbian, etc.) Group labels can further be classified in to two groups: category group
labels and derogatory group labels. Category labels, according to Carnaghi & Bianchi
(2017) give observers additional information that may not be readily available on the
surface. Such information may include among others, a person’s political leanings (ex.
administration vs opposition, majority vs minority), religious affiliation (ex. INC for Iglesia
ni Cristo members), and group membership (ex. PUPians, Ateneans, Thomasians for
students of PUP, ADMU, and UST), gender orientation (ex. gay). Put simply, category
labels fulfill a nomenclatural function, help us categorize people into groups, and act as
information providers. The same cannot be said about derogatory group labels,
however. Derogatory group labels are insults directed at an individual or particular

group based on their group membership. Examples of these are the words nigger for
African Americans and fag and fairy for homosexuals. Where category labels act as
identifiers, derogatory group labels brazenly humiliate its target by vilifying their
membership in a particular group. What makes derogatory labels particularly offensive
and discriminatory ‘is not their pure evaluative negative tone’ but their strong racist and
sexist undertones (Carnaghi & Bianchi, 2017). In a study conducted by Carnaghi &
Maass (2008) a decade prior, they identified two defining features of derogatory group
labels: the intent to harm a minority group (which has already been explained) and the
intragroup context within which these labels are used (Carnahgi & Maass, 2008). Unlike
other forms of discriminatory language, derogatory group labels tend to be used in
intragroup settings where members of the majority group (ex. heterosexual men)
communicate with each other. In this setting, labels such as gay and fag and their local
counterparts bakla and bading are used to ‘talk about [rather] than [when] talking to
members of the minority group (Carnaghi & Maass, 2008). Indeed, Burn (2000) arrived
at the same conclusion almost a decade prior to Carnaghi & Maass. When Burn
investigated the use of the words fag and queer among a sample of 250 male and
female university students, his research showed that the use of gay-related nominators
was more prevalent among heterosexual men and that it was used to deride one
another more than it was used to express strong heterosexism or anti-gay sentiments,
although prejudice against homosexuals ‘was predictive of anti-gay behavior’ (Burn,
2000).
In addition to differentiating category group labels from derogatory group labels,
Carnaghi & Maass’s (2008) and Carnaghi & Bianchi’s (2017) multi-pronged research
also investigated the effects of derogatory labels from the perspectives of the user, the
target, and the audience. The researchers suggest that there is a strong connection
between the user’s level of prejudicial attitudes toward the target of discrimination and
the usage of slurs and other derogatory labels, citing findings from other similar studies
such as one conducted in Poland where researchers sought to measure prejudice
toward racial minorities (see Bilewicz, Soral, Marchlewska, & Winiewski, 2015).
Correlational analyses also revealed that people with higher levels of prejudice are
more unlikely to inhibit from using hate speech. When it comes to sexual prejudice,
research conducted by other scholars (see Burn, 2000; Poteat, DiGiovanni, & Scheer,
2013; Prati, 2012) also indicated that individuals with strong sexual biases tended to
use homophobic epithets as insults more often than their less biased counterparts. But
apart from individual levels of prejudice, Carnaghi & Bianchi’s (2017) also reiterated
what other scholars already asserted as the reasons why men use homophobic
language. Citing Herek & Capitanio (1998), the researchers maintained that the use of
homophobic epithets fulfills a ‘group-relevant expressive function’ that allows members
of a group to assert their masculine identities while at the same time, elevate their self-
esteem. In such cases, vilifying homosexuals becomes a tool for heterosexual men to
show their conformity to their gender identity as well as a tool for keeping a desirable
image (Carnaghi et al., 2011). Part of that positive image is being identified with or
fitting the mold of the masculine prototype (manly man) and distinguishing themselves
from the counter-prototype non-masculine man. Finally for the user perspective,
Carnaghi & Bianchi (2017) also stated that labeling is also used as a tool to punish
‘intragroup deviants’ who fail to conform to the established prototype and establish the
users’ group (heterosexuals) as superior over the disparaged group (homosexuals).
As for audiences exposed to derogatory labels, Carnaghi et al. (2008; 2017)
believe that exposure to derogatory labels ‘automatically activates negative feelings’
toward the group being referred to and may carry over to other individuals who are
perceived to be members of or associated with the target group. Aside from holding
negative perceptions about the target group of slurs, people who hear others speak
disparagingly of minorities such as homosexuals are more likely to avoid physical
contact with gay men and create spatial distance between themselves and the group in
question.
The consequences for the primary target audience or members of the minority
are even more alarming when compared to the effects to listeners who are merely
exposed to derogatory labels. Carnaghi & Maass (2008) had already reported that
category labels (gay) and derogatory labels (fag) both conjure ‘stereotypical concepts
related to the group to which they refer (e.g., homosexuals) in participants who are
exposed to these labels’ (Carnaghi & Maass, 2007, 2008) with the only difference being
‘derogatory labels strengthen prejudicial reactions toward the group to which they refer
when participants are not members of such a group’ (Carnaghi & Bianchi, 2017). In
another study that investigated how gay participants appraised homophobic labels (ex.
fag) versus the more neutral category labels (ex. gays / homosexuals) Carnaghi et al.
(2016) reported that gay participants differ vastly in their appraisals of homophobic
epithets and category labels depending on their levels of coming-out. Gay participants
who are more out about their sexual orientation felt greater levels of discomfort and
negativity at being gay when confronted with homophobic labels such as fag / faggot.
The opposite is true for gay participants who are not as open as those with higher levels
of coming-out. For these participants, concealing their true sexual identities, appearing
more masculine, and distancing one’s self from gay membership are more important in
the face of category labels (vs. homophobic epithets) (Carnaghi et al., 2016). These
findings are echoed in other scholarly literature as well.
McCormack’s model of homosexually-themed language has also been used by

other researchers (Wei, 2017; Magrath, 2017) in recent studies to theorize
homosexually-themed discourses as it methodically elaborates on the transformation of
homosexual discourses in western societies. In addition, it provides valuable insights on
how terms like gay and fag – both of which were previously conceived as strictly
derogatory – change meanings as a result of changing societal, cultural, and
environmental contexts.
Through his model, McCormack argues that discussions concerning the use of gay
discourse have been too concerned on whether a phrase or expression is homophobic
or not. This oversimplification, according to McCormack, often overlooks ‘the complex
nature of homosexually-themed language’ and other communicative practices that carry
some form of homosexual subtext. He further contends that this myopic view sustains a
misguided understanding that [almost] ‘all colloquial language relating to homosexuality’
is innately homophobic. As a result, people risk hearing homophobia in communication,
regardless if they really exist there or not (McCormack, 2011). It should be noted that
academic literature does not provide a single definition for homophobic language and
the subject is still up for debate (McCormack, 2016). So, to clarify what constitutes
homophobic language, McCormack sets forth two conditions that would render
communication homophobic: first, a clear intent to inflict injury (pernicious intent) and
second, there must be harmful social effects to the target or anyone exposed to it.
The intent to malign, degrade, or marginalize a person or behavior by
associating it with homosexuality is the first requirement for communication to be
considered homophobic. In such cases, contempt for gays and anything associated
with homosexuality is implied through homophobic terms (Armstrong, 1997 as cited in
McCormack, 2011). The desire to injure becomes more apparent when the terms are
laced with ‘intensifiers’ such as swear words (ex. ‘tang ina mong bakla ka!’ / ‘bobo mo,
bakla!’ as opposed to just saying ‘bakla!’). Next to pernicious intent are the negative
social consequences that arise from the usage of gay labels and epithets.
Ostracization, discrimination, feelings of being victimized, dehumanization, emotional
trauma, taunting, and stigma are just some of the negative social consequences that
may arise from the use of homophobic language. It may even extend to deleterious
effects to health and mental wellness such as depression and suicide (see Slaatten et
al., 2015).
McCormack drew further distinction between homophobic language and what he
calls ‘homosexually themed language.’ His 4-stage model of homosexually themed
language explains how homophobic language (characterized by vicious and harmful
use of the words gay, fag, and other relevant terms) evolves to pro-gay language
Figure 3: McCormack’s Model of Homosexually-themed Language
wherein the use of fag and gay are used to achieve positive effects. In addition,
McCormack’s model also emphasizes the necessity of accounting for cultural context
and social environment in understanding and interpreting homosexually themed
discourse.
McCormack asserts that no phrase is inherently homophobic or non-
homophobic. Instead, he posits that categorizing terms as homophobic or non-
homophobic depends on the cultural context and the social environment within which
they are said. McCormack’s model also incorporates the concept of homohysteria
(Anderson, 2009) to explain the importance of cultural context in greater detail. As
explained earlier, homohysteria refers to the ‘cultural fear of being homosexualized’
(McCormack, 2011). According to Anderson (2011) homohysteria has three
precipitators: (1) mass awareness that homosexuality exists within a culture, (2) cultural
homophobia, and (3) disapproval of men’s femininity. In cultures with high levels of
homohysteria, there is a heightened and lingering suspicion that anyone can be gay, a
situation which he calls ‘homosuspicion.’ The stigma attached to homosexuality pushes
men to be on the defensive when it comes to their heterosexuality and this is usually
achieved through homophobia. Here, homophobic language is used to assert their
heterosexuality as well as maintain their positive distinctiveness. On the flip side,
cultures with low homohysteria tend to be more forgiving and open when it comes to
gay labeling. In low homohysteric cultures, being called gay is inconsequential as men
are afforded more legroom for gendered behaviors and associations. Foregrounding
McCormack’s model of homosexually themed language with Anderson’s concept of
homohysteria, we can come to a better understanding of what gamers mean whenever
they use the words ‘bakla’ and ‘bading.
In one of the earlier studies about the usage of homophaulisms, Plummer
(2001) explored how schoolboys and young men employ homophobic language and the
different meanings they invoke at different developmental stages. By mapping the
usage of homophobic references chronologically, Plummer concluded that homophobic
language start to appear in men’s vocabularies at a young age and are picked up as
early as primary school. As young boys interact with other boys, they become
subsumed under a wider boy culture. At this stage, the use of the terms faggot and
poofter are bereft of any sexual connotation, although sexual consideration does linger
in the background. Plummer also dispelled the notion that just because the words did
not carry sexual connotations, they were wholly innocent. Far from it, words such as
faggot and poofter communicated a wide range of meanings, one of which emphasizes
what Plummer termed as boyhood ‘otherness’ or the failure to conform to male-peer
expectations. In this regard, the foundations of homophobia have less to do with
prejudice toward a minority or deviant sexual characteristics but more with an
individual’s inability to measure up to hegemonic boys’ standards. Boys who are
smarter than the other boys, loners, boys who are perceived to be different in some
way, boys who do not join peer activities, and boys who concede to adult authority
rather than his peer group are the ones that are more at risk of homophobic labeling.
Plummer’s findings were supported by a similar study carried out by Slaatten & Gabrys
(2014) wherein they investigated the use of gay-related name-calling by ninth grade
Norwegian pupils in response to violation of gender norms. The researchers pointed out
that anti-gay remarks and comments do not necessarily entail prejudice against gays
and that these remarks have more uses aside from disparaging gay men. What they
were interested to know however, was whether adolescents use gay-related name-
calling as a response to the violation of gender norms by boys more frequently than as
a response to disliked or stupid behavior, in order to criticize, hurt or put someone
down, in order to tease in a nice way, and as a reference to actual or suspected sexual
orientation. After surveying 921 respondents, the researchers found out that gay-related
name-calling is used as a response to violations of gender norms. Their study revealed
that boys who use gay-related name-calling did so to address perceived violations to
coded norms. Interestingly, it was also revealed that the targets of this gay-related
name-calling usually are boys who failed to perform traditional masculine expectations
or conform to the masculine prototype. Their findings are in tune with the greater body
of research that identified gay-related name-calling as a means for policing
performance of masculinity.
Pascoe (2007) adds to Plummer’s (2001) findings by suggesting that being
called a fag has as much to do with being homosexual as much as it does with
displaying incompetence, weakness, and femininity. Through extensive fieldwork,
qualitative ethnographic interviews that spanned for half a year, and multiple levels of
analysis, Pascoe explored masculinity as a process within larger structural pattern.
Pascoe came to the conclusion that relational and institutional gender processes
emphasized how gender happens in groups. A person’s affiliation to peer groups and
cliques are exceedingly important to the formation of identity in adolescence (Pascoe,
2007). The use of homophobic insults within peer groups, according to Pascoe,
occupies a central role in asserting, shaping, and maintaining masculinity, especially in
school settings. In these settings, fag is not an exclusive term reserved only for gay
males. Instead, it can be may be levied at heterosexual boys as well, albeit temporarily.
Pascoe’s observation gives credence to Anderson’s (2009) concept of homohysteria
where he stated that in cultures with high levels of homohysteria, everyone could be
gay. But apart from being a static sexual marker that identified homosexuals, fag can
also function as a joke or a tool for disciplining members of a group (Pascoe, 2007).
Pascoe concluded that insults such as fag and gay are an inextricable part of
heterosexual boys’ everyday language.
Previous investigations into the use of homophobic language underscored
gender policing, group identity, and conformity as driving forces in adolescent boys’ use
of homophobic language, McCann et al. (2010) contemplated on its use as a form of
disparaging humor and its influence on Australian men’s construction of a successful
masculinity.
According to McCann et al., humor has the ability to repackage ideas that may
not be overtly expressed verbally by converting them to light-hearted analogies or
metaphors. As humor has the capacity to convey information beyond what the literal
statements carry, it can contain insults, stereotypes, and other negative subtexts that
become fodder for laughter. The use of homophobic humor is common in Philippine
media. Television shows and films would often cast gay character actors into comedic
roles. Their portrayals on screen often make them the butt of the joke and the subject of
different kinds of humiliations (i.e. being teased, becoming targets of practical jokes,
awkward social situations that result in funny social blunders) that usually solicit
laughter from audiences. While movies and television make them entertaining and less
distressing, the same cannot be said when homophobic humor becomes a tool for
mocking members of the gay community. As the researchers put it: it is ‘no [longer]
humor, [it is just] humiliation framed by laughter (McCann et al., 2010).
Most of the studies mentioned so far leaned towards the talk about the uses of
gay labels and epithets to regulate group norms, maintain a positive masculine image,
distance one’s self from counter-prototype non-masculines, and deride people
perceived to be gay.
So far, most of the studies that investigated the use of gay labels and gay
epithets, homophobic language and gay-related name-calling, and homophaulisms
have been confined in western school settings. There are, however, other settings
where homosexually-themed language is used that is more analogous to the context of
computer gaming. Magrath (2017) studied the nature of homosexually-themed chanting

in English football. Drawing from semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 fans from
different English football clubs, Magrath (2017) was able to show the complexity of
homosexually-themed chanting and its relationship to football fans’ attitudes toward
homosexuality. Magrath (2017) established that although participants in the study
showed ‘positive attitudes towards homosexuality, both in football and in general
society,’ homosexually-themed chanting is still present in competitions, albeit not as
frequent as other researchers claimed. Fans attributed the presence of homosexually-
themed chanting to two things: a strong sense of competition and rivalry among the
different football clubs. According to Magrath (2017), participants engaged in
homosexually-themed chanting to demonstrate their support at the expense of mocking
or distracting (versus vilifying) the opposing team. Participants also stressed that
homosexually-themed chanting was usually instigated by the events on the pitch or
what is happening in the game such as when a player goes down with an injury or
exaggerates his injury. Intense rivalry between competing teams and by extension,
football clubs, also prod fans use gay epithets in their chanting. In this context, the use
of homosexually-themed chanting is a way for fans to set themselves up as different
from and superior to the opposing team through a process denigration (Magrath, 2017).
In both contexts, participants maintained that there was no intention to be homophobic
and that they would cease their homosexually-themed chanting if they become aware
there are gay fans watching the match. Despite the absence of deliberate intent to
malign homosexuals, pernicious intent still exist as the purpose of their chanting is to
marginalize the opposing team. Even if the chants are not intentionally directed at
homosexual men, gay and closeted fans may still (mis)interpret (prefix mine) this
chanting as an indicator of homonegative attitudes (Magrath, 2017).

To add an oriental perspective to the uses of gay labels and gay epithets, I turn
to a study by Wei (2017) wherein he investigated how words such as gao-ji, gao-gei,
and ji-you – Chinese words that are heavily associated with homosexuality and
homosexual affection – have transcended their negative connotations by becoming an
internet meme and how urban Chinese youth are using them in the construction of their
masculinities. Similar to this study, Wei employs McCormack’s (2011) model of
homosexually themed language in mapping the use of gao-ji discourse. According to
Wei, the deployment of gao-ji discourse is a defensive response against homosexual
teasing and as a tool for gender-identiy management. It is also used to deflect
homosuspicion. More importantly, Wei saw the emergence of gao-ji as a sign of China’s
changing social climate and Chinese society’s increasing awareness of homosexuality
(Wei, 2017). Similarly, Szalbewicz (2014) studied the functions of the words diaosi, gao-
ji, and various sexual slangs in the Chinese digital gaming culture. Much like the words
gay and faggot, the words diaosi and gao-gei have different uses in the Chinese
vocabulary but have never lost their homosexual connotations. Much like in western
settings, the words diaosi and gao-gei to criticize failed masculinities. While western
cultures use gay and faggot against men who show counter-prototype behavior or fail to
meet hegemonic masculine standards, diaosi and gao-gei are levied against men who
have failed to achieve heteronormative success within contemporary China. Although
not intended to disparage homosexuals, Szalbewicz (2014) maintained that using
phrases, diaosi, gao-ji and/or ji-you as a form of ridicule and self- mocking perpetuates
the notion that homosexuality is something to be viewed in a negative light and
perpetuate the stigma surrounding those who do actually identify as homosexual.

Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature and Studies
The Filipino or Pinoy gamer culture is deeply associated with Dota and cyber
café subculture, so much so that they are treated as one and the same. A study of
cyber café gamers in Manila revealed that computer games are masculine pursuits.
This is supported by literature that explained how games have become a gendered
activity coded to the masculine sex. The literature also provided a short discussion on
the origins of the word bakla, its contextual meanings, and how its meanings and uses
have changed over tome. The use of gay labels, gay epithets, homophaulisms, and/or
homophobic language was also briefly discussed. Literature about this topic revealed
that terms such as gay and faggot are not used to convey their literal meanings but
rather, they are used to invoke other meanings coded into them. Most of the time, the
target of these labels and epithets are heterosexual men who fail to live up to masculine
ideals.
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents a short discussion of the research methodology and
procedure adopted for this study. This includes the research design, tradition of inquiry,
data generation method, the participants, the instrumentation, and ethical
considerations.
Research Design
This study employed a combination of qualitative approach and a descriptive
research design with semi-structured, face-to-face in-depth interviews with self-
identified straight male gamers and gay male gamers. A descriptive design was used
because of its compatibility with a qualitative approach and because of its congruent
epistemological and ontological assumptions with SI (Oliver, 2012). Since the study’s
theoretical framework required an orientation to how certain people act and interact in
everyday situations, an approach and design that facilitated investigation in to how
people make meaning and act in unique situations such as gaming was used. This is
exactly the kind of real-life situation a descriptive design that operated within a
qualitative framework addressed. A descriptive design, when used within a qulalitative
framework, allows for a clear description of a specific phenomenon or experience from
the perspective of the people who are experiencing it (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009). A
descriptive design set within a qualitative approach is used to systematically describe
situations and poorly understood phenomena and events, especially those that cannot
be explained easily or made sense of using quantitative means. Qualitative descriptive
design has also been widely used to describe the status of groups of people (e.g. their
living conditions), community attitudes towards certain issues, sets of conditions, and
systems of thought, among many things. The study took advantage of QD because of
its appropriatess in describing the experiences of the straight male gamers and gay
gamers and capturing an accurate account of the phenomena as well as events
surrounding their experiences (Sandelowski, 2000; Sandelowski, 2010). There were
several advantages to using QD in this study. First, QD provided rich descriptions of the
experiences of both sets of participants in relation to the use of gay labels and epithets
during game talk as descriptions often come from direct observations and/or accounts
of people who have experienced the phenomenon. Second, QD grounded the
participants’ experiences and perceptions within a specific event – gaming. Third, QD
helped identify and explain the nuances and multivariance in the meanings,
interpreations, and uses of gay labels and epithets in gamer talk. Fourth, data was
derived from a relatively small group through individual interviews and group interviews.
Fifth, there was relative flexibility in data collection as researchers who have used QD in
previous studies generated data by observing participants in their natural context where
nonparticipant observation is typical. Lastly, it helped highlight the inter-and
intrapersonal dynamics of gamer talk in ways that a survey questionnaire might not be
able to do (Polit & Beck, 2014).
Tradition of Inquiry and Data Generation Method
To answer the questions posed in this study, I have chosen to use the case
study approach as the tradition of inquiry. A case study enables social researchers to
examine the experiences of participants within a specific context in detail. It involves a
study of a particular case from which general principles and rules can be drawn while
relying on the analysis of the social context that reflects everyday experience.
In-depth interviews and non-participant observation were used to generate data
for this research. This is in keeping with the tenets of qualitative research and
qualitative case studies.
The participants were informed about the subject of the study but were not
provided with any guide questions before the interview. Likewise, their consent was
obtained prior to the interview.
Sources of Data
This study drew from primary sources of data such as the narratives of the
participants as well as my personal observations and experiences as a gay gamer and
secondary sources of data in the form of books, journals, blogs, articles, and other
relevant materials.
Participants for this study were selected using a combination of purposeful
sampling techniques, specifically homogenous sampling and snowball sampling. In
purposeful sampling, researchers consciously pick the individuals and sites that will
help in improving their understanding of the central phenomenon (Creswell, p.207). For
this study, I deliberately chose DoTA / DoTA2 and LoL players who have been playing
the game for more 2 years or more. Participants were recruited through a participant
recruitment post on Facebook and through referrals as well. All participants were asked
to share their gaming background to make sure that they fit the requirements for this
study. Likewise, homogenous sampling involves selecting sites or people on the basis
of their shared similarities in traits or characteristics or their membership in a subgroup
(p.208). A total of 10 participants (5 heterosexual male and 5 homosexual male
gamers) were interviewed. Participants for this study were chosen based on the
following criteria:
a. Participants must have been playing Dota / Dota2 and / or LoL for at least 2
years
b. One set of participants that identify as heterosexual male
c. One set of participants that identify themselves as openly gay
Instrumentation
An interview guide was used to facilitate data generation. The interview guide
was divided in four sections with each section containing questions that addressed
different aspects of the phenomenon. The first section was purely about the
participant’s profile. The second part asked about their feelings, opinions, and
experiences with gay gamerts while the third part inquired about the different functions
and uses of gay labels and epithets in the communicative practices of heterosexual
male gamers during gameplay. The fourth section of the interview guide asked
questions about how heterosexual male and gay male gamers interpreted homosexual-
themed utterances. Finally, the last part of the interview quide asked questions
regarding the different possible meanings and interpretations of the gay labels.
Ethical Considerations
This study poses a number of ethical issues that need to be addressed. Frist, as
the topic is expected to touch on sensitive issues such as sexuality and prejudice,
participants might not be as inclined to divulge their identities for fear of being labeled
homophobic. To avoid any breaches in privacy, the participants’ identities were kept
strictly confidential. Second, it is highly possible that some participants could be minors
as gamer demographic tend to fall within the young adolescent age bracket. To ensure
that their participation is voluntary, consent forms were given so that they may signify
their desire to participate willingly and with permission from their legal guardians. Third,
the need to capture interviews on video or on audio may be a cause for concern for
some participants. To address issues of privacy and confidentiality, the participants
were notified beforehand that interviews will be recorded and were given a chance to
withdraw any time they wished. In addition to their consent, interviews were conducted
in a public place, in full view of other people. This was done to make sure that the
participants were in a familiar setting where they can feel at ease and in control.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
After systematic and careful analysis of the participants’ responses drawn from
20 in-depth interviews with 10 participants, the following answers to the questions
posed in Chapter 1 emerged.
1. Profile of the participants
There were two sets of participants in this study: heterosexual male gamers and
homosexual male gamers. The initials of the participants’ names were used to refer to
them throughout the study.
FJ was the first heterosexual male informant who participated in the study.
Another student who saw a call for participants on social media referred FJ. He is a 5th
year mechanical engineering student at Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP).
FJ is DOTA2 player who mostly plays support role. He has been playing DOTA and
DOTA2 since he was in elementary. He plays with a gay teammate.
The second heterosexual male informant was RM. RM is an 18-year old
advertising student at Polytechnic University of the Philippines and a LoL player in a
support role. Like FJ, he has played LoL with a homosexual male friend before. RM has
been playing for about 7 years.
VL is RM’s friend and teammate. He is also a LoL player who plays ADR (attack
– damage – carry) and his team’s shot caller. VL has been playing LoL for about 6 to 7
years. Like RM,VL has also played with a gay friend before.
RO is a 20-year old mechanical engineering student from EARIST. He plays
LoL, DOTA, and Counter Strike. His preferred role is support. RO does not have gay
teammates though he has had experience in playing with gay LoL players before.
RJV is a 23-year old freelancer and graduate of AB Journalism. Like FJ, he
plays DOTA2 and LoL. His preferred heroes are strength-based characters and. He has
been playing DOTA2 and LoL for 5 years.
FK was the first homosexual male gamer that participated in the study. FK is a
psychology student at Pamantasang Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) and a LoL player. He
switches between ADC (attack – damage – carry) role and ADR. He plays with
heterosexual male and female friends and has been a LoL gamer for 7 years.
MVL is a 20-year old medical technology student at the University of the East
Ramon Magsaysay and a LoL player for the last 7 years, mostly in a support role. He
identifies as gay and plays regularly with heterosexual friends.
JJC is a 20-year old economics major at PUP. He volunteered to be an
informant after seeing a call for participants on Facebook. JJC is a LoL player and has
been playing for the last 5 years, mostly in a support role as well. He regularly plays
with heterosexual male friends.
MIB is an 18-year old English major at PUP. MIB responded to a call for
participants posted on Facebook through a mutual friend. He is an avid LoL player and
has been playing for around 5 years. His preferred role is mid and magic-type
champions.
JMA is a 20-year old BSED student at the University of the East Manila. He
volunteered to be a participant for the study after learning about it through MVL. Like
MVL, JMA has been playing LoL for 7 years and enjoys playing support.
With the exception of RJV, all the other participants are students in the age
range of 18 to 23. Majority of the participants are dedicated LoL players. Informant FJ is
the only informant that purely plays DotA2. Participants JJC, RJV, and VL play both
games. Half of the participants are committed to the support role, while the rest
displayed more flexibility in the roles they pick, switching between tank, attack-damage-
carry, and mid. All of the participants have been playing either game at around 5 years
or more.
Matrix 1: Participants’ Profile
Participant Age Gender Games Role No.

Code Played Years
Playing
FJ 21 Heterosexual DoTA2 Support 10+years
male
RM 18 Heterosexual LoL Support 6-7 years
male
VL 18 Heterosexual LoL/DotA2 ADR / Shot- 7-8years
male caller
RO 20 Heterosexual LoL ADR 6-7 years
male
RJV 23 Heterosexual DoTA2 / Tank / Carry 7-8years
male LoL
FK 18 Gay male LoL ADR 7 years
MVL 20 Gay male LoL Support 7-8years
JJC 20 Gay male DoTA2 / Support 6 years

LoL
MIB 18 Gay male LoL Mage-Mid 5 years
JMA 20 Gay Male LoL Support 7years
2. How do straight male gamers act towards bakla gamers?
If meanings shape and influence what we do including our conduct, how we
behave, how we relate, and how we interact with others (Hall, 1992), how then do
straight male gamers act towards gay gamers on the basis of the meanings they have
assigned to bakla and bading?
To answer this I asked the male participants several questions related to
kabaklaan and recount their experiences playing with bakla gamers. I also considered
how the straight male participants talked about members of the bakla community as
well as their observations on interactions between the largley straight male gaming
communities they inhabit and bakla gamers. This was done in an attempt to get a sense
of their thoughts, feelings, and behavior toward bakla gamers and bakla people in
general. It should be noted though that the questions I asked were in no way designed
to measure homophobia. The narratives revealed that straight male participants talk
about and act toward gay players with ambivalence. This ambivalence was evidenced
by their responses, which were characterized by a dilemmatic position of asserting their
egalitarian attitudes toward members of the bakla community and gay players and
distancing themselves from homophobia and prejudice, while simultaneously justifying
and dealing with their use of gay labels and epithets in game talk.
A gradient of ambivalence to solidarity
When asked about how they feel and what they thought about bakla players and
members of the gay community in general, most if not the entire straight male
participants proclaimed that they held no negative feelings, sentiments, and attitudes
towards the group. But despite their self-reported positive attitudes and despite
positioning themselves against prejudice all the while asserting their prosocial views,
their responses still reverberated with subtle bias. Supporting data came from RJV who
reflected on his and other straight male gamers’ use of homosexual-themed language:
RJV (straight male): In my opinion kasi, it would always stem from

somewhere so honestly speaking I think there's a hint of a— there. Kasi as a,
as you play it out it's still homophobic oh my God. Hindi matatanggal yung
fact na 'yun. And I – yung sinasabi ko kanina nagkakaro'n ng ibang meaning?
That's a bad thing that's not an excuse to call someone bad things just
because they're gay diba. Yung pagkaembed niya sa gaming community,
it's not hindi siya excuse para magdiscriminate kaya yung sinasabi namin
na kapag bakla natatakot ka lang, it's still a bad thing. It's still not an
excuse. I think there's, up to some level I think there's still a level of hate
right in there na I don't know kasi if you don't hate you wouldn't associate,
so 'yun ang iniisip ko. There's definitely some pa'no ba 'to ah may
disparity pa rin, may hint of tolerance lang na ando'n pero there's still a
level of hate somewhere in there.
As RJV mulled over his and other straight male gamers’ discursive practice, he
acknowledged that the use of the words bakla and bading in gaming still carries
vestiges of homophobia and disapproval mixed with attitudes of tolerance.
Like RJV, FJ also said that he too held no ill will / ill feelings toward gay players
and went to great lengths to credentialize his claim:
FJ (straight male): In gene – hindi…ah sa bakla wala naman eh pero in

general wala naman akong hate...Uhm personally wala naman talaga akong
kaso kung anong gender talaga nila eh. Wala naman talaga. Depende yon
sa…personality pero kunwari may nakalaro ako bading nga, tapos naglaro,
tapos palyado, tapos nag rage ka, minsan mababanggit mo talaga ‘yong
salitang bading eh, as a negative kasi culture na rin eh, parang nakasanayan
mo na, parang ang hirap rin tanggalin eh ‘yon.
FJ maintained that he has nothing against gay players’ gender and that how he
acts toward them all depends on their personality. In another part of our interview,
hoewever, he detailed what he thought were acceptable and unacceptable behavior
from gay players that would make him like or dislike them:
FJ: Wala naman talaga akong hate. Depende na lang ‘yon sa ugali mo.
Kasi…kunwari sa tao kahit lalaki ka naman talaga pero yong sa ugali mo,
palyado ka. Minsan mas lalaki pa talaga ang bakla sa kanila di ba gano’n?
Pero ‘yong sa mga gay naman yong – di, okay lang naman sila. Minsan
nga kalog sila kasama eh kaya chill-chill lang pag may kasama kang
ganon, pero yong ano sa ibang side naman. Kunwari sa mga bading na
parang feeling ko ano, hindi ko magiging ka vibes gano’n mga ano lang
naman, parang sobrang ingay, wala na sa lugar ‘yong ingay nila. Alam ko
naman kalog sila kasama pero minsan sumosobra rin. Wala sa…lugar.
‘Yong parang hindi na nga pormal sa kanila saka yong iba – yong ibang
bading na parang – either way bading ka man lalaki ka, babae ayoko ng –
basta pormal ka ganon ‘yon ‘yong gusto ko sayo ‘yon nga para doon tayo
magkakasundo. Then ‘ayon sa ibang – hindi lang naman sa bading yan or
LGBT or kahit kanino. ‘Yong parang sobrang feeling entitled parati ‘yon –
‘yon lang medyo nakakainis pero wala – wala naman talaga akong ano eh.
Wala naman talaga akong negative na pagtingin sa mga bakla. In general
talaga ako kahit sino ka man basta sa ugali talaga eh.
VL expressed a similar sentiment, though he failed to be as specific as FJ:
VL (straight male): Hindi ko po alam sa iba kong kasama pero po for me, I
have nothing against naman po sa pagiging bakla ng isang tao. Ano lang
po, sadyang parang syempre po, magkakaroon na lang ng parang caution
sa ibang mga bagay kasi may magkakaroon ng natural boundary po. Hindi
ko po alam kung anong tawag doon…
These responses are interesting because of the contradictory positions
contained therein. Despite espousing mostly friendly attitudes toward gay players, FJ’s
answers suggest that his favorable disposition and behavior are predicated on
compliance to some requirement in comportment and appearance. In other words, his
(dis)like is dilneated for certain subgroups of bakla. This was evidenced by his
descriptions of baklang maingay and baklang pormal. In other words, loud, cross-
dressing gay players are less desirable compared to gay palyers who endavored to
behave ‘properly’ and desisted from squealing, sqwawking, and being overtly gay.
Interestingly, FJ used the more deorgatory bading, which according to Benedicto (2008)
subjects the target to a double jeopardy of the undesirable traits of kabaklaan and
‘lower clasedness’. VL, on the other hand, was less specific about his stipulations, but
said there needed to be boundaries as a form of caution. This need for boundary
maintenance and precaution may suggest that even though VL did not have anything
against gays, he still saw them as threatening in some way.
While FJ and VL’s stipulations can be attributed to their personal interactional
preferences, it is hard to deny that their position is reflective of the conditional
acceptance of bakla in Philippine society. This conditional acceptance has been noted
by several Filipino scholars such as Tan (2001) who wrote that the public tolerance for
bakla has been largely misunderstood as acceptance of homosexuality in the
Philippines. Tan added that ‘acceptance’ often hinges on the bakla’s confinement to
‘certain occupational niches and fulfil[ment] of certain stereotypes.’ In this case, being
the stereotypical baklang parlorista is acceptable so long as it is performed in parlors
and the low-income neighborhoods where they are mostly situated. Outside the
confines of these spaces, behaving like a baklang parlorista can be seen as
problematic. As previously noted in Chatper 2, Garcia (2004) cautioned against the
same ‘foolsih and navie’ misconception that tolerance for public displays of
transvestism is the same with ‘wholesale approval of homosexual behavior.’ Similarly,
Cruz & Mallari (2007) asserted that ‘society’s acceptance takes into account not merely
a topical and physical representation of a homosexual but also the practices that
characterize his personality.’ That is, acceptance is dependent on the actions and
behavior the bakla perform in relation to their kabaklaan. This, however, raieses
another question: does this make the participants anti-gay / biased / prejudiced? Given
that the results of these interviews cannot be stated in the most absolute terms, it would
premature and presumptuous to say that they are. Absent any measures for
homophobia, prejudice, and homonegativity, there is no way to be sure of the
participants’ actual attitudes toward members of the bakla community. FJ and VL’s
responses, along with that of the other straight male players, highlight the complexity of
discourses as well as attitudes about homosexuality and homoprejudice. As Korobov
(2004), stated, talk about prejudice, particularly homophobia, is rarely as simple as
making one’s opinions, attitudes, and feelings about the subject known. Rather, it is a
complex act of positioning where speakers employ different positioning tools (e.g.
clarification, suppression, differentiation, displays of indifference, disclaimers, etc.) and
strategical use of language to situate themselves and the subjects of their talk
(Korobov, 2004).
Further evidence of ambivalence and conditional support can bee seen in
denials of individual heterosexism and sexual orientation blindness (Sue & Capodilupo,
2008; Sue, 2010). Denial of heteroxism pertains to a personal refusal to acknowledge
personal heterosexism, often communicated through messages like ‘Hindi ako against
sa mga bakla / I have nothing against gays / I’m not homophobic, in fact I play with gays
and I keep gay friends’. On the other hand, sexual orientation blindness is a refusal to
acknowledge diversity in gender and sexual orientation. RJV captured this perfectly in
the following statement:
RJV: Oh, yeah! I have a lot of friends na gay sila, and wala namang difference
talaga sa skills so...wala naman akong problema playing with them...gender
isn’t much of a matter.
According to Sue these kinds of preface statements are often heard from
heterosexuals who are confronted with or are forced to confront their biases or when
opinions on issues surrounding homosexuality are brought to the fore. While I believe in
the egalitarian positions of the participants, Sue (2010) maintained that we have all
inhereited racial, gender, and sexual-orientation biases from the society that raised us
and the society we inhabit. As such, no one can be immaculately without prejudice nor
can anyone be totally immune to harboring biases. Sue concludes that whatever
egalitarian views toward gender and sexual minorities we may have can be attributed
more to our belief in our own moral correctness, not the absence of heterosexist and
biased views. Sue also believes that biases hidden by preface and denials such as
those used by VL and FJ are ultimately belied by disruptions in one’s speech patterns.
The omission / substitution of the word bakla / bading with other words and the use of
euphemisms to refer to a gay person are examples of speech disruptions. These
omissions were observed when participants replaced the words bakla and bading with
the Filipino pronoun and adverb ‘ano’, ‘ganon’, ‘sila’ or the English word ‘gay’. These
disruptions were present in the responses of almost all of the straight male participants.
For instance, there had been several occasions when RM consciously or unconsciously
used the word ‘iyon’ (that) instead of simply saying bakla or bading such as when I
asked him about his use of gay labels and epithets during play:
RM (straight male): Ah, kasi nung, sa laro po kasi, ang pagkakaintindi ko is
normal na samin, na magkakaibigan na, kapag yun yung sinabi ko yun
[referring to bakla / bading], yun yung intensyon ko…[referring to bakla /
bading]
RM used a different euphemism in another part of the same interview when he
described an instance when he used the gay label bakla on a playmate who identified
as non-binary:
RM: Hindi po kasi normal yung mga act, yung mga ginagawa niya. Kasi po,
kapag siya, maingay siya, tapos nung parang napikon siya nung sinabihan
naming ganun…
This was particularly evident in my interview with FJ who, out of all the straight
male participants, felt strongly inclined to substitute the word bakla with the more
ambiguous Tagalog words ‘ano’ and ‘ganon’. Such was the case when FJ described
their gay teammate ‘Dominic:
FJ: Kilala namin si Dominic pero hindi namin ka-close tapos akala namin lalaki
tapos nakapageant na ni Larry. Doon na lang namin nalaman na ano eh…na
ganon siya. Tapos simula no’ng nakilala namin siya, simula no’ng nakita namin
‘yon. Parang…’yon na talaga pagkakakilala namin sa kanya…bading gano’n
FJ: Oo, parang curious, na parang nagulat kasi may study about doon and
inexplain ko ‘yong about sa research. So, willing naman siya magparticipate
kasi ‘yon nga eh, ganon siya and gamer siya, pero ‘ayon, parang nagulat lang
siya about the research.
When I asked him about it, he explained that he did so ‘out of respect’:
E: may mga pagkakataon or rather maraming pagkakataon na hindi mo ginamit

yong salitang bakla at bading, at nagsubstitute ka…using the words “ano”, “’yon”
at “gano’n”. Is there a reason kung bakit hindi mo masabi sa pagkakataong ‘yon
ang salitang bakla at bading, at nag substitute ka ng “’yon”, “no’n” at “gano’n”?
FJ: Kasi – hindi, sinubstitute ko lang para hindi rin ma – sabihin natin,
madungisan ‘yong word na ‘yon kasi dapat tanggap din ang word na ‘yon
and nasa batas din. Tao rin kasi ‘yong mga gano’n eh. So, ‘ayon parang
ayoko lang din na…baguhin kung ano sila kasi personality ‘yong bakla or
bading. So, ‘yon, eh kasi…’ayon parang bigay galang na rin sa kanila pero
‘yon may side naman kasi minsan. Nagagamit ko ‘yong connotation na
‘yon as a negatives. So, ‘ayon siguro…medyo…kailangan din ano…ano
tawag nito…hindi si – hindi gamitin…parang di ko na rin ginamit
doon…baka mamaya parang panget ‘yong maiparating ko. Ayaw – ayoko
na rin naman ano…parang respeto na rin.
After this clarificatory exchange regarding his circumlocution, I observed that FJ
tried to use the word bakla instead of substituting it with euphemisms. Despite his best
efforts though, there were several instances when I observed a very brief pause before
he said the word bakla. There were also times when it looked and sounded to me like
he was regurgitating the words out. For Black and Skipp (1994 as cited in Sue, 2010)
many people make a conscious effort to not say the words lesbian or gay man, even if
the words were uttered in sensible discussions on gender and sexuality, because of
some lingering or unconfronted bias. The conscious effort to abstain from using terms
like bakla and bading would make it seem like there is an embargo or horrible taboo on
those words. What many do not realize is that euphemisms are not really alternatives
for offensive words like slurs. Far from the notion that using euphemisms is more
civilized and respectful, circumlocutions can in fact be just as offensive as using the
embargoed words because of its implicit contempt (Lepore & Stone, 2018). It is also
worth noting that the contradicting positions and the circumlocution of the words bakla /
bading in the straight male gamers’ responses also involved a fair amount of facework.
Facework (Goffman, 1967) refers to various techniques and strategies communicators
adopt to preserve an acceptable public image or social face. This form of reparative talk
allows actors to maneuver in complicated social interactions, especially those that have
the potential to deteriorate quickly because of a misstep, a misreading of the situation
or a personal faux pas. Facework then, gives actors a way to gracefully withdraw from
potentially embarassing interactions, preempt deterioration by remedying cracks in the
interaction, and avoid conflict by preemptively appeasing those who may be offended
by a controversial remark. A more specific kind of facework participants engaged in are

disclaimers. Disclaimers are statements used by communicators to preface messages
that have the potential to cause offense because of their controversial content. In
addition to precluding breaches in the steady flow of social interaction, disclaimers also
give actors a way to defend themselves against challenges to their situated identities as
a result of their words and actions. In the case of the straight male participants, their
situated identity claim is that of non-homophobic, egalitarian young men; however, their
participation in the study, their own narratives and admissions about their use of gay
labels and epithets, and their discursive practices present a very real threat to their
claims to pro-gay identities. The most common type of disclaimer in their responses is
credentialing. Credentialing happens when individuals preempt being associated with
an undesired typification (i.e. prejudiced person) as a result of a controversial statement
(Hewitt & Stokes, 1975). Credentialing statements and signals like ‘wala naman akong
ano sa mga bakla, may mga tropa nga akong bakla eh’ (I have nothing against gays – I
have gay friends!) let actors like the straight guys who participated in this study
establish qualifications or credentials that would insulate their actions, namely the use
of homosexual-themed utterances, from the possibility of being typified as (homophobic
/ homoprejudiced / anti-gay. As a result, their disclaimers put them in a ‘protected
category of people who cannot be so typified’ (Hewitt & Stokes, 1975). That is, they
cannot be homophobic / anti-gay / homonegative / homoprejudiced if they have gay
friends or play with gay teammates. The participants’ facework and use of disclaimers
and credentialing may be imputed to the changing attitudes toward homosexuality vis-a-
vis sexual stigmatization (i.e. homoprejudice, homonegativity, anti-gay bias, and
homophobia). As McCormack (2012) observed, overt expressions of prejudice and
homophobia have become less acceptable to the point that open homophobia has
ironically become stigmatized. And because prejudicial expressions invite controversy,

censure, and even admonition, prejudice has taken subtler forms. In settings where
being homophobic is more socially unacceptable than being gay, being typified as
homophobic / prejudiced / ant-gay presents a real face threat that can only be averted
by extensive facework and credentialing.
The straight male participants’ ambivalence also points to a gradiation of
attitudes toward gay players ranging from negative (stereotyping, discrimination) to
positive (support and solidarity). Perhaps one of the most negative accounts of straight
male to bakla player interaction was provided by JJC, who on a previous interview
admitted that he was hurt by his play peers’ incessant use of gay labels during multiple
sessions of play. As recounted earlier, the result was a mix of sad curiosity for what
happened and a momentary breakdown in the relationship:
JJC: Kinausap ko sila kasi nga, parang… du’n ‘yung… parang ano, na-realize
ko na “ba’t ang hilig-hilig nyo’ng sabihin ‘yan? [referring to bakla]” ganun,
so kinausap ko sila. Kinausap ko muna ‘yung isang… ‘yung pinaka-close ko sa
nakaka-ano… tropa ko. Sabi ko, “Uy, ‘di ako natutuwa,” ganun, “’di ako
natutuwa sa mga…” ganun. Sabi nya, kala nya nu’ng una, biro lang yung
pagkakausap ko sa kanya. So, kala nya nga biro, so after that, hindi ko
pinansin. Hindi ko sila pinansin, three months. Mga three months, hindi ko
sila pinansin. As in, ‘yung chat, wala… ‘pag pumupunta sila sa bahay,
hindi ko inilalabas, ganun. Du’n nila… tinanong nila ‘ko. Like, tinanong na
nila ako after that na, “ba—anong mali? Anong nagawa nila?” Tapos
sinabi ko na, na, “Kada maglalaro na lang ba, ‘bakla, bading’ na lang
maririnig ko ‘pag ako kalaro n’yo, ganon?” ‘Yun, sinabi ko na insensitive
sila.
By far, only JJC recounted the most hurtful experience in both sets of
participants. Meanwhile, FJ, who expressed support for his gay teamate Dominic (not
his real name) and said that he and his friends did not feel ashamed to be friends with
Dominic nor were they embarassed to have him in their team, still believe that there is
discrimination against gay players:
FJ:..naging ka-close na namin si Dominic pero hindi naman namin

ikinakahiya na may kasama kaming gay gano’n kasi ano eh…hindi naman
disability kapag gay ka eh. Kung tutuusin nga, ang lakas nga niyan eh…pero
kapag sinabi mo kunwari sa gaming community sa amin na hindi kilala si
Dominic tapos kalaro namin. “Sino ‘yan?” sinasabi ko “ano kaklase ko” tapos
sabi niya [inaudible] tapos sabi ko “bading ‘yan” tapos parang iniisip nila na
hindi agad malakas. Parang may – sa gaming community…may ano
eh…may discrimination sa kung gaano…sa kung gaano ka-skilled. Minsan
nga pag sinasabing babae sinasabi “magaling ba ‘yan?” parang iniisp lang nila
“pabebe” sa game. Maraming bias doon hindi lang sa real life kahit sa
gaming community din.
FJ explained later on that being labeled bakla in gaming is usually framed as
deficit while having a gay player in one’s team or even just someone who is perceived
to be gay is usually seen as a disadvantage that can be exploited:
FJ:...kapag may sinabihan kayong parang “bading naman tong si ganyan”

sa laro parang advantage ng team niyo ‘yon eh. May ganon sa
kanilang…ano eh…player pero pag may sinabi mo dito sa team namin, may
bading tayong kakampi, parang minus one agad kayo compare don eh, sa
kalaban. Kunwari – about the – kung pano maglaro yong isang ka team nila.
Kunwari sinabing “bading naman si ganito eh”. Kunwari yong game na,
ang ginamit niya Sven kunwari which is scary, then naglalaro kayo nakita
niyo ‘yong Sven bading ‘yan sige, poke mo lang, eh kasi alam niyong sa
team kayo tatakbo lang siya di siya lalaban. So, bale advantage niyo kasi
sabi niyo bading yan eh, edi papalagan niyo, pero kunwari sa team niyo
sabi “bading naman tong carry natin”, parang mangayayari kayo ‘yong
may ano may minus one.
VL faced similar skepticism about his skill simply because his hero and role
preferences are the stereotypical gay pick:
VL: Actually, ano po, uhm, madalas pong nangyayari sakin yon...kunwari po
tournament, ako po yung nakikipag ano, handshake sa mga ano, tapos
makikipag toss coin tapos ‘bi nil ‘ay, support lang yung ano’ tapos karamihan po
kasi ng champion or character na support, babae po, Tapos, pag inaano,
parang pag, yun nga, pag nag pi-pick na ko ‘ay, wala ‘to, bakla ‘to’
gumaganun. Parang, sabi ko ‘hala, ba’t parang stereotype nila, kasi porket
support, bakla agad?’ ganun.
Gay gamer JMA provided supporting evidence to this:
JMA (gay): Kami ‘yong leading team tapos biglang binawi no’ng kabilang team
parang ginanti parang ginamit niya ‘yong ano ‘yong term na kabaklaan.
“Ano ba yang kabaklaan mo!” parang pinopoint parang inaano niya sa
akin na kaya tayo naging ganito kasi hindi mo inaayos. Ganyan ganyan
tapos ginamit niya ‘yong term na kabaklaan.
Likewise, gay gamer FK also commented on the rampant use of gay labels in
gaming spheres to signify weakness:
FK: Ganun pa rin po kasi sa gamer environment po parang yun pa rin

parang talamak pa rin po talaga yung pagsabi ng 'gay' as a 'weak person'
ganun parang 'gay' as a 'chicken person' parang ganun. Parang kapag--eh
in fact ang mga online games po talaga is strategy, kapag-- kapag po hindi na
po kailangang i-dive yung clash mas lalo na po pag ADR ka hindi na po... hindi
na po... hindi na po 'ko papasok which mean--which naaano 'ko na "Ay, Kim,
bakla ka talaga bakit hindi mo pinasok,"
All these narratives point to stereotyping, a common practice in and around
digital cultures that limit the participation, membership, and activities of non-normative
identities within gaming cultures (Vermeulen & Van Looy, 2016) where kabaklaan and
other forms of non-normative identities and play are seen as a distinct category of
noobiness and stereotypes, which is why it is no longer surprising then that some
players would treat gay players as inferior by virtue of their gayness. This lines up with
the documented stereotypically skill-and-gender based exclusivity of gamer culture that
were discussed in Chapter 2 and other sections of Chapter 4. Indeed, as a gay gamer, I
have often found my skills quiestioned by straight male gamers. There had been
numerous occasions where I had been invited by straight male gamers (a lot of them
my students) to play DoTA2. While I beleive the intent behind the invite was for male,
student-teacher bonding, I also cannot help but think that they were out to test my skill
in play. To confirm this, I interviewed a couple of students whom I had already played
with in the past. Luke (not his real name), one of my college students said that when he
found out that I played DoTA2, his first reaction was to wonder if I were a strong player
(‘magaling kaya si sir?’). Of all the things Luke could have thought about, for some
reason my skill was his chief concern. Another student, Jules (not his real name),
shared that he tried to gauge my skill before our first match. Based on his predicitons
then, he thought that there was a 65% chance that I was a strong player and 35%
chance that I was weak because of my preference for support heroes. Jules also let on
that he invited me to play so that he could best me (‘matalo ka sir’), highlighting yet
again the competitive nature of MOBAs. He further asserted that trying to one up
another and brag about it is simply natural for guys like him. Although I am skeptical of
Jules’ stastical measure, it was evident that he and Luke were sizing me up ahead of
our game. Both students maintained that my bakla identity had nothing to do with their
perception of my skills, my autoethnographic experience, as well as literature that delve
in gender disparity in gaming tell me otherwise. Recognizing the overt and covert
challenge embedded within my male students’ invitations to play, I have always made it
a point to use my best heroes during our opening games to prove my mettle. As Paul
(2018) observed, players coming from nontraditional communities such as sexual
minorities often find themselves required to do more to legitimize their membership
while those who are expected to be exceptional (i.e. heterosexual men) handily gets a
free pass. As a gay gamer playing in a hypermasculine space, I have always felt that
the straight male players I have played with had doubts over my gaming ability. In most
instances, I had been successful in establishing my self as a competent DoTA2 player. I
talk about my experiences here to underscore one of many ways gay gamers
experience subtle forms of biases and discrimination, but as FJ said, gayness is not
really a handicap, despite what many players think.
Despite the negative observations in the ways the straight male participants and
the gaming communities they inhabit act toward gay gamers, their narratives also
revealed that they – and others in the gaming community – have acted towards gay
gamers positively and are willing to create a supportive environment for non-binary
gamers. Some evidence came from RO who said that he wanted to change the practice
of using the words bakla and bading to trash-talk and deride other gamers to alleviate
homosexuals from negativity. While RO’s intentions are benevolent, he acknowledged
that this might be difficult to change because it has become so ingrained.
RO (straight male): Gusto ko pong mabago kasi negativity din sa mga

homo, do'n sa mga ibang sexual ano, 'yun po gusto ko ding mabago. Pero
kung sa generation po namin parang imposible mabago...Kaya matagal, parang
kahit mabuti yung isang tao ta's naoopen yung mga ganong word [referring to
gay labels], parang ang hirap baguhin sa bilang du'n ka sa nakatira
nakasurround sa'yo mga ganong mga nagsasalita.
RJV articulated a simila view:
RJV: Ang sarap magtrashtalk ng kabobohan na kasi you see something and
you call it what it is. You shouldn't call it anything else. In the first place
hindi ko na siya iassociate sa mga maling bagay kasi ah gender is gender,
stupidity is stupidity. Hindi dapat nagiging label and gender para sa
stupidity. They as— sa community na 'to dapat I think it would take a step
forward into being more human...Pwede mo namang tawaging bobo,
pwede mo namang tawaging tanga without calling them bakla or bading.
'Di nga nagagamit ever yung term na tomboy eh... I hope it can, I hope talaga
certainly na mag-change pa rin siya kasi ang toxic talaga ng masculinity ng
maraming mga magtotropa. So, uhh, nung nasa college na 'ko parang narealize
ko na, puta, wala naman talagang difference kung... wala namang masama
kung bakla ka eh, kung... 'di ba? Parang hindi, it shouldn't be a problem as
long as you're not harming anyone. Wala kang tinatapakan na tao.
RJV believes that not using gender categories to signify stupidity is a step
towards ‘being more human’ toward members of the bakla community, not just gay
gamers. Friends VL and RM voiced support for the same position:
VL: Yong paggamit po ng bakla as a label, sa gaming po, uhm dapat po

talaga siya iwasan. ‘Yon nga hindi lang po ano…hindi lang po ‘yong
sinasabihan ‘yong maaapektuhan pati po kung ano po talaga ang mga bakla...
hindi naman po maiiwasan pero pipilitin ko sa sarili ko na hindi na siya
gamitin kasi ‘yon nga po uhm, uhm iba rin po ‘yong magiging results nito sa
mga mapagsasabihan.
RM: Hindi naman po kasi siya [referring to gay labels] dapat maging
insulto at ‘yong isa naman…‘ayon nga parehas lang. Hindi dapat insulto at
uhm hindi mo pwedeng sabihin na dahil hindi mo ginawa yong isang
bagay magiging less ka na...
Both VL’s commitment to desist from using gay labels and RM’s view that the
words bakla and bading should not be used to signify inferiority are indicative of more
favorable and friendly action toward gay players. Gay players provided supporting
evidence as well through narratives of their experiences and interactions with co-
located others in places of play. In stark contrast to being discriminated against and
treated as inferior players, FK, one of the gay participants, gets asked to play a lot
because of his proficiency with carry heroes. In FK’s own words:
FK (gay gamer): Yun po, as a gay gamer po, I always find, ah...di naman po
naging rough, actually stress outlet ko rin po yung LoL kasi po di po naging
rough yung mga experience ko po kasi I have – I have friends po, usually
straight friends na iniinvite ako para ako po yung magdala nung game.
Ganun po. Yun po yung mostly, cases ko po.
Even though FK believes that gay gamers still face discrimination, he has
enojyed popularity among his straight male gamer friends because of his skill as a
gamer. Throughout our interviews, FK rarely ever reported having negative experiences
with straight male gamers and play peers. Meanwhile, gay gamer also shared a similar
experience of belongingness with his straight male play peers:
MVL (Gay gamer): Actually po, parang kapag nakikipaglaro po ako sakanila,
hindi ko nafe-feel na…like bading ako or different ako sakanila kasi equal
yung treatment na nakukuha ko sakanila. Mostly nape-praise pa ako sa
mga ginagawa ko kasi nga feel ko yon yung magandang thing kapag yung
kalaro mo is not…hindi siya nangja-judge totally ng tao. Parang tinitignan
nila yung skills mo lang. Hindi ka nila inaatake ng personal...natutuwa ako
with the fact na yung mga… yung skills ko as a player, ‘yon yung nakikita
nila and parang ‘yon yung nasho-showcase ko. ‘Yon yung napapansin
hindi yung fact na different ako or like bading ako or gay ako sa kanila.
Yon lang po yung kagandahan sa kanila. Hindi ka nila tinitignan as a gay
or what. Parang mas tinitignan nila yung capacity mo as a player.
Similarly, MVL did not have much to say about negative experiences as a
gamer, even when pressed in two separate interviews. His descriptions of his
experiences with straight male play peers were mostly neutral to friendly much like FK.
But besides the common thread of inclusion, what unifiy these two excerpts are the
implicit and explicit references in skill. Although FK and MVL did not directly relate their
proficiency and expertise to the positive treatment they enjoy, it is interesting that they
echoed the same beliefs expressed by straight male participants like RO:
Sa amin more on accepting talaga do’n sa game kasi hindi nakadepende

‘yong sexual na ano ng tao; nakadepende siya kung pa’no siya
makipaglaro or kung ga’no siya kagaling ‘yon ‘yong gano’n.
In other words, it’s not about gender; it’s about skill. This raises an important
question: is the inclusion of non-hegemonic masculine and non-conforming players
predicated on gaming ability? Siutila & Havaste (2019) also documented this same
notion of blind meritocracy that has become pervasive in eSports. What blind
meritocracy does is provide a ‘pleasant-looking veil’ that obscures other issues
underneath (Paul, 2018) such as the contentious and precarious positions non-
conforming identities occupy in gaming cultures. While the toxic meritocracy of gaming
may give weight to this kind of assumption, there is no evidence that non-hegemonic
masculine and non-normative gamers always enjoy increased acceptance and less
discrimination as a result of their proficiency. This was already demonstrated by the
highly controversial case of professional Overwatch gamer SeYeon Kim alias “Geguri”
who was widely accused of cheating because her aim was just too good that it was
hard to believe it could be done without some aid. Geguri’s accusers asserted that there
was no way a teenage girl could be that good. Geguri went out to publicly demonstrate
her skill. Blizzard later confirmed that Geguri did not use any cheats or performance-
enhancing programs to hack the game and improve her skills. Geguri’s case has shown
that when non-hegemonic masculine identities (i.e. women, GLBTQI+) display
adequate skill in the game, it is met with more doubts than approval. So, if skills do not
always lead to more inclusive and supportive interaction, what does? Straight male
gamer RO provided a possible answer:

RO: sa generation natin, more [on] accepting doon sa bading tsaka sa
bakla. Talagang inaaccept din sa generation natin ‘yong gano’n parang –
more on – na imbis na maging. Sabi nga nila – no’ng ibang tao diba, dapat
magigigng pantay na daw...Parang gano’n, parang magiging kapantay na
rin ‘yong male and female. Para sa akin ‘yong bakla as – para generation
natin kasi more on accepting para do’n.
Although RO could not articulate his thoughts better, his response suggests an
awareness of the shifting attitudes toward non-conforming identities as well as the
changing gender landsacape. Indeed, Filipino attitudes toward homosexuality have
varied greatly throughout the years (Adeyemo, 2019) and recent surveys have reported
a shift toward more positive dispositions. One of the best evidence to this was provided
by Manalastas et al’s (2017) study about homonegativity in South East Asia. Using
nationally representative samples, Manalastas et al., (2017) compared attitudes toward
lesbian and gay men in six South East Asian countries and found that the Philippines
held less homonegative notions (27.9%) compared to countries like Malaysia (58.7%)
and Indonesia (66.1%). A survey conducted by Pew Research on public opinion on the
acceptance of homosexuality showed that 73% Filipinos believe homosexuals should
be accepted leading to the conclusion that ‘Filipinos are more tolerant of
homosexuality’. Although these results may not accurately reflect the lived everyday
experiences of members of the bakla community, these findings at least corroborate the
positive views and values expressed by the participants. These may also be indicative
of what McCormack (2012) claims to be a sharp decline in cultural homophobia,
especially among the younger generation. Citing large-scale quantitative studies,
McCormack attributes the decline of [western] homophobia to the increased
representation of sexual minorities in various media, the lack of anxiety over
homosexuality, and public admonition of overt homophobia just as they disapprove of
racism. In settings chartacterized by diminished homonegativity, marginalization and

domination of counter-hegemonic and nonheteronormative identities have mitigated
influenc and this allows for radically different ways of performing masculinity and
multiple archetypes of masculinity to be embraced. This could explain why gay gamers
like MVL and FK do not feel subordinated by their straight male peers.
Evidence to the withering of homonegativity came from the participants
themselves through their intellectual acceptance of homosexuality. This was seen in the
participants’ responses and the way they talked about their experiences with
homophobic language, gay name-calling, and their views about homosexuality. All five
straight male participants espoused neutral to pro-gay attitudes, acknowledged that
gender prejudice is wrong, reprimanded their own use of homophobic language, and
expressed a desire to co-create a supportive gaming environment for others. Although
concepts like homonegativity, heteronormativity, and heterosexism may not have been
familiar to them, they do grasp the concepts of prejudice and equality. The participants
demonstrated an understanding of how prejudice and marginalization against sexual
minorities work in the broader context of society and in the more localized space of
gaming as seen in their narratives. Their reflections about the discrimination of gays in
gaming and repeated assertions that gaming is for everyone are indicative of more
favorable attitudes and opinions toward non-heteronormative identities in the
communities of play that they inhabit. We have seen this common thread in the
answers provided by FJ, VL, RJV, RO, and RM: all five straight male participants
displayed an awareness of their actions and the possible consequences of their actions
to members of the bakla community, gay gamers, and other co-present who may
witness overt and covert forms of prejudice. In subsequent interviews, they also shared
how talking about their discursive practices and reflecting on it has made them more
mindful of the things they say and how they say it. Likewise, they also displayed an
awareness of the important discussions to be had about gender and a willingness to
talk about these important issues not just with me but with their play peers as well. But
even though I am suggesting that the straight male gamers interviewed generally do not
have issues with gay gamers, I also recognize that I cannot satistically generalize these
findings to all straight male gamers in the broader gaming cultures they inhabit.
Besides the intellectual accpetance of homosexuality, both straight male and
gay participants also provided evidence of social inclusion of gay gamers. Both sets of
participants have played and are playing with members of their outgroup, with some
even developing friendships. VL, RM, FJ, and RJV consistently play with gay play
peers. For instance, FJ has been playmates and friends with a gay gamer for 7 years
and still play with him when there is time. VL and RM are also in a playgroup with one
gay player and another bisexual male player. RJV has also mentioned that he is playing
DoTA2 with a couple of gay friends. RO on the other hand reported that he does not
have any gay friends in the cyber café where he plays, but has already played and
interacted with the co-present gay gamers in the local café on numerous occasions.
And although he does not count them as friends, he did tell me that he could talk to
them to see if they were interested to participate in this study. This to me suggests that
RO is comfortable with them and has established some form of cordiality, even if the
co-located others are simply familiar strangers. And while the views shared by the
straight male participants are in now way objective measures of pro-gay attitudes and
support, their stories show that we are making progress – albeit in small steps -- toward
a more prosocial and supportive gaming environment for non-normative identities. In
similar fashion, gamers FK, MIB, MVL, and JMA have also enjoyed the company of
straight male play peers. More than interacting and playing with straight guys, all four
gay participants rarely ever mentioned having any traumatic or hurtful experiences with
their straight play peers. In fact, FK shared that his participation in the research has
facilitated a conversation between him and a straight male play peer about the use of
gay labels and homosexuall-themed language during play. He claims that the answers
his friend provided somewhat confirmed his notion that his friend’s use of gay labels
was more affectionate than pernicious. Even JJC who had the most distressing
experience among the gay participants, mostly talked about positive experiences he
has had with other straight male gamers and recalled fondly a humorous banter he and
his other gay play peers has had with a group of straight male gamers they were
competing against. The straight male participants’ (and by extension, the gay
participants’ straight male play peers) exposure to outgroups and their sustained
intergroup contact may have had contributed to their pro-gay attitudes. Studies on
intergroup interaction within the context of video games have shown that in-group
contact with out-groups may lead to reductions in hostilitiy, bias, and prejudice against
out-group members, especially when both groups must cooperate toward a common
objective or goal (Adachi et al., 2014; Adachi et al., 2015; Stiff & Bowen, 2016).
The participants’ responses discussed in this section showed the complex
attitudes, beliefs, and views straight male gamers held toward homosexuality and how
these shape the way they act toward gay gamers they encounter or play with. The
straight male participants’ answers and narratives suggest that they act toward gay
players with ambivalence. This was evidenced by the contradicting positions about
homosexuality and prejudice / bias / homonegativity that they espoused. On the one
hand, the participating straight male gamers admitted to using gay labels and epithets
to insult, deride, and trash-talk and on the other, they confessed that such actions were
wrong and could be harmful for their gay play peers and gay gamers who may also be
co-present in sites of play. Similarly, the straight male participants’ responses also
showed how they rationalized their use of homosexual-themed utterances during play,
while simultaneously positioning themselves against practices that may be construed as
homophobic, homonegative, anti-gay or prejudiced. In addition to their dilemmatic
positions, their ambivalence was also seen through the subtle hints of bias in their
answers and the extent to which they credentialized their pro-gay attitudes and beliefs.
For instance, it was common for the male participants to preface their answers with
disclaimers such as ‘I have nothing against gays’, before expressing dilineated approval
or solidarity for gay gamers. This ambivalence by the straight male gamers also pointed
to a gradiation of attitudes and behavior toward gay gamers they have encountered or
interacted with on a regular basis. Even though the straight male gamers positioned
themselves against prejudice and bias, they acknowledged that their use of gay labels
and epithets during play could be discriminatory even if discrimination is never their
intent. Straight male gamers have also acted somewhat negatively by being gender
blind. This gender blindness was often communicated in statements that privileged skill
and undermined gender diversity. That is, gender is not important for so long as a gay
gamer is a skilled gamer. On the positive side of the spectrum, the straight male
gamers’ narratives have also shown that they have acted toward gay gamers in ways
that help create supportive environments for them. For instance, all straight male
participants espoused belief that words like bakla and bading should not be used as
insults and derogatory markers any more. Along with this view, the same participants
also shared that they have lamented about our interviews and have become more
conscious and aware of their word choices during play. In addition, almost all of the
straight male participants have reported that being friends with gay gamers they have
played with. Most notable of all was FJ who ha been friends and play peer with an
openly gay teammate for 7 years. In adition to the straight male gamers’ claim of
solidarity and acceptance, the narratives of the gay gamers themselves – which mostly
highlighted their positive experiences with straight male gamers – provided additional
evidence of a climate of inclusion for gay gamers. The combined narratives of both sets
of participants add evidence to earlier findings that in-group – out-group contact can
reduce out-group bias and prejudice. Applied within the context of gaming, intergroup
contact and cooperation between straight male gamers (in-group) and gay gamers (out-
group) can help in creating a more pro-social gaming environment for both groups.
Matrix 2: A gradient of ambivalence and solidarity
Codes Theme Explication In vivo codes

Discrimination A gradient of Straight male gamers Wala naman talaga
Caution/boundary ambivalence and act toward gay akong hate.
Depende na lang
It depends solidarity gamers with a mix of ‘yon sa ugali mo,
Not about gender; bias and solidarity. pero yong ano sa
about skill While straight male ibang side
Tolerance gamers articulated naman...parang
sobrang ingay, wala
Acceptance their pro-social na sa lugar ‘yong
Respect attitudes and ingay nila...minsan
Friendliness solidarity for gay sumosobra rin. Wala
gamers, their sa lugar. Yong ibang
responses also bore bading...Either way
bading ka man
hints of lingering lalaki ka, babae
biases. This ayoko basta pormal
gradiation of attitude ka ganon ‘yon
toward gay gamers ‘yong gusto ko
sayo ‘yon nga para
means that inclusion, doon tayo
acceptance, and magkakasundo...
solidarity are not hindi naman namin
absolute, although it ikinakahiya na may
is more complete kasama kaming gay
gano’n kasi ano
compared to other eh…hindi naman
times in the past. disability kapag gay
ka eh
I have nothing
against naman po
sa pagiging bakla
ng isang tao. Ano
lang po, sadyang
parang syempre
po, magkakaroon
na lang ng parang
caution sa ibang
mga bagay kasi
may magkakaroon
ng natural
boundary po.
Wala naman akong

problema playing
with them...gender
isn’t much of a
matter. There's
definitely some pa'no
ba 'to ah may
disparity pa rin,
may hint of
tolerance lang na
ando'n pero there's
still a level of hate
somewhere in there.
3. How are homosexual-themed utterances used in gaming as a result of the
meanings and interpretations gamers have assigned to it?
Bakla: Multipurpose metacommunicative tool
Interviews with the participants revealed that the gay labels bakla and bading
are used in different ways and for different purposes, relative to the meanings and
interpretations constructed around them. An analysis of the data revealed that the
labels bakla and bading are usually used as (1) a form of incivility, usually in the form of
in-game trash-talk; (2) disparaging humor / conversational / playful humor; (3) emotion
response; and (4) pro-bakla language.
Trash-talk and Incivility
When asked about homosexual-themed utterances and the use of gay labels
and epithets in DoTA2 and LoL, several participants associated the terms bakla and
bading to the communicative practice of trash-talk (TT). As JJC noted:
JJC (gay): Ayon. Trashtalkan, ganon. Bigla na lang akong na-ano na

sumigaw silang “bakla,” gumano’n sila. Kasi nga talo na sila; duwag daw
ako, ayon. Kasi sa Dota, diba, ang tricks lang naman doon, pag ano, takbo ka,
tapos atake, ta’s takbo ka, atake, ‘yun lang. Mamamatay na sila.
Adding to his explanation, JJC also cited another instance of homosexual-
themed trash-talk:
JJC: Parang ano, Roshan, ganun. Mini-Roshan, ganun. Kunwari, jungle ako—
parang farm. So yung farm kasi, s’ya yung dapat nagdi-DR, s’ya yung mag…
sa’yo yung objectives, kumbaga, mag-kill ng ganun. So pag nagju-jungle ako,
syempre try ako. Try-try, ganun. Pag ‘di ako nakapag-DR ta’s naagawan ako,
ayun. Bigla na lang silang magtra-trash talk nang “bading,” ganun.
“Bading, bakla,” ganun. “Bakla ka ba?” ganun... ‘pag trashtalkan na
talaga, kunwari, ‘pag 5v5, sir, ganun. Ayun na yung time na verbally talaga
na “bakla!” ‘Yung ganun, “bakla, bakla, bakla!” lalo na ‘pag talo sila, ganun.
[inaudible] “bakla, bakla!” Ayon, sir, ayon yung time. Pero ‘pag sa in-game
naman, ganun sila. ‘Ta-type sila…
Similarly, JMA recalled a trash-talking incident in a cyber caf where he heard
competing teams engage in homosexual-themed TT:
JMA (gay): The way na ginamit siya kasi merong isang beses no'ng...no'ng
naglalaro ‘yong dalawang teams. Another – different computer shop naman 'to.
Mas more decent kasi mga nag-aaral na 'tong mga 'to pero feel ko mga tambay
sa computer shop eh. Nagta-trash talkan sila, Sabi niya “ang bakla naman
nito...ang bakla...’ ganyan parang gano’n ‘yong mga naririnig kong terms.
Informant MVL on the other hand thinks that homosexual-themed trash-talk is a
way for players to mark another player for being odd or a way to ‘attack’ other gamers
‘personally’ so as to throw them off their game:
MVL (gay): ... Ganoon po kasi yon parang minsan in a game ‘pag hindi mo na
sila natatalo ng in skill-based lang, pinepersonal mo para way of attacking them
para mawala sila sa game...
One of the most insightful statements regarding homosexual-themed trash-talk
came from FJ during our very first interview. Not only did FJ admit to using gay labels
for trash-talk, he also shared some interesting observations about TT, particularly
homosexual-themed TT in relation to Filipino gaming culture. As FJ explained:
FJ (straight): ‘Yong kapag ano…in-game nagagamit ko ‘yon as a trash-talk

kasi cul…culture na kasi sa amin di ba? Sa gano’n…sa gaming industry
pag gay, bading…duwag pero since ayon…ginagamit ko kasi trash-talker
ako, bata pa lang eh... sa game…ang bakla o bading sinasabi na duwag or
uh parang…walang kwenta as in gano’n pag na gaming community na
Pilipino. Ewan ko lang gano’n din sa ano…sa ibang bansa kung ganon din term
nila pero ayon nga. Figuratively speaking sinasabi nila na bakla is gano’n
nga…kasi nakasanayan na rin. Culture na rin ng Filipino gaming
community.
All of these responses provide a snapshot of homosexual-themed trash-talk
within the context of gaming. To help explain how gay labels are employed as trash-
talk, I turned to some relevant conceptual and theoretical schemes regarding trash-talk
from TT scholarship. According to Conmy et al., (2013) trash-talk is ‘a ‘deliberate form
of verbal communication utilized by individuals for both affirmative personal reasons
(i.e. motivation, fun) and disruptive motives toward opponents (i.e. distraction,
intimidation)’. It encompasses criticisms (both constructive and derisive), banters, jokes,
teasing, swear words, negative comments, insults, and other forms of put-downs. Yip et
al. (2018) conceptualized trash-talk as ‘incivility expressed in a competitive context in
which two or more parties are vying for resources, recognition, or status that occurs in
interactions defined by strong competitive norms that lack opportunities to collaborate.’
Even though Yip et al.’s and Conmy et al.’s formulations of TT were not conceptualized
for gaming, they still provide a useful framework for analyzing and explaining the
participants’ responses regarding homosexual-themed TT.
Trash-talk is not unique to gaming; it is yet another trope that computer gaming
borrowed – and made its own – from the similarly competitive arena of sports and
athletics (Paul, 2018). The highly competitive and often antagonistic nature of MOBAs
fit within Yip et al.’s description of competitive spaces where collaboration, even among
teammates, is not always guaranteed. As Cote (2017) noted, even cooperative teams –
such as those seen in DoTA2 and LoL’s online / offline multiplayer setup – are prone to
TT, especially when a member fails to perform effectively, such as in the case
described by JJC at the beginning of this section. Since it has already been established
that video and computer games like MOBAs are by their nature extremely competitive,
DoTA / DoTA2 and LoL provide the context and parameters for TT to take place. Ortiz
(2019) made a similar observation in FPS games and other fighting games, citing that
the competitive, high-stakes, and fast-paced nature of games like ‘Call of Duty’ and
‘Halo’ ‘construct the environment conducive for trash-talking. Just like FPS games,
DoTA2 and LoL also offer the context for this type incivility (and sometimes rudeness as
outsiders perceive it) to take place. True to what Bromley, Mirza-Babaei, McAllister, and
Napier (2013) and Kröger and Quandt (2013) observed, ‘games that involve[d] killers
show[ed] a much higher degree of “trash talk” interaction than games without killers.’
For these reasons, trash-talk has become expected – and even aceepted and even
anticipated in certain game genres [like FPS and MOBAs] (Easpaig, 2008; Kaye et al.,
2019). It has also become mandatory experience, a ritual of sorts for anyone seeking
entry, acceptance, and status in gaming communities (Condis, 2018). The professional
gaming scene is one such example where TT that is often characterized by
mysoginistic and homophobic language still take place (Taylor, 2012), despite strong
collective, public disapporoval for such smack talk. In a study that investigated the
meanings of racist and sexist TT for men of color, Ortiz (2019) concluded that TT has
become a form of social currency that adds to the prosocial experience of gaming but at
the same time, distinguishes real gamers from mere players. In other words, trash-talk
is part of ‘how games were meant to be played’ (Kushner, 2004), a fundamental
component of the gaming experience that is often justified as ‘just talk’. The general
acceptance of trash-talking in these settings has also made it the single, most notorious
characteristic outsiders stereotype of competitive gaming culture, gaming spaces (e.g.
cyber cafés, e-Sports, live game streams, etc.), and the gamers that inhabit them.
There was a similar consensus among participants concerning TT.

Many of the participants, even those that identified themselves as gay / bakla,
believe that the use of homosexual-themed utterances for TT should not be taken
seriously and that uttering or shouting ‘bakla’ / ‘bading’, along with other expletives
during a game is usually understood as a form of boasting that is not meant to be
offensive nor meant to degrade members of the bakla community. This near universal
dismissal and defense of homosexual-themed TT as a ‘normal’ part of the game may
be explained by the interactionist concept of ‘definition of the situation’ expressed by
W.I. Thomas (1928). Players’ collective participation in gaming activities, trash-talking,
and the use of gay labels in TT help crate a shared, common definition of the situation.
In this common definition of the situation, TT is upheld as a normal part of play;
something that just happens while people are playing and not entirely out of the
ordinary. In this process of negotiation and renogotation, players orient themselves to a
common understanding of homosexual-themed trash-talk in the context of gaming –
that it is ‘just talk’. Likewise, they are also motivated to uphold and keep this definition of
the situation even to the point of negating other definitions that may say otherwise. Most
of the time this is done tacilty and opposing definitions are simply swept under the rug.
By committing themselves to this ‘harmless definition, players can selectively perceive
aspects of the phenomenon (e.g. TT is just a joke, banter, normal, etc.) to confirm their
definition while ‘tactfully ignoring information that refutes it’ (Scott, 2017). In this regard,
the potential TT that utilizes gay labels and epithets to offend, discriminate, and/or
cultivate negative views about the bakla are minimized, if not momentarily disregarded.
As a result, it becomes easier to assume attitudes of nonchalance if not wholesale
acceptance and tolerance of the use potentially homophobic, sexist, and mysoginistic
language for trash-talk. Ultimately, this definition and interpretation of TT and
homosexual-themed TT guide social actions related to TT in gaming. This also squares

with Goffman’s dramaturgical take on symbolic interactionism. For Goffman,
interpersonal interactions are like stage performances where we collaborate to maintain
and uphold a collective impression of what is happening. Applied in the context of
gaming we can say that players engaged in TT are following a ‘script’, which usually
follows a sequence of play, someone makes a mistake, trash talk, laugh, and repeat.
Regardless, this ‘script’ helps players create an agreed-upon version of events or
definition of the situation where TT is seen as a normal occurence that does not pose
any threat. In creating this reality, we draw from shared stocks of normative
assumptions and expectations established and learned from prior interactions as well
as catalogues of the forms of expressive behavior -- verbal speech, facial expressions,
bodily gestures, and demeanour -- that can be observed in any situation, as an index of
the underlying social structure that allow us to ‘assume a natural attitude of habit and
routineness’ (Scott, 2017) toward homosexual-themed trash-talk. The situation then
becomes ‘business as usual,’ unremarkable, taken for granted, and normally-occuring
‘talk’ in the context of play.
Emotive response
For some participants, the bakla / bading labels and epithets function as emotive
responses that usually come with trash talking. This is similar to how the word gay is
used to express displeasure, dissatisfaction, and frustration in English-speaking
settings (McCormack, 2011). While studying a group of college male video game
players, Niemi (2014) observed that TT sometimes becomes an outlet to express
agitation. Niemi’s conclusion points to gaming’s emotional dimension, something that
participants of this study have repeatedly referenced. In one interview, informant RO
indicated that he shouted the word bakla during a ranked game because he felt upset
with his teammate’s poor performance:

E: Sa mga ano, ahm, pakilinaw naman yung mga pagkakataon na nagagamit
mo yung term na "bakla," ano usually yung magpupush say or magtutulak sayo
na gamitin itong mga salitang 'to.
RO (straight): 'Pag rank game ta's bobong-bobo talaga yung kakampi mo,
masasabi mo talaga siyang ganon.
E: Ah kung sa computer shop, sinisigaw mo ba, itinatype mo lang ba or

pareho—
RO: Sinisigaw po kasi galit, kasi rank game ta's naghahabol ng ano...
Informant FJ recalled a similar experience in a sperate interview:
FJ (straight): May…time talaga na madadala ka kasi ‘ayon nga…pagtrash-

talk-an. Hindi pag…may ano may time na madadala ka sa trash-talk-an, then
mababanggit mo ‘yong word na ‘yon (referring to bakla/bading), parang
ano na rin dahil sa rage mo ‘ayon. Ma – masasabi mo ‘yong salitang gano’n
and other any bad words gano’n…foul words. (parenthetical quote mine)
E: Rage, as in galit?
FJ: Oo, nayayamot. Gano’n.
E: Galit para kanino?
FJ: Galit doon sa…kunwari parang hindi niya na-satisfy ‘yong sarili niya
sa do’n laro...Magagalit, “bakit hindi ka pumasok, bading ka ba?” so ayon
may feeling ng rage...
For FJ, fits of frustration can invite the use of bakla labels and epithets when
trash-talking. Bakla informant FK shared a similar observation:
E: You mentioned na, uhm, may mga pagkakataong nagagamit ‘tong mga terms
na ‘to because of some emotion?
FK: Ah, y..yes po. Kasi po, ano eh, hindi naman po sila magagalit without any
reason eh. Parang ano po, parang yun lang yung coping nila para mailabas
yung anger na yon. Sinasabihan nila yung teammate nila na gay...or bakla...ah,
ano pa ba? Yun po.
FK added:
FK (gay): I mean sinasabi nilang ‘bakla’...kasi parang nasa urge sila ng

anger. Kasi, ganun di ba po sa gaming? Ah, masyado tayo nagpapadala sa
emotion. Nasasa...out of anger, nasasabihan natin yung kaibigan natin na
‘bakla’, kahit hindi naman siya gaun... parang yun lang yung coping nila
para mailabas yung anger na yon. Sinasabihan nila yung teammate nila na
gay...or bakla...out of emotions lang nila nasasabi, out of emotions lang
yung nasasabi, so parang...at that...at that...at that moment, sigu...at that
moment siguro po...na...uhm...parang ginamit niya yung ‘baklang’ yon...
FK reiterated the same observation during a subsequent interview:
E: May nagbago ba dun sa ano, kasi shinare mo sakin last time based on your
observation na most of the time pag lumulutang tong mga salitang ‘to (referring
to bakla and bading) it is tied to an emotion and most of the time ang emotion ay
anger. Sa mga pagkakataon na naobserve mo magmula nong nag-usap tayo
nung September, nakita mo pa ba itong trend na ito, na everytime lalabas yung
word na to may galit, may naiinis, may pikon, ganun pa rin ba ang lagay ng
sistema?
FK: Opo, anger pa rin po. Anger pa rin po yung nagiging cause ng pagsabi
ng mga foul words...Anger pa rin po kasi talagang parang focus na focus-- pag
gamer po talaga focus na focus sa ano eh, sa mga laro, and parang ayaw nila--
ayaw nila talagang nababaog, natatalo, ganon. Parang yon, ano pa rin, nagiging
agresibo pa rin yung mga tao if natatalo sa games.
FK and FJ’s self-reflexive naming (ex. ‘nayayamot) and describing (ex. ‘nasa
urge sila ng anger’) of their and other’s emotional states and responses show an
awareness of how bakla labels and epithets can be used to express agitation and
dissatisfaction. It should be made clear, however, that the linking of homosexual-
themed communication with distressful and often negative emotions does not
necessarily translate to feelings of hostility towards the bakla person (McCormack,
2011). Most of the time, whatever emotions imbued in the term bakla are directed at the
game or some aspect of it. In other cases, the target of labeling and its emotional
baggage may be the actions performed by other players, similar to how expressives
(which can also include gender slurs) are directed at some specific state of affairs or if
not nothing at all (Potts, 2007). As one informant in Niemi’s (2014) study confessed:
‘most guys, when they are playing with another male person, and that person
does something wrong, they will deride them. If they know them, they will do it in
fun, and if they don’t know them, they will do it out of spite because they are
mad.’
VL’s observation of his in-game use of homosexual-themed communication
coincides with Potts’ assertion:
VL (straight): ...‘yong bakla sinasa – uhm nasasabi ko na lang po siya pag

sobrang ano…pag ano patong patong na yong emotions, parang nasasabi
ko na lang po siya unconsciously na ‘tangina bakla!’ parang ganon
pero…may kasamang galit, tapos takot matalo, parang ‘yon ayoko lang –
ayoko po ay I mean, parang ano ayoko po kasi natatalo...
VL’s statement also hints that the emotive content of homosexual-themed trash-
talk may containt a wide range of emotions that may include excitement, frustration,
heightened competitiveness, etc. As to the target of his emotional outbursts, VL
maintained that they were mostly directed at his teammate’s clumsiness as opposed to
an utterance that was meant to insult an actual bakla.
VL: More on ano po parang sa ginawa po no’ng tao. Hindi po siya doon sa
mismong kabaklaan po…lahat sa overall na mga bading. More on, siguro po
sa personal, sa mismong kausap mong tao.
FK expressed a similar belief:
FK: ...mostly directed sa laro po, kasi, ah, may iba pong masyadong
focused sa laro...masyadong, aah in – parang nasa zone po sila ng
gaming, ayun, kaya out of anger, nasasabi nila yung mga ‘bakla’...
VL is not the only DoTA2 / LoL player who has had to contend with feelings of
frustration. Lobel et al., 2014 contended that anxiety, anger, and frustration are parts of
the game and are among the things that keep games challenging. Paul (2018) believes
that part of the challenge is forcing players to keep their cool as they pursue their
objectives while simultaneously being repeatedly slaughtered in the process. Staying
calm and keeping focused in the game instead of giving in to despair and panic become
metagames just like trash-talking.
Explanations can also be found in literature that previously investigated the
intersections of gaming and emotion and emotion and language. One example is
Deterding’s (2015) work that attempted to understand emotion display and interaction
tensions in video game play. Drawing from Goffman’s (1983) theory of interaction order,
Deterding explained that strong emotions and displays thereof are common occurences
in competitive gaming as gaming provides gamers with a milieu to act out intense
emotions, which they may not be able to express elsewhere. Even abrupt emotive
expressions of aggression, which would normally be out of place in typical everyday
conversations become acceptable as the faming of gaming as non-serious allow others
to understand that the target of such emotions are not the actual biographical person.
Deterding also contended that the loose norms on emotional involvement contribute to
video game’s enjoyability in that games’ designs afford gamers plenty of opportunities
to experience and express emotions spontaneously and free from the usual inhibitions
non-gaming encounters impose. Following these assertions, it can be said that video
games are not just leisure activities; they are also emotional experiences.
Similar to Deterding, a study about emotional functioning and video games in
adolescence, Gaetan, Bréjard, and Bonnet (2016) pointed out the emotional dimension
of video games ‘results from the emtional processing (Greenberg, 2004 as cited in
Gaetan, Bréjard, and Bonnet, 2016) of three interconnected components that put
emotion at the center of the interactional dynamic. These components are: emotional
valence (the positive or negative value assigned to the emotion, intensity, and emotion
expression. Although this study’s participants referenced (with varying emphasis) all
three components at different points in the interview, what I like to delve in here is
emotion expression. Following Ochs and Schifflien (1989) ‘language of affect’, Katriel
(2015) asserted that people externalize emotions, its valence, and its intensity through
different non-verbal and verbal cues ‘which form an intrinsic part of all communicational
processes, [and] are reified, interpreted, and responded to by interlocutors.’

True enough, many of the participants I interviewed pointed to the importance
of non-verbal and extralinguistic cues in evaluating the valence and intensity of the
emotions conveyed by speakers who deploy bakla / bading labels and epithets as
trash-talk components or emotive responses. Some of the non-verbal cues mentioned
by participants include tone, vocal register, facial expressions, and other gestures such
as slamming the keyboard against the table or typing ferociously. Informant VL
mentioned this during in one interview:
E: Na-mention mo yong tone. Uhm may kinalaman ba yong tono no’ng paggamit
no’ng term na bakla at bading doon sa meaning na ikinocontain ng mga salita?
VL: Kunwari po uhm di ba yong tone ano na po, pag medyo…parang medyo
pagalit na talaga, parang “ay tangina seryoso na to”, parang “ay hindi na
to lokohan”, “hindi na to biro”, parang ‘yong ginagawa po namin. Madalas na
uhm parang ginagaya namin ‘yong voice na bakla na medyo matining uhm yon
nga po, pag medyo seryoso na may nangyayari na pong hindi maganda.
E: So, usually uhm anong tono ang mag iindicate, like how is it said?
VL: Uhm ano po medyo ‘yon nga, normal tone na ng boses na

medyo…parang may halo na ng emotions na galit, parang “puta” parang
gano’n, parang may ano na, may bigat na po.
VL: hindi naman po maiiwasan ‘yong pagsigaw sa ano sa…pag konteksto ng

paglalaro. Lalo na po pag magkakasama kayo so ‘yon nga po minsan
pagpasigaw na tapos ano may tono ng galit na po. ‘Yon na talaga parang
hindi na po tama.
Another observation came from bakla informant MVL:
MVL: parang yung intensity po kasi minsan po kasi like the heat of the game di
ba po? Parang pag ano kasi pagsigaw po na pag medyo mataas po yung
bos-- parang yung malakas yung boses medyo maiitindihan mo pa pero pag
yung way na parang may mura na parang ganun parang may nagdadagdag na
po na mga word na hindi naman dapat ano so dun po siguro yung intensity niya
pag.. pag... paglakas tapos yung pagdagdag pa ng unnecessary na words
na ano.
For MVL, the heavy tone and vocal register along with the use of verbal
intensifiers like curse words (e.g. Bakla ampota!, tang inang bakla!) serve as vital clues
in assessing the emotional valence of the utterance and its possible interpretations.
JMA mentioned something similar during our interview:
E: Meron ba silang ano – meron ba silang pattern or – or manner of speaking na

pinapakiramdaman mo or nanonotice mo and – and it it helps you identify kung
negative ba ‘yong paggamit or wala lang?
JMA (gay): Sa ano…sa tono ng boses nila pag may times na parang galit
na ‘‘yong boses.
E: Kaya mo ba i-demonstrate kung – kung how it would sound like kung – kung
galit na ‘yong…tapos negative pa?
JMA: “Bakla, ano ba?” ‘‘Yong parang gano’n ‘yong, parang uh nanggigigil
tapos maririnig mo na ‘yong gano’ng term, tapos susundan ng mura,
tapos uulit-ulitin. Parang do’n siya nagiging negative eh, tapos ‘yong – ‘yong
uh gestures tapos ‘yong— Yong parang may pagdabog na, parang pag
umabot na sa gano’ng point nagiging negative na ‘yong term na bakla.
MIB, another bakla participant echoed MVL and VL’s observations:
MIB (gay): 'Yun 'yung talagang nakakainis kasi 'yung way pa ng pagkakasabi
niya nun ng bading is depende pa 'yan sa module ng voice mo o kung
pa'no mo pa s'ya sinasabi. Kasi may tono na gan'to "Uy, bading!" [casual tone
of voice] pero meron ding tono ng word na bading or bakla na talagang
nakakapagpababa ng self-worth.
E: Can you demonstrate to us, or to me, kung ano 'yung example ng

nakakapag...
MIB: Nakakapagbaba? "Bakla!" [greatly emphasized] something like that,

they crush it to you, isasampal nila sa 'yo na ganito ka, that, 'yung
talagang alam mo na meron silang will, meron silang intention na saktan
ka kaya nila sinasabi 'yun sa 'yo.
All of the responses from VL, MVL, MIB, and JMA are indicative of the
importance of non-verbal, paralinguistic cues when dealing with emotive contents of
homosexual-themed trash-talk. In these cases, pragmatic components such as tone of
voice along with the words used were critical in judging the valence of the emotional
outbursts (Jay & Janschewitz, 2007, 2008; Locher & Watts, 2005)
Regarding verbalized displays, Alba-Juez and Larina (2018) contend that when
people find themselves under the sway of emotions, they ‘perform speech acts which
are interpersonal in nature and have particular consequences.’ That said, participants’
yelling, shouting, lobbing, insulting, intense teasing, and trash-talking that utilizes bakla
/ bading labels and epithets are speech acts that represent a gamut of emotions
ranging from excitement to frustration. The resulting consequences are as varied as the
emotions they convey. For instance, FK registered several occasions when their bakla
teammate became noticeably quiet and / or withdrew from the team for a short period
until FK and his other friends toned down a little bit or got over their heightened state of
emotions. VL registered similar observations with their non-binary teammate who would
suddenly become quiet in the face of VL and his friends continued jeering. JJC, who
has been at the receiving end of these emotive outbursts on several occasions, also
mentioned a similar silent withdrawal response. JJC also mentioned that there was a
time when he confronted his friends about their consistent homosexual-themed emotive
outbursts during games. The confrontation came after JJC’s prolonged withdrawal and
intentional avoidance of his playmates. For most participants, however, the
consequences rarely took the form of serious conflict. Taking my personal experiences
into account, I have never seen homosexual-themed emotive outburst result in physical
confrontations between players. This is not to discount the possibility that players who
have been exposed or subjected to such outbursts were affected cognitively (ex. not
being able to concentrate, being thrown off, etc.) or emotionally (ex. feeling
embarassed, anxious, upset, agitated, etc.). Alba-Juez and Larina saw this reflexice
relationship between emotion and language, stating that ‘emotion affects language and
at the same time is affected by language’. In other the words, the way we feel shape the
way we talk and the words we use to convey these emotions whatever they are and ‘the
way we name or talk about emotions can affect the way we feel such emotions’.
Another study conducted by Jay (2009), this time about taboo words that include
ethnic-racial-gender slurs, also highlighted the relationship between emotion and
language. According to Jay, taboo words, which may also encompass bakla / bading,
do not just have the ability to convey ‘emotion information’ such as one’s emotional
state. They may also aid personal and interactional goals that cannot be easily
achieved when using non-taboo counterparts. As taboo words ‘intensify emotional
communication’, they accomplish a different effect. Simply yelling ‘duwag!’ at another
player is vastly different from bellowing ‘bakla!’. The latter immediately conveys disdain,
ridicule, and superiority over another. These meanings would be easy to miss or ignore
when the vehicle for their expression are literal, denotative, less impactful non-taboo
words. Taboo words’s immediacy, intensity, and ability to arouse emotionally and
cognitively lend it its staying power in gamer language. Thus, the utility of taboo words
as conveyers of emotions lie in their ability to communicate a wide range of emotions
through their connotative baggage.
Disparaging and playful humor
Aside from being a form of emotive response, participants of the study indicated
that homosexual-themed utterances like ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’ are also used as a ‘joke’. It
should be noted though that what participants referred to as 'jokes’ are not the standard
canned or pre-made jokes that consist of a set-up and a punch such as those described
in the works of mainstream humor scholarship (see Hocket, 1972; Sherzer, 1985).
Rather, their answers point to different types of humor / humor talk that flows more
naturally between interactants and are usually situated between the offensive and the
playful.
As Kotthoff (2006) observed, cooperation and criticism often go together. The
confluence of competition and camaraderie in gaming provides gamers plenty of

opportunity to bond, nip, and occasionally, bite at one another using humor. The
participants’ answers and observations suggest that the using bakla and bading labels
may be intended, experienced, and interpreted as either aggressive or affiliative or both
at the same time. I asked one of the straight male participants about this and this is
what he had to say:
E: Sige. May nasabi ka din…may nabanggit ka na uhm ang paggamit ng terms

na bakla at bading as labels ay may kasamang intensyon doon sa part ng
gumagamit...Ano ‘yong intensyon mo? Intensyon ba nating…masasabi ba
nating intensyon mong manakit? Or intensyon mo bang mamahiya? Or
intensyon mo lang magdescribe? Intensyon mo lang mang asar? Or intensyon
mong magbiro? Meron bang any of those intentions?
RM (straight): Yes. Yes po meron – halos lahat po ng nabanggit niyo uhm

naging intention ko na. ‘Yung pang-asar pag sa – sabihin na natin screen
namin sa laro tapos meron kaming mga magkakaibigan lang kami. Pwede
rin siyang gamitin pang-asar kapag meron naman maglalaro ako mag isa
tapos sobrang galit na ko...Pwede rin po mamahiya...Pwede kong “oh
ganyan ka” “bakla ka!” gano’n pwede ko siyang sabihan.
RM’s intentions for using homosexual-themed communication include teasing,
mockery, and humiliating others. Apart from intent that goes beyond simple
amusement, RM also hints that homosexual-themed communication can switch from
playful banter to insult when someone gets frustrated. Informant FJ had similarly
acknowledged that the connotations of bakla and bading can sometimes be evaluated
as ‘asaran lang o joke time’ (just teasing or joking):
E: Last time napagusapan natin si Dominic…medyo ano…may considerable

time tayong umikot ‘yong paguusap kay Dominic. Tanungin ko lang din kasi
nakwento mo sa akin na may pagkakataon na nagamit niyo nga ‘yong salitang
bakla kay Dominic as a form trash talk…ba – tama ba ko? Or a form of joke?
FJ: Oo..minsan…parang both, kasi kunwari nandito na kami sa point na aatake

na kami tapos, wala pa siya “ang bading mo naman” pero parang trash talk
yong dating no’ng salitang ‘yon, pero joke time lang talaga sa amin yon,
parang ganon lang.... kapag inano namin si Dominic – tinawag naming
bakla parang ano lang eh… biro lang or wala lang—
Even though FJ was adamant that his use of the bakla and bading labels around
his bakla friend was jocular , he did concede in another interview that such joking can
be viewed negatively even within the context of in-group teasing. Similar to FJ,
informant VL indicated that whenever he deploys bakla trash talk, it is just a joke and
that he and his friends imitate swardspeak while playing as a form of humor:
VL (straight): Opo, in someways katulad po no’n, ‘yong sa pag express ko

po no’n parang may kasama na talagang galit pero kung minsan kasi, pag
alam mo ‘yong bakla paran…medyo pa joke lang kasi minsan po nage-gay
language kami ng “bakla ano ba”, gumaganon kami mga magkakaibigan.
FJ, VL, and RM are not the only gamers I have encountered with the tendency
to shrug off their usage of bakla labels as jokes and/or harmless inside humor. I
observed this first hand when I tried to recruit a playgroup as participants. When I
approached this group of college male DoTA2 players to ask about their vehement
homosexual-themed trash-talking, the guys answered me with awkward smiles and
dismissive answers. It felt to me like I was asking them a ridiculous question or like I
was trying to problematize a ‘natural’ part of DoTA2 gaming. Needless to say, I was
effectively stonewalled by their perfunctory answers, which fell somewhere along the
lines of ‘Katuwaan lang namin yun. Amin amin lang yun. Joke joke lang’ (It’s just for
fun. It’s just amongst ourselves. It’s just a joke). Despite my unsuccessful attempt to
recruit them as participants, our brief interaction was enough to highlight what Ortiz
(2019) had observed among male players who use sexist and homophobic language for
fun:
‘Indeed, most respondents justified sexist trash talking by referring to its

frequency. While acknowledging the possibility that “some people” may find
sexist trash talking to be in poor taste, these respondents made it a point to
explain to me how there is little “wrong” with this practice.’
Pascoe (2007) noted that ‘fag talk and fag imitations’ (such as in VL and his
teammate’s case) ‘serve as a discourse with which boys discipline themselves and
each other through joking relationships.’ Humor’s ability to parlay social relationships
makes it a useful tool in policing unmasculine behavior without the risk of offending
peers. In this regard, homosexual-themed trash talk enveloped in humor is as much a
joke as it is a way to criticize gaming actions that is perceived to be unmanly. As a
result, intergroup commentaries that use disparaging remarks become acceptable
‘because of the levity with which the remark is delivered’ (Thomas et al., 2020).
Bakla participants FK, MVL, JJC, and JMA shared similar observations about
how they found the use of the bakla and bading labels to be playful and at the same
time potentially offensive:
MVL (gay): ‘So yun nga po kagaya ng sinabi ko kanina na parang in a way of
saying insult po to the ano-- to the-- parang inaasar po ganyan na parang
'kala nila joke pero parang...parang sa observation ko po... parang feeling ko
parang ginagawa nilang joke yung term na yun na kahit hindi naman...
For MVL, the label bakla, when deployed in the context of gaming can be used
to insult others or engage in jocular mockery, though he felt that players should desist.
FK, another bakla informant, recalled an instance when a playmate uttered the term
bakla during a game and it felt to him that it was used in jest:
FK (gay): Yes po. Yun po, yung first case ko po na yun, support ako, sabi niya
bak...ano ‘bakla ka talaga bakit hindi mo ko tinu – tinulungan – tin --
inano? Pero, may iba, may ca – ah, may cases ako na parang pabiro po
yung ano niya, pabiro po yung...pero hindi ko naman po tinake
personally... Sab – sabi niya ‘bakla ka, bakla ka talag’ Sabi ko ‘Te, ano – te
ano na, eh lima yun, mag isa ka lang, bakit mo kasi pinasok?’ Pero yung ‘bakla
ka talaga’ I think hindi naman yun as a offen... di naman tinata...sinasabi
na as a offensive word.
Although most of the situations and past experiences the participants described
focused on the playful aspect of joking using bakla labels, their answers suggest that
they also recognized its more aggressive side: that despite its purported playful nature,
this kind of teasing can also be experienced as negative, hostile, and cruel (Kowalski,
2004). Martin et al.’s (2003) model of humor style provides a useful framework for
understanding the use of bakla labels used in humor talk described by the participants.
There are four types of humor styles in Martin et al.’s model. These are: affiliative,
aggressive, self-enhancing, and self-defeating humor. Of these, I found that aggressive
and affiliative humor as useful concepts in explaining the participants’ responses.
Disparagement or aggressive humor can be explained as remarks and commentaries
that are ‘intended to elicit amusement through the denigration, derogation, or
belittlement of a given target (e.g., individuals, social groups, political ideologies,
material possessions) (Feguson & Ford, 2008). This type of humor is often intended to
belittle others though it is often done through a veil of playfulness to mask the hostlie
intent. Another significant characteristic of disparagement / aggressive humor is that it
can be deleterious and injurious to personal relationhips when used excessively. In
contrast, affiliative humor is considered to be more benign and playful in its intent. It is a
type of humor that strengthens relational ties and group cohesiveness, reduces conflict,
raises morale, enhances one’s attractiveness to others, and ultimately creates an
atmosphere of enjoyment. Although affiliative humor is benign compared to
disparagement humor, it can still include gentle teasing and other minorly aggressive
elements (Martin et al., 2003).
Citing Ford and Ferguson (2008) Koszałkowska and Wróbel (2019) reiterated
that humor that employs homosexual-themed language ‘may go beyond amusement
and evoke other feelings’ such as embarrassment, disgust, guilt, anger, or frustration.
For members of the identity group bakla, even just overhearing the casual use of bakla
in playful teasing can already call to mind stigmatizing stereotypes associated with
them. When connotations of enjoyment and good-natured intent are absent, strong
responses like confusion, offense, and hurt become inevitable results (De Jongste,
2013) such as in the case of bakla participant JJC:

JJC (bakla): Kinausap ko sila kasi nga, parang na-realize ko na “ba’t ang hilig-
hilig nyo’ng sabihin ‘yan?” ganun, so kinausap ko sila. Kinausap ko muna ‘yung
isang… ‘yung pinaka-close ko sa nakaka-ano… tropa ko. Sabi ko, “Uy, ‘di ako
natutuwa,” ganun, “’di ako natutuwa sa mga…” ganun. Sabi nya, kala nya nu’ng
una, biro lang yung pagkakausap ko sa kanya. So, kala nya nga biro, so after
that, hindi ko pinansin. Hindi ko sila pinansin, three months. Mga three months,
hindi ko sila pinansin. As in, ‘yung chat, wala… ‘pag pumupunta sila sa bahay,
hindi ko inilalabas, ganun. Du’n nila… tinanong nila ‘ko. Like, tinanong na nila
ako after that na, “ba—anong mali? Anong nagawa nila?” Tapos sinabi ko na,
na, “Kada maglalaro na lang ba, ‘bakla, bading’ na lang maririnig ko ‘pag
ako kalaro n’yo, ganon?” ‘Yun, sinabi ko na insensitive sila.
In this excerpt, JJC recounted to me the time when he had had enough of his
playmates’ excessive bakla teasing. This eventually led to a deterioration in their
relatioship. Despite repeated assurances from his friends that they were just joking, the
use of bakla labels for ‘fun’ had resulted in distress and social-relational distancing
owing to its frequency and vehemence. As Martin et al. stated, unrestrained and
excessive joking of this sort could stir conflict especially in intergroup interactions. In
addition to negative feelings the targets suffer, studies in disparagement humor have
also suggested that telling jokes that make fun of certain social groups can cultivate
negative perceptions and attitudes toward the group and ‘normalize prejudice and
harassment’ towards stigmatized groups (see Hobden and Olson, 1994; Ford and
Ferguson 2004; Woodzicka and Ford 2010). Some of the straight male participants
appeared to be aware of this:
FJ (straight): ...minsan pag yong connotation ng bakla, bading na yan

parang minsan asaran lang pero either way kung rage ka man o asaran lang
o joke time, ‘yong meaning pa rin nila negative.
The negative connotations FJ attribute to the label bakla also made it difficult for
him to utter these words during our interviews, which were mostly conducted in public.
When I asked him about it, he said he wanted to be careful not to call up negative
reactions from those who may overhear our conversation. FJ seemed aware or
conscious of the effects of such utterances to other co-present.

For other participants like VL, the awareness that their choice of humor can
offend presents some sort of ‘moral conflict’ for them that can only be dealt with by
sweeping things under the rug or constantly defining the situation as harmless, good
natured fun:
VL (straight): negative pa rin siya pero, uhm, we turn a blind side po

towards it kasi, pa-joke na lang namin sinasabi. Hindi na po siya yung
parang uhm, suntok na...‘bakla!’ ganun. Hindi na yung...parang pa-joke na
lang talaga siyang ano...
By his own admittance, VL and his friends choose to ignore the possible
negative implications of their teasing. By defining the situation as teasing, invoking the
playful context of the utterance, and differentiating a playful utternance from something
he believes to be injurious, VL and his friends are able to sustain the polite fiction of
harmless teasing using bakla labels. Likewise, RM also drew the line between what
may be considered playful teasing and bakla teasing that crosses the line:
RM (straight): Kasi po pag sa umpisa, puwede mo lang sabihin na, ayun,

sabihin po nating ‘bakla’ ah, sa umpisa, wala lang yun, joke joke lang yun.
Pero kapag once na may napikon na, ah, dun na, dun na magkakaiba yung
magiging totoo na yung intention nun, magiging totoo na yung word na
bakla – kung ano man yun….
For RM, whether the use of bakla labels is counted as harmless humor or
something else depends on how the target or others respond to the joke. He believes
that playful teasing using bakla labels is just a joke. It is all fun and games until such
joking / teasing results in someone getting upset (‘may napikon na’). On such
occasions, RM believes that amusement gives way to other unfriendly intentions even
though he did not specify what. Other participants also differentiated between what they
thought to be disparaging jokes that employ bakla labels and playful teasing. What
these participants share with VL and RM is that they all alluded to a variety of verbal
and non-verbal metacommunicative cues such emotional valence, tone, delivery, etc. to
catch the meaning of an utterance. These contextualization cues help interactants
decide whether negative and hostile comments should be taken seriously or playfully
(Kotthoff, 2006). This can also corroborated by the findings of Koszałkowska and
Wróbel’s (2019) study on the moral judgment of disparaging homophobic jokes. In their
study Koszałkowska and Wróbel asked respondents to indicate the level of amusement
and disgust evoked by different kinds of disparaging humor ranging from religion-
disparaging jokes to homophobic jokes. Their findings suggested ‘that disparagement
humor was judged through emotional evaluations.’ Prior to Koszałkowska and Wróbel,
De Jongste (2013) had already suggested that determining humorous intent often
hinges on several factors including emotional and evaluative factors. This puts
disparaging humor on a class of its own because of the emotional reactions it can elicit.
Beyond amusement, these types of jokes often carry with them the consequence of
evoking feelings of disgust and otherness, usually by ‘depicting everything that is
oppressive with gay men’ as in the case of homphobic humor (Koszałkowska & Wróbel,
2019). Collective insights on the effects of disparagement humor also suggest that this
kind of joking shore up unfriendly attitudes toward disparaged groups, promote
derogatory stereotypes, makes discrimination acceptable, and ‘normalize harm’
(Thomas et al., 2020; Ford, 1997; Ford et al., 2008; Ford & Ferguson, 2004; Saucier,
O'Dea, & Strain, 2016; Strain, Martens, & Saucier, 2016) even if a heterosexual or
unintended bakla co-present other simply overhears it. Gay informant MVL articulated
this in one interview:
MVL (gay): ...for me, kahit hindi ako directly na sinasabihan non, may
somewhat na nafe-feel ko na parang…ano ba? Wait lang…parang ‘pag
sinasabihan ka, tas sasabihan ka ng kahit hindi naman directly ikaw,
parang mapagku-question ka bakit…bakit kailangan sabihin pa ng ganon
ka-insensitive? So, parang…’yon po, parang…judgment po, kasi parang
different perspective, different din na ano ‘yon…na point of view din ‘yon ng tao
kung mi..minsan hindi naman totally sinasadya, pero parang ‘yon na yung
pagkainterpret mo so may…parang… may parang cases na ganyan na
kailangan i…uhm, like…uhm, pa’no ba ‘yon? Parang magkaiba yung
thinking, depende sa thinking ng tao ‘yon kung paano sila magrereact sa
ganoon.
In his recounting, MVL only overheard the label bakla / bading uttered by co-
present players / strangers. Although he was sure he was not the intended target, being
present in the same location and overhearing it was enough to get him mentally
aroused and confused.
Disparagement humor can also be an ‘othering’ tool packaged as jests (McCann
et al., 2010). Where sexist humor positions one gender as ‘generally superior’ over
another, homophobic humor asserts the self-ascribed superiority of hegemonic
heterosexuality over its polar opposite (i.e. bakla) and lump the butt of homophobic
humor in that undesirable category. As McCann et al. put it:
‘Humour’s role as an ‘othering’ technique has two functions: first, it marks out
what is to be taken seriously such as stoic, heterosexual masculinity, and what
can be devalued by being laughed at, such as ‘wogs’ and ‘poofters’; second,
how a man uses humour indicates where he fits in the hierarchy of acceptable
or devalued categories.’
Consistent with the ideas espoused by McCann and coleagues, Ramos (2014)
argued that disparagement humor in gaming communities like Xbox players is
weaponized in the interpersonal struggle for power and against non-conformity in an
environment that is defined by gendered hierarchies. Ramos further stated that hurling
insults at one another is routine in male-dominated spaces like MOGs (massive online
games) and that such ritualistic insulting is another reenactment of similar male verbal
jousting in face-to-face contexts. Abedinifard (2016) described this as the use of
‘ridicule and teasing as punitive tools’ that maintain hegemonic masculine norms and
thereby used against those who do not perform normative masculinity. Whether online
or offline, the purpose remains the same: to assert one’s masculinity. Similarly, Ford
and colleagues (2017) believe that disparaging humor helps its instigators enhance
their personal and social identities as well as establish their dominance through social
comparison and by laughing at others’ deficiencies. Gruner (2017) articulated this
Hobbesian proposition in the book ‘The Game of Humor: A Comprehensive Theory of
Why We Laugh’:
When we find humor in something, we laugh at the misfortune, stupidity, clumsi-

ness, moral, or cultural defect, suddenly revealed in someone else, to whom we
instantly and momentarily feel ‘‘superior’’ since we are not, at that moment,
unfortunate, stupid, clumsy, morally, or culturally defective, and so on. To feel
superior in this way is ‘‘to feel good’’; it is to ‘‘get what you want.’’ It is to win!
Kulpers (2015) remarked that jokes about shortcomings usually include all sorts
of jokes that touch on incompetence and stupidity, as stupidity ‘is an extremely popular
script in jokes all around the world.’ Jokes about shortcomings usually associate certain
incongruities, deviances, idiosyncracies, character faults, and types of behavior to a
certain social group. As mentioned in preceding sections, to be bakla in DoTA and LoL
is to be deficient in ‘manly’ characteristics that allow one to succeed in the game. Using
bakla to jokingly refer to allies and opponents is to laugh at their inedequacies be it
clumsines in executing maneuvers (e.g. using skills, swooping in for the kill, engaging in
skirmish) or stupdity such as when one makes a mistake, commits an ill-fated move,
messes up his timing, etc. This type of spontaneous player-to-player humor, as
Dormann (2014) described it, is something that commonly happens during gameplay.
Player-to-player humor usually occurs when players ‘react to game events and
situations by joking and teasing each other over their performances or by self-mocking
during failures.’ Such blunders can become a source of frustration or a comedy of
failure. Prior to Dromann, Freud’s (1960) concept of tendentious humor had already
argued that people derive a sense of satisfaction, enjoyment, and ‘verbal victory’ when
we overcome adversaries – who may not be genuine enemies, but rather a contender
in a verbal battle – by making them comically inferior to us without real conflict between
us and our ‘frenemy’. The apparent light-heartedness of jokes as a communication
system lets users of disparagement humor dodge social restrictions that limit what can
be said or spoken openly. Humor allows winning players to mock or make fun of other
players and act aggressively without breaking what is socially acceptable (Dormann &
Biddle, 2009). The pretext of humor also lets people wrap prejudice and controversial
thoughts, ideas, and sentiments that may still be offensive even if it were expressed
through metaphors and analogies. It often disguises prejudice ‘in a cloak of fun and
frivolity,’ which grants users a sort of moral amnesty and contributtes to a face of
acceptable social conduct and acceptable display of hostility (McCann et al., 2010;
Jewell & Morssion, 2010; Balmores-Paulino, 2018). There lies the advatages of joking,
teasing, and jocular mockery as opposed to simply saying things plalinly: jokes are very
powerful tools for communicating implicit meanings and they leave plenty of room for
agents to excuse their humorous assault is not anything serious (Kotthoff, 2006).
Whether it is through a veneer of good-natured fun that is not anchored to genuine
negative dispositions toward a social group, disparagement humor remains the same:
humor at the expense of denigrating, deriding, mocking, and villifying others by liking
them to a social group perceived to be inferior. In the context of MOBAs and
homosexual-themed joking and teasing let players compare peers and opponents to the
bakla who is perceived to be a dolt gamer by sheer reason of effeminacy and
consequently, laugh at that defect while simultaneously finding amusement in the
disparagement of others (not necessarily the bakla social group) because it suddenly
makes them (the instigators) seem suprior by comparison. Since chiding and criticising
another player for their poor performance involve a degree of humiliation and face-
threat, the criticising agent may cushion the blow of insults and harsh criticism using
humor (Goffman, 1967). Ultimately, making fun of another player’s infirmity by calling
him bakla does not just provide amusement; it also leads one to a verbal victory over an
adversary in a verbal duel (i.e. trash-talking). It is denigration, insult, and self-
enhancement framed by humor and laughter.
Thus far I have only explained bakla jokes through the lens of superiority-based
disparagement humor. It would be prudent to point out that such a view presents an
incomplete understanding bakla jokes in the context of MOBA gaming. Dynel (2013)
cautioned about the limits of superiority-based approach to disparagement humor. First,
superiority-based approach to disparagement humor tends to conflate genuine
aggression and playful teasing. For instance, superiority proponent Charles Gruner
(1997) claims that even the most innocent forms of jocular mocking and teasing still
contain a smidgen of aggression, though it may be hard to detect because of its
subtlety. This leads to the assumption of superiority theory that all humor is superiority
based. In other words, humor is intrinsically aggressive, regardless if one were
sincerely aggressive or merely feigning it (Dynel, 2013). Another limitation of
superiority-based approach is that it makes no distinctions between the interactional
goals of aggressive utterances, namely humor and derogation. Dynel argued against
superiority proponents’ claim that pure joking as an interactional goal and more
aggressive interactional goals cannot be differentiated from one another. Prior to Dynel,
Miczo (2004) had already asserted a similar position in his security theory of humor,
stating that ‘humor employed for purely playful purposes is distinguishable from humor
employed for more instrumental purposes (i.e. nonplayful humor).’ As Slatten & Gabrys
(2014) and Slaatten (2015) suggest, teasing or jokingly using gay labels to tease ‘can
be prosocial and experienced as playful and humorous’ so long as it is conveyed
without any negative intentions.

To address the limits identified by Dynel and to embrace the diverse and
heterogenous range of actions and interactions that may subsume or represent bakla
teasing, I turn my attention to this type of humor’s more innocuous dimension. This
playful nature is expressed through the concepts of playful humor (Miczo, 2004),
conversational humor (Coates, 2007; Dynel, 2009), and jocular abuse (Haug &
Bousfield, 2012).
According to Miczo (2004), mocking and other forms of disparagement that
demean and belittle targets can be classified under the playful division of humor.
Miczo’s classification puts special emphasis on sender intent as the most critical
component in defining the function of humor. The importance of intent was also evident
in the responses provided by participants like JMA who said:
JMA (bakla): ...kahit sino kasi pwede gamitin ‘yong term na bakla eh and
anyone can use the term bakla either to praise someone or to degrade someone
parang – parang just like any other words. Uh siguro po ‘yong term na bakla ano
rin siya – how should I say this – parang ‘yong term na bakla pwede na rin
siyang gamitin sa kahit sino, kahit saan depende sa intensyon no’ng
nagsasalita. Whether kahit straight man siya or bakla mismo, uh nagiging
negative siya kung gagamitin siya for negative reasons at kung uh pag
ginamit siya to reason out sa isang failure. Nagiging positive rin siya to praise
someone na ang taray ni bakla na parang gano’n.
Just as JMA distinguished between positive and negative intent where benign
intent falling can be subsumed under playful humor. In playful humor, the purpose of
the sender is to elicit laughter or amuse participants. In nonplayful humor, the sender
cares much less if anybody else laughs so long as the target and other participating
parties get the message enveloped by humor. With reference to the participants’
responses, typical messages contained within their homosexual-themed humor talk are
discontent over another player’s performance, chiding and making fun of an ally /
opponent’s blunder, telling another player to do better without overtly saying they suck,
communicating frustration without being overtly offensive, mock or genuine challenge to

another player’s ability, and so on. In differentiating between playful and nonplayful
jokes, Miczo points to ‘play frames’ (Bateson, 1953; Cashion, et al., 1987) as key in
deciphering humorous intent. According to Bateson (1953), human actions can be
framed as either serious or playful. Persons-in-conversation can frame an utterance or
interaction as non-serious by signaling play. Coates (2007) contends 'that the notion of
‘play frame’ captures an essential feature of humour – that it is not serious – and at the
same time avoids being specific about the kinds of talk that can occur in a play frame:
potentially anything can be funny’ and this includes things that may be potentially
offensive. Play frames work by ‘signaling the humorous intent of the message’ and
include the metacommunicative cues mentioned earlier. These cues may contain verbal
elements such as word choices, statements, and joking-prefaces (in the context of
gaming, an intensifier may function as preface e.g. Tang ina mo! Bakla!) and nonverbal
cues such as alterations in vocal inflections, facial expressions, gestures, and laughter.
In the case of intensifiers attached either as a preface or additive, interpretations could
go either way. That said, nonverbal cues seem to offer more clues that verbal ones. As
participants have indicated, vocal inflections and the manner the jocular utterance is
delivered play a crucial role in their interpretation. For instance, when VL explained
what he thought to be nonplayful teasing, hepointed towards the stress and brashness
of a person’s delivery (parang suntok na ‘bakla!’/ like a punch in the gut) of a jocular
tease as indicators of more hostile intentions. Informant FK agrees with VL and added
that facial expressions provide and sarcasm some extra cues, too:
E: May na-mention ka kanina na, ah, may mga pagkakataon na parang pabiro
or pabirong ginagamit yung term na ‘bakla’ or ‘bading’ what would make you say
na pabiro ito?
FK: Ah, first, syempre po sa tone...sa tone...sa tone...and how...pag deli...sa

pag deliver niya, tapos, facial expressions of course, tapos aaaah, yung
pag diin mismo sa ‘bakla,’ pag masyadong madiin, talagang sarcastic na.
Coates’ (2007) concept of conversational humor provides another useful tool for
analyzing bakla teasing. Coates’ argued that there is more to humor than the standard
formulaic jokes characterized by a set-up that culiminates in a punch line aimed at
eliciting laughter at the end. Her analysis of family and peer conversations revealed that
humor could also emerge organically in different kinds of everyday talk that is
independent of premeditation. This could be in the form of exchanging funny stories,
bantering, and teasing – all of which cannot be categorized as pre-constructed jokes
because of their spontaniety. This impromptu, on-going talk between participants
present plenty of opportunities for what Coates termed as conversational humor to
emerge. Coates described conversational humor as playful and collaborative ‘humorous
talk occuring in the informal conversation of friends’ that are marked by ‘spontaneous
bursts of of verbal play.’ As teasing and joking among MOBA players oeprate similarly.
Most of the time, if not always, the participants involved in bakla teasing and joking
have a shared relational history. Their joking is also mostly informal, random, and
unrehearsed as opposed to something that has been set-up prior to the game. There
are plenty of occasions when players do not say the word bakla at all and instead resort
to other verbal expressions to make fun of one another. In fact, many of the participants
have indicated that when they used or heard the label bakla used against them, it was
‘biglaan’ or ‘nadala na lang’ (spur-of-the-moment or got carried away). The
unpredictability of the game also facilitates the spontaneity of bakla teasing. Although
players are still playing within a mostly consistent set of game rules, pretty much
everything in the game can go in different directions that may not be anticipated by
players. In other words, a good game can invite bakla teasing just as much as a terrible
game can. Dynel (2009) expanded Cotes’ concept by creating a typology of

conversational humor to embrace the heterogeneity of humor. Dynel’s taxonomy, when
applied to the data generated in the present study, would classify bakla joking
described by the participants as overlaps between putdowns and teasing. Putdowns are
akin to disparaging / aggressive humor in that there is a real intention on the part of the
sender to denigrate the target with his depreciatory remark. The true intent is usually
masked by a false assurance that the utterance is notthing serious (even though it is).
Teasing, in contrast, is a form of jocular utterance that can function as a mock
challenge or threat. Haugh (2013) described teasing as a ‘figurative deiminishment’ that
combines ‘ostensible provocation and ostensible playfulness’. Haugh believes that the
many ways that aggression / provocation / non-playfulness and playfulness can be
combined form the bases for how teasing functions as a source of amusement and
entertainment, a social glue that helps maintain group cohesiveness, tension reliever,
emotional management tool, and a power differentiator, among others. Some examples
of teasing came from JJC who recalled an instance when a group of straight male
players called them ‘bakla’ jokingly, almost affiliatively.
JJC (gay): Ay, hindi po. Siguro, may time ‘pag lahat po kami ano, gay—‘yung
mga tropa kong gay, ganun—kasi nananalo kami, tapos syempre, sasabihin
nila, minsan nantritrip ‘yung mga kaibigan ko na “I’m a girl!” ganun-ganun, “Girl
gamer kami!” ganun-ganun, tapos sasabihin ng kabilang team, “Ano? Mga
bakla naman kayo eh! Mga itlog—itlog kayo!” ganun. So, tatawa kami.
Doon, parang okay lang sa’min, kasi, lima kami. Lima kaming bakla. Kaya,
mas… masaya. Masaya.
Regardless of intent and function, there is an understanding between
participants that teasing is not truth-oriented and is intended to be playful. That is, when
a player jokingly calls someone bakla, such teasing bears no implicit accusation that the
target is indeed bakla. Another thing that differentiates teasing – which I argue makes it
the best representation of playful bakla utterances in MOBAs – is the gradable degree
of aggression present therein. Dynel asserts that in teasing, genuine aggression may
very well be nonexistent. If ever there is aggression, it is at best, ostensible. Although
putdowns and teasing are two of the most accurate typological representations of bakla
lables used in conversational humor, there are instances when it can evolve or take the
form of banter, which turns a one shot tease into a longer exhchange of consecutive
retorts, similar to what Pascoe (2007) described as a ‘verbal game of hot potato’ with
the word ‘fag’ where participants deflect the fag epithet and hurl it at someone else. In
other words, a player jokingly calls another player ‘bakla!’, the target may retort with the
same insult ‘bakla ka din!’ or ‘mama mo bakla!’. Informant RO alluded to this back and
forthness of bakla teasing during one interview:
RO (straight): Kasi kung sinabihan kang bading parang takot ka gano’n

kaya gagalingan mo next time para hindi ka masabihan ng gano’ng word.
Tapos kung siya naman ‘yon ibabalik mo sa kanya ‘yong word para
makaganti kasi panget naman kung lagi kang sinasabihan ng gano’n word
diba? Nakakahiya din sa nakapaligid na mga tao.
Finally, I turn to Haugh & Bousfield’s (2012) jocular abuse. Haugh & Bousfield
described jocular abuse as the ‘a specific form of insulting where the speaker casts the
target into an undesirable category or as having undesirable attributes using a
conventionally offensive expression within a non-serious or jocular frame.’ This kind of
teasing, when applied in interpersonal exchanges between MOBA players, takes
advantage of impoliteness strategies wherein the agent explicitly casts or lumps the
target into an undesirable category or bestows upon him detestable attributes.
Speakers can accomplish this with the aid of conventionally offensive expressions that
are framed as non-serious or jocular. Haugh & Bousfield’s date suggested that sexual
preference is a common theme in jocular abuse. Usually, sexual preference takes
centerstage in jocular abuse when a speaker insinuates that the other (the target) has a
preference for the same sex (i.e. homosexuality) and signals – albeit jocularly – that
such desire / identity is problematic and unacceptable.

Miczo (2004), Coates (2007), Dynel (2009), and Haugh & Bousfield’s (2012)
robust contributions to humor scholarship provided this study with helpful tools in
situating humor that employs bakla labels and epithets. Their conceptual contributions
also allowed the study to paint a picture of bakla teasing that is more accurate to what
the participants have experienced and described. More importantly, their work provided
a useful schema for understanding and intepreting humor that utilizes bakla labels and
epithets. First, there is Miczo’s work on playful humor that emphasized speaker intent /
purpose as a critical component in defining whether humorous talk is playful or
aggressive. Participants of this study have repeatedly talked about the relevance of
intent in framing and interpreting jocular utterances. Consistent with Mizco’s
observation, study participants who have used or have been the target of bakla teasing
have steadily relied on contextual cues that could signal serious, neutral or playful
intent. Their inferences of of perceived intent also reveal that in most cases, participants
negotiate what the playfulness or seriousness of the utterances. Supporting evidence
was provided by FK as he detailed a candid conversation he had with a straight male
playmate who was aware of FK’s his participation in this study. Next, Coates’
conversational humor provided a layer of relational familiarity, intimacy, and
collaboration in defining and framing bakla teasing. Similar with intent, participants have
also highlighted the importance of relational closeness between interactants where
bakla teasing is involved. To put it more succinctly: humor flows from interpersonal
relationships. Without relational closeness and intimacy, coordinating meanings and
sustaining the play frame that defines the interaction as non-serious. Only through
successful collaboration between participants who draw from collective understandings
can the play frame be maintained. Lastly, Dynel (2009) and Haugh & Bousfield’s (2012)
typologies helped us answer ‘what kind of humor are we talking about here?
So, where can we situate ‘bakla as a joke’? While both sets of participants
acknowledged the tendentious and aggressive aspects of homosexual-themed humor
talk, their responses suggest that homosexual-themed humor is mostly harmless,
playful, and at times, even pro-social. Their inferences, along with mine, draw heavily
from the perceived intentions of the speakers and shared stocks of background
knowledge of these episodes between participants. In most of these cases, while there
may have been ostensible provocation on the part of the speaker, the fact that these
episodes rarely (if ever) evolved into full-blown confrontations and complete
deterioration of relationships can be taken as strong indicators that there never was
genuine intent to harm or offend targets. I also believe that if the participants of the
study or those around them genuinely intended to communicate offense, stronger
pejoratives and curse words would have been the more likely verbal tools. There are
some caveats to this conclusion, however: claims to non-serious intent are hard to
prove, it is difficult to measure how much aggression is really meant and how much
offense the receivers and others co-present register. In addition, the participants also
drew heavily from their experiences with friends and peers, which may have strongly
affected their positive definition / interpretation and affiliative valuations of ‘bakla as a
joke’.
Microinsults and backhanded compliments
In addition to affiliative joking using bakla labels, there are other occasions when
the use of bakla labels appear benign on the surface and may hold no real hostility, but
still contain subversive content that can undermine the speaker’s neutral or friendly
intent. This usually comes in the form of backhanded compliments and microinsults
such as in the case of FK:

FK (gay): Kalaban namin 'yung ibang section parang pustahan po, ganun, ta's
naka-penta 'ko nun ta's 'yun tuwang-tuwa 'yung mga ano, tuwang-tuwa 'yung
mga kaibigan kong lalake, kasi ‘may isa kaming “babae”’ ganyan, tuwang-tuwa
'yung tatlo kong lalakeng kaibigan sabi "Oooh, kahit bakla 'yan ano 'yan
nakaka(inaudible)" Ayun nakakalift up ng ano. Pero, nakakalift up ng
confidence 'yung inaano nilang kahit bakla 'yan nakakaganyan 'yan, ganyan
ganyan, pero parang may ano sa 'kin, "Anong kahit bakla?" I mean bakit
"kahit bakla"? ganun. Parang sinasabi mo na ang bakla nanggaling sa
negative na ano. Bakit may 'kahit'? Pwede namang sabihing “Yan bakla
'yan, ano, ang galing n'yan!" ganun, pwede namang ganun. Ayun... or dahil
(inaudible) talaga.
This passage is FK’s account of a time when while playing LoL, he was
‘complimented’ and cheered by his straight male play companions after eliminating 5
opponents by himself (‘naka-penta’), a kill streak that is more commonly known to LoL
players as ‘pentakill.’ It is all praise and hurrahs on the surface, but as FK himself
reflected on it, he was able to unmask for himself the negative undercurrents of his
friends’ comments. This is not to suggest that FK’s play companions were insincere in
their praise of his skill. Quite the opposite, I do beleive that they really intended to
compliment FK for his accomplishment and excellent play, it is just that it came out with
a subversive content that downgraded the compliment to a friendly diss. From
microagression theory’s perspective, backhanded compliments like the one FK received
can be categorized as a microinsult. As mentioned, microinsults are subtle snubs with
understated insulting messages that for the most part escape the awareness of the
sender, the receiver or both. Within Sue & Capodilupo’s (2008) taxonomy of
microaggression, backhanded compliments and comments like ‘malakas yan maglaro
kahit bakla’ carry the thematic element ‘ascription of intelligence.’ According to Sue
(2010), this type of microinsult usually pertains to a facet of ability like intellect,
competence, and capabilities. Re-contextualzied for gaming, this then becomes
ascription of skillfulness or mastery. As mentioned, there is a stereotype in gaming
cultures that just like women, nonbinary players are also inferior; gay play is noob play.
Comments like the aforementioned taps into this stereotype and masquerades as
praise, which makes it harder to spot and deal with than blatant microassaults.
Expanding on microinsults, I also turned to a similar concept proposed by Malyk
(2014): cryptosemes. Like microinsults, cryptosemes also deal with mixed messages in
communication that appear benign on the surface but contain ‘obscured, silent
dimension of meaning that subvert or undermine – at any rate problematize – the overt
“face-value” meaning of the statement. The hidden meaning comes not from what is
articulated in the message, but, rather, from what is left unspoken.’ What distinguishes
cryptosematic expressions from microinsults are the conditions surrounding their use.
Where microinsults often articulate stereotypes, biases, and demeaning messages,
cryptosemes often arise in social contexts wherein a message sender feels the need ‘to
be agents of supportiveness’ for people they perceive to be afflicted with some
deficiency, which is to them (message sender) an important thing to possess. To make
up for the receiver’s deficit, the sender of the message offers a ‘compliment’ that
highlights a different, equivalently valuable trait the person does possess’ (Malyk,
2014). In this regard, it can be said that FK’s straight male play companions praised
FK’s in-game achievement to compensate for what they perceived to be FK’s masculine
deficit by focusing on a quality that in their eyes, made up for what he lacked. FK’s
straight male play companions would not have to say ‘kahit bakla yan, nakaka-pentakill
yan’ if kabaklaan (being gay) was not considered an affliction or condition that renders
any man ‘lesser.’ As Malyk (2014) summed up, ‘the bottom line is that one would not
have to reach for euphemisms if there was not a perceived problem (a ‘lack’ of
something important) that had to be masked with attention misdirection and positive
words.’
Ultimately, microinsults and cryptosematic expressions highlight the ways bakla
and bading are woven into everyday gaming speak, sometimes openly, somtetimes
covertly. Microinsults and microinvalidations, along with cryptosematic expressions,
usually come with a friendly facade. It is this deceptively benign appearance that allows
for stereotypes, biases, and prejudices to be communicated under the radar. The
message’s opacity along with the conflict between what is said and what is ‘left out’
creates stressful situations that distort people’s experiential realities, create an
impression that perpetrators are not true friends or allies, potentially strain personal
relationships, and place targets in an unenviable position of ascertaining when, where,
and how to resist oppression versus when to accommodate it (Pierce, 1988; Sue, Lin,
Torino, et al., 2009). The subtlety and ‘taken-for-grantedness’ of microinsults,
microinvalidations, and crytosematic expressions make them more dangerous,
damaging, and insidious compared to blatant insults and overt offensive speech.
Pro-bakla language
Bakla labels and epithets can also be used in less hostile to more positive and
prosocial ways in what McCormack (2011) conceptualized pro-gay language (here pro-
bakla language). McCormack characterized pro-gay language as homosexually themed
language that is used to bond people together in socio-positive ways or to demonstrate
pro-gay attitudes’. Study participants detailed several instances when bakla labels were
used in a manner that participants felt were pro-gay. Informant RJV recalled one such
example:
RJV (straight): Actually, nagamit na din once sa 'min 'yung term na gay as, as
a... as a compliment kasi ah...
E: 'Gay' ang ginamit hindi 'bakla' or 'bading'?
RJV: Hindi. ‘Bakla' ‘Si bakla!’, ganun, parang ganun. ‘Galing ni bakla!’
gumanun. Kasi ano siya eh, parang last minute usage ng isang item na nagsave
ng tatlong people po, ayun naano niya, nasabi parang, ‘Woops, si bakla!’
ganun.
The phrase ‘si bakla’ is a colloquial expression that is commonly used by bakla
and heterosexual women for different reasons. Usually though, the phrase is used to
refer to a friend, to welcome a bakla friend who had just arrived, to compliment a bakla
peer, to express pleasant surprise, and as a general exclamation that usually carries a
positive valence. That said, I could understand why informant RJV was visibly enthused
when he shared this experience. Judging from his demeanor while recalling this
episode, it is highly likely that his experience of being called bakla was amusing for him
and a ‘proud’ moment. As he elaborated on his answer, he admitted that being called
bakla on that occassion felt good:
RJV (straight): Pero personally speaking, I like the... I like the way it felt nung
tinawag na, ‘Wow, si bakla!’ para sa 'kin ah. Personally speaking, I think that
people have this stereotype of gay people na parang meticulous sila
(inaudible) ganun. (inaudible stuttering)
In similar fashion, bakla informant FK has also experienced being labeled bakla
on a more positive note:
FK (gay): Ah, ano po, me- hindi po particular sa LoL po. Ah, naglalaro rin po
kasi ako ng Rules of Survival or ROS, so yon, parang may mga kalaro rin po
akong ano, mahilig – ‘di ba parang may dressing up rin po don? – so yun,
parang sabi ‘ang ganda ng taste mo, bakla ka talaga’ parang ganun
po...’ang ganda ng taste mo, bakla ka talaga’ pero parang ang dating non,
is parang, positive – positive siya kasi...nasabi ang ganda ng taste mo
‘bakla ka talaga’ pertaining na maganda yung taste ng mga bakla, parang
ganun po.
Bakla informant JMA shared similar experience wherein he percieved the use of
bakla labels as positive and uplifting:
JMA (gay): Meron kasi no’ng time na naglalaro ako and sak – sumakto ‘yong
ano ko ‘yong isang skill ko and na – na uh kahit sobrang hina ng team namin
pero sumakto ‘yong isang skill ko tapos na-wipe out ‘yong buong team.
Sabi no’ng isang kateam ko ‘yong baklang to!’ ‘yong parang gano’n ‘yong
parang ibig sabihin non parang ang galling mo. Gano’n ‘yong nainterpret ko
sa statement na ‘yon... Kaya siya ano – kaya naging positive ‘yong interpretation
ko kasi parang na-acknowldge niya ‘yong ginawa ko do’n – that do’n sa larong
‘yon parang I made ano ‘yon parang naging successful ‘yong ano ko pagkaka-
execute ng skill, ‘yong role ko napanindigan ko uh habang naglalaro, tapos
parang na-acknowldge ‘yong gawa ko, ‘yong sk – ‘yong actions ko during that
time.
Despite occasionally invoking stereotypes, McCormack (2011) argued that
homosexually-themed language like ‘that’s so gay’ or in RJV’s case, ‘si bakla’ can
become positive and even affiliative. As discussed in Chapter 2, homophobic language
(ex. the use of bakla and bading with the deliberate desire to harm or injure) evovle to
become more neutral, even friendly and supportive, contingent on cultural context,
intention of the sender, and the effect to the target. In RJV’s experience, the expression
used on him ‘si bakla’ and the use of the gay label bakla in that expression can be
counted as pro-bakla language as there was no discernible intent to inflict harm or insult
RJV and nor did the use of bakla had any negative effects to him.
FK’s case is a bit different as the phrase ‘bakla ka talaga’ could either be
positive or negative. Although microaggression theory’s hard determinism would
certainly categorize this expression as microinsults, McCormack’s model affords
expressions like these with more leeway. In this case, ‘bakla ka talaga’ may be
classified as gay discourse. Although the comment’s antecdent phrase ‘ang ganda ng
taste mo’ taps into a Filipino bakla stereotype that has long associated the bakla to
beautification, aesthetic creation, fashion design, and similar artistic pursuits (Nguyen,
2013 as cited in Duque, 2014), the stereotype is not as insulting compared to others like
being sexually depraved or being cowardly. I surmise that the notoriety of some bakla
personalities in the aforementioned fields in recent decades helped in changing the
meanings of bakla and cast a more positive light to the ‘beautician’ stereotype. While
the bakla beuatician might have been a demeaning stereotype 30 – 50 years ago
during which the prevailing values of the generation cultivated this stereotype, it may no
longer be the case now. The last 50 years have seen shifts in the prominence and
visibility of the bakla. This increased visibility – from cinema to other creative fields –
contributed to the evolution of homosexually-themed language. Thus, the erosion of the
negative stereotype makes the use of the bakla label in RJV’s experience
comparatively less offending and more progressive. This is also the same reason RJV
‘felt good’ for being called bakla as he saw the bakla’s meticulousness for design and
impeccable taste as positive traits. Considering the antecedent, the mostly positive
traits associated with the bakla that is underscored, the lack of any discernible intent to
harm, and the absence of any negative social effects to FK and RJV, it is safe to
categorize use of bakla labels in these instances as pro-bakla language.
The participants’ responses show that bakla labels and homosexual-themed
utterances in general can be used in many different ways to convey a wide assortment
of meanings that fall within a positve – negative contimuum. Analysis of interview
responses also revealed that gamers use homosexual-themed communication for
trash-talking, emotive response, disparaging humor, playful humor, microinsults and
backhanded compliments, and pro-bakla language. When used for trash-talking,
participants drew from the negative connotative meanings of bakla and bakla
stereotypes to insult, demean, and chide other players for their perceived incompetence
and blunders. Aside from trash-talking, bakla labels are also used as placeholders for
negative emotions that can range from cathartic expressions of frustration to outright
expressions of anger directed at some aspect of the game as opposed to an expression
of homophobia. The labels bakla and bading are also used as jokes both disparaging
and playful. In disparaging humor, the agent masks his aggression with claims of joking
intent (it’s just a joke). On the other hand, playful humor is less aggressive and friendlier
as it usually arises between social actors with established relationships already. There
are also times when bakla labels are used seemingly for positive ends such as
complimenting a bakla player. Although there is no intent to convey negative meanings,
the positive intent is undercut by the subversive content (e.g. magaling yan kahit bakla
yan). As a result, the compliment becomes a friendly diss. Finally, bakla labels can be
used to convey positive meanings through pro-gay or pro-bakla language. In pro-bakla
language, bakla loses its negative meanings and is instead used to bond and cultivate
friendships.
Matrix 3: Multipurpose metacommunicative tool

Bakla / Bading Multipurpose Depending on the Trash-talk: In-game
Trash-talk metacommunicative meanings and nagagamit ko ‘yon
Stupid tool interpretations given as a trash-talk kasi
cul…culture na kasi
Emotion to it by senders and sa amin di ba?
Rage / Anger receivers (both Ayon…ginagamit ko
Joke / It’s just a joke intended and kasi trash-talker
Kahit bakla magaling uintended), bakla ako..
Si bakla! / Baklang labels fulfill different
Emotive response:
‘to / Bakla Bakla ka functions that can May…time talaga na
talaga! include trash-talking, madadala ka
Negative emotive response, kasi...‘may time na
Positive feeling joke, microinsults and madadala ka sa
backhanded trash-talk-an, then
mababanggit mo
compliments, and ‘yong word na ‘yon
pro-bakla language. (referring to
bakla/bading),
parang ano na rin
dahil sa rage mo
‘ayon...
nayayamot... Galit
doon sa…kunwari
parang hindi niya
na-satisfy ‘yong
sarili niya sa do’n
laro.
Disparagment humor
/ playful humor: Kasi
po pag sa umpisa,
puwede mo lang
sabihin na, ayun,
sabihin po nating
‘bakla’ ah, sa
umpisa, wala lang
yun, joke joke lang
yun.
Micsoinsults /
backhanded
compliments:
tuwang-tuwa 'yung
tatlo kong lalakeng
kaibigan sabi
"Oooh, kahit bakla
'yan ano 'yan
nakaka(inaudible)"
Ayun nakakalift up
pero parang may
ano sa 'kin, "Anong
kahit bakla?" I
mean bakit "kahit
bakla"? ganun.
Parang sinasabi mo
na ang bakla
nanggaling sa
negative na ano.
Bakit may 'kahit'?
Pwede namang
sabihing “Yan
bakla 'yan, ano,
ang galing n'yan!"
Pro-bakla: Parang
may mga kalaro rin
po akong sabi ‘ang
ganda ng taste mo,
bakla ka talaga’
parang ganun
po...’ang ganda ng
taste mo, bakla ka
talaga’ pero parang
ang dating non, is
parang, positive
kasi nasabi ang
ganda ng taste mo
‘bakla ka talaga’
pertaining na
maganda yung taste
ng mga bakla...I like
the way it felt nung
tinawag na, ‘Wow,
si bakla!’ para sa
'kin ah. Personally
speaking, I think that
people have this
stereotype of gay
people na parang
meticulous sila
4. How do heterosexual male gamers and bakla gamers interpret homosexual-
themed utterances?
Nonverbal cues that aid in interpreting homosexual-themed utterances
How do these gamers distinguish the offensive from the playful? What would
signal that an utterance or speech act should be interpreted as hostile or harmless?
Participants’ answers indicated that they rely on a set of nonverbal cues, particularly
tone and manner of delivery of the utterance and body gestures. Along with nonverbal
cues, participants also mentioned the importance of context and relational factors in
interpreting homosexual-themed utterances.
Prosody: tone and manner of delivery
When asked what would distinguish a serious utterance from a non-serious one,
majority of the participants identified prosodic features such as tone, intensity, and
loudness as interpretational clues:
FK: Ah, first, syempre po sa tone...sa tone...sa tone...and how...pag deli...sa

pag deliver niya, tapos, facial expressions of course, tapos aaaah, yung
pag diin mismo sa ‘bakla,’ pag masyadong madiin, talagang sarcastic na...
parang, parang po kasi pag positive, "Bakla, tara na," [vocalizes example of
friendly tone] tapos kapag nasa negative, "Ano ba yan, bakla, ang bobo mo
naman," [vocalizes example of hostile tone] parang ganun, alam niyo po 'yung
ano...
For FK, the tone used by speakers is a major clue in interpreting homosexual-
themed utterances. FK believes that putting emphasis on the word bakla as opposed to
just saying it casually and without any special emphasis on the bakla label is what
separates a negative utterance from a friendly one. MIB expressed a similar position:
MIB: 'Yun 'yung talagang nakakainis kasi 'yung way pa ng pagkakasabi

niya nun ng bading is depende pa 'yan sa module ng voice mo o kung
pa'no mo pa s'ya sinasabi. Kasi may tono na gan'to "Uy, bading!" [casual
tone of voice] pero meron ding tono ng word na bading or bakla na
talagang nakakapagpababa ng self-worth.
E: Can you demonstrate to us, or to me, kung ano 'yung example ng

nakakapag...
MIB: Nakakapagpababa? "Bakla!" [puts strong emphasis on the word bakla]

something like that, they crush it to you, isasampal nila sa 'yo na ganito ka,
that, 'yung talagang alam mo na meron silang will, meron silang intention
na saktan ka kaya nila sinasabi 'yun sa 'yo.
VL, in a separate interview, concurred:
VL: Uhm ano po medyo ‘yon nga, normal tone na ng boses na medyo…parang
may halo na ng emotions na galit, parang “puta” parang gano’n, parang may
ano na, may bigat na po... pag magkakasama kayo so ‘yon nga po minsan
pagpasigaw na tapos ano may tono ng galit na po. ‘Yon na talaga parang
hindi na po tama.
For MIB and VL, a casual or neutral tone usually absolves homosexual-themed
utterances of aggressive meanings. On the other hand, shouting and angrily verbalizing
the word bakla can lead to hostile interpretations. Infromant RJV also believes in the
importance of tone in interpreting homosexual-themed communication, though he only
puts this second to context:
RJV: Second is 'yung tone, uhm, kapag halimbawa, "Bakla kasi eh!"
[demonstrated hostile tone] parang "Nabakla ka nanaman eh!" nandun
'yung parang malalaman mo if they're trying to insult you or they're trying
to give a negative meaning sa word na 'yun.
Informant JMA also believe that tone and manner of delivery reveal a lot about
the possible meaning of homosexual-themed utterances:
E: Uhm ‘yong sa ano sa uh pag interpret mo no’ng uh terms na bakla and

bading whenever you hear it. Ano ‘yong – ano ‘yong usually yung clues and
cues na hinahanap mo bago mo iinterpret ‘yong ano – ‘yong uh term na bakla
and bading na naririnig mo. Ano ‘yong usually pinagbabasehan mo for this one?
JMA: Sa ano…sa tono ng boses nila pag may times na parang galit na ‘‘yong
boses...‘Yong sa manner, ‘yong tono, kung sa salitaan – ‘yong tono tsaka
kung may gigil na do’n sa salita niya. Do’n ko na malalaman na negative
na ‘to uh another thing is ‘yong pag da – pagdagdag ng mura...no’ng foul
world – uh foul words. Do’n yon. Isa rin yon. ‘Yong sa situation naman pag
nasa mainit na sitwasyon or tension sa laro, may tendencies na though uh – uh
– uh assume lang naman ‘to pero pag parang may part sakin na pag nagfail ako
sa ganitong critical situation. May tendencies naman na magamit ‘yong word
na bakla and bading in a negative way against sa akin or kahit sino sa
team.
E: Uh-hmm [agrees] kaya mo ba i-demonstrate kung – kung how it would sound

like kung – kung galit na ‘yong…tapos negative pa?
JMA: “Bakla, ano ba?” [sounds off the utterance] ‘‘Yong parang gano’n
‘yong, parang uh nanggigigil tapos maririnig mo na ‘yong gano’ng term, tapos
susundan ng mura, tapos uulit-ulitin. Parang do’n siya nagiging negative eh,
tapos ‘yong – ‘yong uh gestures tapos ‘yong—
E: Parang ‘yong gestures?
JMA: ‘Yong parang may pagdabog na, parang pag umabot na sa gano’ng
point nagiging negative na ‘yong term na bakla.
So, how do individualized tones and the manner by which homosexual-themed
utterances are said shape interpretation? What does loudness and stress have to do
with interpretations of homosexual-themed utterances?
Scott (2016) holds that our word choices, the way we choose to arrange them,
and even the way we say what we say (manner of delivery, intonation, register)
contribute to how speakers and hearers experience the reality of what is being said. As
many could probably relate, there are plenty of daily situations where a speaker says
something (X) and expresses something completely different (Y) from what is verbally
articulated after some prosodic modulation during the oral production of an utterance
changes its meaning. The same is true in situations when a speaker says X but the
audience hears Y. Indeed, it is accepted wisdom in communication (as well as in other
fields) that the way things are said contributes to the interpretation of utterances
(House, 2006) and is a rich source of information in interpersonal communication
(Pisanski & Bryant, 2019). The well-cited work of Argyle et al. (1971) argued that
nonverbal signals such as gestures, eye-movement, and intonation, among others, are
more effective in communicating negative and positive affect in interpersonal
interactions. These nonverbal signals help in communicating emotions, interpersonal
attitudes, self-presentation, and feedback. Argyle et al. contended that there are innate
and culturally universal patterns of communication and recognition of cues that allow
humans to distinguish between positive and negetive affect intuitively. Work on

impoliteness, most notably by Culeper (2011), makes similar assertions concerning
prosody – that it plays crucial role in triggering evaluations on the politeness or
impoliteness of an utterance and disambiguating messages. In absence of
suprasegmental information (tone, intensity, pitch, etc.), communicators will be hard-
pressed in assigning value to an utterance (Navarro & Nebot, 2014). Pejoration
scholars Sendlmeier, Steffen, & Bartels (2018) shared a similar view, stating that even
in everyday conversations ‘with neutral semantics, listeners are capable of perceiving a
speaker’s positive or pejorative attitude on the content of an utterance through voice
and manner of speaking.’ Likewise, Wharton (2012) argued that prosodic elements
such as intonation and stress contribute ‘natural’ and linguistic inputs to what we say
and these affect how our utterances are understood and interpreted. When coupled
with linguistic elements, intonation and intensity can create impressions and change the
salience of available interpretations for an utterance. Bianchi (2014), in her study of
slurs and reappropriation, highlighted the importance of tonal and kinesic elements in
interpreting slurs. As Bianchi observed, offensive terms like ‘faggot’, which is common
in in-group talk and derogation, requires an explicit expression of contempt such as a
contemptuous facial expression, gesture, tone of voice or some other paralinguistic
element for it to be truly offensive and derogatory. In line with the importance of
paralinguistic cues, prominent nonverbal communication scholar Judee Burgoon et al.
(2016) also stated that even without the use of words, the human voice remains a
powerful instrument in communicating without the use of words. Through voice alone,
Burgoon et al. argued that we can coomunicate a multitude of things including emotions
(emotional tone and states) and social attitudes. Oberda (2015), in a study of the effects
of tone of speech and its impacts on interpersonal relationships, follows this notion,
stating that the tone of voice we adopt conveys a host of different emotions such as
anger, sadness, and happiness. Furthermore, the coupling of specific emotional tones
with verbal utterances can be indicative of the speaker’s attitude relative to whatever
phenomenon is the subject of his or her speech. Depending on one’s tone of voice,
simple statements like ‘Okay lang ako’ / ‘I’m fine’ can be construed as a truthful
expression of a person’s internal state, a nonchalant admittance of one’s feeling or a
complete disassociation from the proposition of what is being said (i.e. communicating
the opposite of what our words are saying) (Wharton, 2012). This was certainly the
case in one experience VL shared wherein he and his teammates (including participant
RM) were teasing their gay teammate ‘Kyle’. After a moment of intense teasing, VL
asked Kyle if he was upset with them. Kyle responded with the standard ‘Okay lang’ /
‘I’m fine’, but did not participate in subsequent matches with the team that day. Despite
his declartion of being okay, VL knew that he was not and that it could have been
because their teasing got to him.
Some of the participants also pointed to a speaker’s manner of delivery,
particularly loudness and intensity, as important cues in interpreting homosexualy-
themed utterances. For instance, in an interview excerpt found in the previous section,
informant VL said that though shouting is inevitable when playing, shouting
homosexual-themed utterances with an angry tone hits different compared to normal
shouting.
Like intonation, loudness is another important prosodic feature that can shape
the meaning and interpretations of an utterance (Sbattella et al., 2014). According to
Ishi & Kanda (2019), loud speech is present in many types of intnetional, attitudinal, and
emotional expressions in spoken interactions. That is because volume and tempo are
important in conveying meaning. Likewise, they are also important when we are trying
to unpack meanings of spoken utterances, especially those that come with emotional
baggages (Burgoon et al., 2016). Burgoon and colleagues found that hostility and
contempt are usually communicated using loud voices while empathic and affiliative
messages that containt supportive emotions are usually conveyed using soft voices.
Similarly, but in a different collaborative research work, Ishi & Kanda (2019) also noted
that it is normal to raise one’s voice when extremely angry, behaving aggressively,
and/or deliberately communicating offense. In their analyses of prosodic and voice
quality of offensive speech, both researchers also found that ‘aggressive utterances
were generally found to be expressed louder, with higher pitch, and with a tenser voice
quality.’
Even though loud voice and high pitch have been consistently associated by
participants with aggressive / hostile speech and intent, it is important to note that there
are plenty of other situations when ostensibly aggressive utterances are delivered with
high-pitched, loud voice that are not genuine displays hostility. For instance, it is not
uncommon to hear gamers shouting in excitement without being hostile. In fact, in many
instances, their shouting can be associated to more positive emotions and intent such
as expressing elation, exhiliration or shouting out commands to team members. In
these situations, even screaming “Bakla!” will not automatically render the utterance
offensive, especially within the right context. This brings us to the next interpretational
cue tied to prosody: context.
Context, communicator relationship, and group norms
Along with prosodic elements, a couple of participants also identified or alluded
to the importance of context in the interpretation of homosexual-themed utterances. In
one interview, informant RM said that a negative interpretation might arise if a speaker
uses a derogatory tone and if hearers are not aware of the context surrounding the
utterance. In RM’s words:

RM: Pwede rin ano…pwede magiging negative siya kasi kapag narinig ng
ibang tao na hindi aware sa context no’n. Ang magiging definition nila ng
bakla is magiging negative kasi ang pinopor – ineexecute ko ng…’yong
tono ko ng “hoy bakla ka” is in negative way. So, magiiba ‘yong
definition…parang magbibigay ako ng definition ng bakla is for negative.
When asked about what factors might be involved in the negative interpretation
of homosexual-themed utterances, participant RJV cited context as being most
important:
RJV: I think, the biggest give kumabaga is 'yung context talaga, kung
bakit... bakit mo siya tatawagin nun. I think 'yun 'yung biggest hint kung bad
ba or maganda 'yung... halimbawa na-wipe kayo sa team because of a mistake
you made then tinawag kang 'bakla' I think that would be... 'yun 'yung pinaka-tell
na this is-this is an insult, it's definitely an insult.
Several scholars have highlighted or mentioned the importance of context in the
judgment, evaluation, and interpretation of utterances, particularly derogatory language.
According to Arndt & Janney (1987) utterances only become meaningful and
interpretable when verbal elements, prosodic features, and kinesic actions are taken
within context. Similarly, Couper-Kuhlen (2015) asserted that without context, linguistic
signs could not be fully interpreted. Likewise, in a paper that explored the importance of
prosodic components in the expression of linguistic im/politeness, Caballero et al.
(2018) concluded that contextual cues interact with prosody in communicating and
signaling im/politeness. In other words, the interaction of prosody, gestural information,
and context all create meaning in communiction. Other authors like Navarro & Nebot
(2014) emphasized the importance of context as well. The researchers argued that
although prosodic features function as markers of some extra meaning that may not be
immediately obvious, ‘the final meaning of an utterance cannot be recovered
independently from its context.’ In their study of slurs, roles, and power, Popa-Wyatt &
Wyatt (2018) argued that the offensiveness (or non-offensiveness) of a slur vary
depending on how a slur word is used, who’s using it, and in what context. In situations
where slurs are used, tone, relational familiarity between interlocutors, and context all
play a part in triggering or not triggering offense from audience members. Thus, the
utterance of ‘Bakla!’ or ‘Bading!’ may not be automatically offensive or derogatory.
Rather, its ‘derogatory content is only conveyed in context’ (Bianchi, 2014). In a study
very similar to this, McCormack et al. (2016) also noted the importance of context in the
interpretation of homosexual-themed language so much so that they included context in
their intent-context-effect matrix for understanding homosexual-themed language.
McCormack (2011), in an earlier work, argued that expressions that use the word ‘gay’
(i.e. that’s so gay) are not inherently homophobic. Instead, McCormack insisted that
these kinds of epxressions only become homophobic with reference to the speaker’s
intent, the utterance’s effect on its target and other co-present, and the context
surrounding the utterance. Only when taking intent, context, and effect together can one
say that homosexually-themed language is homophobic or not. McCormack’s
arguments are supported by answers from his participants in preceding and subsequent
studies. In their 2016 study, McCormack and colleagues (2016) found that most of their
participants identified context along with intent as important factors in determining
homophobic connotations in homosexually-themed language. Non-homophobic
contexts included friendly joking banters, daily conversations between friends, and
other situations that are marked by affective exhchanges.
Speaking of friendships, several participants also mentioned the importance of
relational familiarity in interpreting homosexual-themed utterances:
MVL (bakla): ...for me po important yung mayroon kanang nabuild-up na

relationship doon sa taong nagsasabi noon [referring to homosexual-
themed uttreance] para maintindihan mo siya... Pero, yung relationship nga
kunwari nagsabi siya ng ganon [referring to homosexual-themed utterance]
pero kilala mo siya as a person na laging nagmumura, maiinterpret mo na ‘ay,
baka normal lang sakanya ‘yon.’ So, parang wala namang siyang
sinasabing masama...mas okay kapag galing sa kaibigan kasi as I said
kanina po, parang ano eh, may connection kana doon sa tao eh, so you
have better understanding sa tao. Kaya lang siya nagiging mas masakit
kapag sobrang hindi na reasonable.
Participant RO shared a similar sentiment when asked if meanings and
interpretations of homosexual-themed utterances change depending on the relationship
of the speakers:
RO: Oo. Syempre sir...wala naman masyadong magsasabi sayo ng gano’n

kapag hindi mo masyado close kasi isipin niya magagalit ka talaga o bigla
mo siyang sapakin.
For informant RJV, being called bakla is fine so long as it is his friends calling
him:
RJV: Uh pero siguro din sa degree kung gaano kayo kaclose. Syempre kung
friends kayo and you use to call each other bakla, halimbawa sir uh tinawag
akong bakla ng tropa ko, that would be fine. Gaguhan lang eh. Uh tapos
tinawag ka ng bakla ng hindi mo kilala. It would totally be different kasi
“bakit ako tinatawag na bakla nito?” So, I think it – the only way na
magkakaroon ng ibang variable is proximity ng relationship niyo.
Bakla informant JMA agreed that relational closeness between speakers make
homosexual-themed utterances acceptable and fosters friendlier interpretations:
JMA (bakla): Kapag ginamit nila ‘yong term na bakla within my circle
parang okay lang kasi ano, alam mo ‘yon, parang pag may closeness ka sa
isang tao, parang we allow things. Parang you let things happen kasi kilala
mo sila. Alam nila ‘yong kwento mo parang open ka sa kanila kaya pag
ginagamit nila ‘yong term na bakla, okay lang as long as hindi siya ginamit as a
reason [to blame something]
When called by strangers and playmates that are not his friends, JMA said that
homosexual-themed utterances can be interpreted as ‘hurtful.’ FK, another bakla
participant also stressed the importance of relational closeness, especially when
dealing and interpreting homosexual-themed utterances:
FK: Parang number one factor ko na okay lang--'pag friend ko siya okay
lang na tawagin niya kong 'bakla'. Actually kahit medyo alam kong ano na
nakakaoffend parang hindi na parang lalo na pag sobrang close ko,
parang, kasi sam--parang kilala na nila ko eh, parang nasa closeness na
rin – number one factor ko po talaga yung closeness ko sa mga tao na
pag-ookay sa'kin na pagtawag na bakla po.
The participants’ answers are consistent with the data provided by participants
of McCormack et al.’s study as far as the importance of context and relationship are
concerned. As seen in previous sections, both straight and bakla participants based
their interpretations on different situational contexts where homosexual-themed
utterances were made. When homosexual-themed utterances are used to express
anger (not plain frustration) or contempt or when they are used to disparage or
derogate the bakla social group / identity, the use of the utterance is interpreted as
hostile, unacceptable, and derogatory. Inversely, within the context of trash-talk,
homosexual-themed utterances were mostly interpreted as harmless expressions that
are usually part of the game. Similarly, within the context of joking, bantering,
conversational humor, homosexual-themed utterances were interpreted as harmless
expressions so long as it is within the playful frame / context. When it comes to
relationship factors, homosexual-themed utterances said within the context of close
friendships are interpreted as harmless and/or playful. Within close friendships, the
danger of face threats is mitigated, thus giving way to greater mutual understanding
between participants. As a result, homosexual-themed jokes and other forms of incivility
(e.g. insulting, verbal jousting, mocking, slurs, impolitness, trash-talking, etc.) are made
safe to the point that they can even facilitate intimacy between the communicators.
From a symbolic interactionist perspective, Goffman (1967) asserted that
communicators who are already on ‘familiar terns’ enjoy greater liberty to trade insults
and joke with another in ‘non-threatening ways’. In such cases, the trading of insults,
jokes, and mockery form part of a ritualistic exchange between familiar interlocutors and
in-groups. Indeed, this apperead to be the case for most, if not all participants.
According to one participant (RM), whenever he and his friends deploy bakla-utterances
during play, there is very little confusion as to what speakers mean since they share the
same meaning and awareness of the emotional subtexts of the utterance: ‘Kasi po
nagkakaintindihan po kami sa, sa pag ginamit ko yun, parehas din yung emotion na
nararamdaman niya kesa sakin.’ Croom’s (2013) study on slurs added further evidence
to Goffman’s observations. According to Croom, interlocutors often operate within the
assumption that their use of slurs and other offensive language pose little face threat.
The mitigation and/or complete abasence of any face threat rests largely on the trust
that has been cultivated between participants through their repeated interaction. As
they continue to interact and build trust, participants also cultivate greater mutual
understanding that makes jokes, insults, and slurs safe for building rapport and
strengthening bonds between communicators. The absence of genuine negative intent
to offend also allows participants to use slurs like bakla and bading in ways that are
affective and prosocial for the group. It should be noted though that friendship and
shared values do not always guarantee that homosexual-themed utterances will always
be interpreted positively. This is evidenced by JJC and MVL who both said that there
have been instances when they found homosexual-themed utterances from play friends
offensive and / or hurtful. During such occasions, it could be argued that the derogatory
connotative meaning of the word bakla and bading supersedes any other hierarchy of
meaning. It is possible that during instances when homosexual-themed utterances by
friends caused offense despite the absence of negative intent and the presence of
familiarity and shared values between speaker and listener, the offended participants
drew from their personal experiences with the word as opposed to mutual expectations
that they should not be offended. As Leopre & Stone (2018) argued, ‘words have
histories’ and the history of slurs are not so innocent. This tacit knowledge of bakla and
bading’s history of disparagement and the labels’ continued use as disparaging remarks
and labels can sometimes override other mediating factors.
Matrix 4: Nonverbal cues that aid in interpreting homosexual-themed utterances

Interpretations of Nonverbal cues More than content, Sa tono ng boses
Bakla / Bading that aid in the interpreting nila pag may
Tone of voice interpreting homosexual-themed times na parang
Way of speaking homosexual- utterances also galit na ‘‘yong
boses...‘Yong sa
Manner of delivery themed utterances depend on non-verbal
manner, ‘yong
Gestures factors, primarily tono, kung sa
Context those that relate to salitaan – ‘yong
Relationship prosody such as tone, tono tsaka kung
between speakers manner of delivery, may gigil na do’n
and loudness. sa salita niya.
Homosexual-themed Do’n ko na
utterances from malalaman na
strangers are negative na ‘to...
interepreted Yung tone, uhm,
kapag
negatively compared
halimbawa,
to utterances from "Bakla kasi eh!"
people who share [demonstrated
relational familiarity hostile tone]
and intimacy. parang "Nabakla
ka nanaman eh!"
nandun 'yung
parang
malalaman mo if
they're trying to
insult you or
they're trying to
give a negative
meaning sa word
na 'yun.
I think, the
biggest give
kumabaga is
'yung context
talaga, kung
bakit... bakit mo
siya tatawagin
nun.
Important yung
mayroon kanang
nabuild-up na
relationship doon
sa taong
nagsasabi noon
[referring to
homosexual-
themed uttrerance]
para maintindihan
mo siya...'Pag
friend ko siya
okay lang na
tawagin niya
kong 'bakla'.
Actually kahit
medyo alam kong
ano na
nakakaoffend
parang hindi na
parang lalo na
pag sobrang close
ko, parang, kasi
sam--parang kilala
na nila ko eh,
parang nasa
closeness na rin
– number one
factor ko po
talaga yung
closeness.
5. What are the different meanings and interpretations constructed by straight
male and gay MOBA gamers for homosexual-themed utterances related to
gaming?
One of the questions I posed in this study dealt with the different possible
meanings and interpretations constructed around homosexual-themed utterances by
straight male and gay gamers while engaged in gameplay. To answer this, I employed
a host of analytical lenses and frameworks that are compatible with the symbolic
interactionist and social constructionist paradigms. While symbolic interactionism
provided the overarching theoretical framework, I also looked at emerging concepts that
complement and expand SI to make sense of the participants’ experiences.

Approaching this question from an SI perspective entails looking at the local
situations where homosexual-themed communication is situated and looking at it from
the participants’ own vantage points. At the same time, it is also imperative to look at
the temporal context of a message as a means of unpacking its meaning, since,
according to Pearce (1999, 2004), ‘the meaning of a message is defined, in part, by its
placement within a sequence of events.’ In essence, meaning emerges from constant
negotiation and renegotiation from what was said before and what is being said in the
course of our day-to-day interactions with different individuals and society as a whole.
That said, in order for us to understand the meanings and interpretations of
homosexual-themed communication in gaming, some retrospective work is necessary.
Following these Meadean and Pearcean notions, I first inquired about the
participants’ history and experiences with the words bakla and bading, a vital jump-off
point for my investigation. Pearce and Pearce (2000) content that ‘dominating social
realities such as class, gender, ideologies, personalities, and so forth’ are constituted
through communication. By interacting with others, we learn the regulative and
constitutive rules of communication and this includes the deployment of curse words,
slurs, slangs, labels, and epithets. SI and sexualities scholar K. Plummer (2002)
espoused a similar view, stating that ‘sexual ideas and identities are shaped through
interactions.’ Thus, analyzing the different social situations and interactions the
participants have had in the past wherein homosexual-themed communication was
observed is crucial for an intimate understanding of how socially constructed meanings
and interpretations for homosexual-themed communication emerged over time.
As this had the potential to call up unpleasant memories, especially for gay
participants, I treaded the topic with utmost discretion.

Bakla: Meanings that arise from social interactions
A core tenet of symbolic interactionism is that meanings are not fixed; they
change over time. Since this study deals with meanings and interpretations that are
constantly changing, I felt it necessary to ask participants to recall their experiences
with homosexual-themed communication to uncover how they constructed meanings for
the labels bakla and bading in the present and ultimately, how they connect it to
gaming. The participants’ accounts revealed that exposure to homosexual-themed
communication occur as early as childhood. The participants’ accounts hinted at
different heirarchies of meaning: content (the gay labels used), speech act (asking,
warning), episode (familial interaction), and relationship (immediate / extended famiy
and peers). During these episodes, the words bakla and bading were used either as a
categorical should not behave; an indirect expression of contempt towards effeminacy
and kabaklaan; and a vehicle for homosuspicion. Take VL’s case as an example:
VL (straight male): Uhm ano po, siyempre nagsimula siya sa parents. Like,
kasi po si papa, sobrang manly. Sabi niya ano, yun po dati, nung mga bata pa
po ako, sabi niya ‘wag ka mag bakla bakla babanatan…’ginaganun niya po
ako. Tapos si mama naman po ngayon sinasabi niya, tinatanong niya pa
rin po hanggang ngayon na, ‘nak, bakla ka?’ ginaganun niya po.
VL’s initiation to homosexual-themed talk was through his parents. By his own
admission, VL described himself as timid and soft during his younger years. Indeed,
during our interview, I could tell that VL talked more softly compared to the other
participants. In the prior experience he described, VL’s ‘very manly’ father threatened
him with physical punishment if he ever caught VL ‘babakla-bakla’ (behaving like a
bakla / behaving like a homosexual). This warning can be seen as an attempt to
preempt VL’s possible degenaration into the less desirable bakla. VL’s mother, on the
other hand, employed the term bakla as a tool to express her homosuspicion. Although
VL did not find his father’s dire warning about the consequences of turning bakla or his
mother’s doubt about his sexuality troubling nor hurtful, he confessed during the
interview that he had to renegotiate what bakla and kabaklaan means when he got into
college.
Another straight male informant, RJV, who grew up in what he candidly
described as a ‘chauvinistic’ family that had ‘boxed’ views of gender roles and
expectations, shared a similar experience:
RJV (straight male): ...when I interact with my macho…very macho titos, kahit
– if you show a sign of ano being feminine being a femini – very ano na
siya very – ang laking big deal na sa –ang laki…ang laking deal na para sa
kanila and pinagsasabihan ka nila. Napapagalitan ka nila pag naging girly
ka gano’n. Kapag umiyak ka, bakit ka umiyak kasi ‘bakla ka ba?'
For RJV, his experience with homosexual-themed communication came in the
form of a rhetorical question ‘bakla ka ba?’. Although this is decidedly less stern
compared to the warning VL received, it nonethelss expressed his uncle’s
homosuspicion – an inkling that someone in the family might be gay.
Gay informant JMA also recounted a similar experience involving his uncles.
Although the content of JMA’s answer bears the same tinge of homosuspicion in the
family like RJV’s, I could tell that JMA was not as fond of the episode. The slight change
in JMA’s tone and pace as he spoke, together with his shift to a more serious demeanor
during the interview indicated to me that he was talking about an experience that had
made him feel uneasy or unsure about himself:
JMA (gay): Uh una kong narinig ‘yong term na bakla or bading no’ng nasa
prov – kasi lumaki ako sa province... and ‘yong time na ‘yon ano na ko
parang softie, malambot na and then ganyan. Tinanong niya ko one time
kung – kung...”oh may ano ka na ba” may…may – tawag nito – ‘may crush ka
na ba?’ ganyan, ‘ano ba crush mo?’... No’ng kasi – tinanong niya ko parang
nakayaka – parang kinakarga niya ko, parang nakayakap siya sa akin tapos
sabi niya, “ano ba bakla ka ba?”... tapos di ako nakasagot, tapos no’ng
bumitaw ako sa kanya parang – parang nag mock siya sa tito kong isa na
parang ‘ay wala to’, parang ganyan, ‘patay tayo jan, bakla ata!’
Mead (1977) believed that the individual does not exist independent of society;
we are not separate from society. As such, we learn from a very young age how to view
ourselves relative to the messages we exchange from members of our immediate
community (family, neighborhood, schools, playgroups, etc.). Our interactions with
parents, teachers, peers, and other actors contribute tremendously to our ideas of ‘the
sexual’ and what is acceptable / unacceptable sexuality (Connell and Elliott, 2009). It is
also through these interactions that we learn, enact, and reenact sexual scripts or how
to do sexuality.
VL, RJV, and JMA’s statements also demonstrated what could be considered
gender socialization. Although not the focus of the study, gender socialization cannot be
so trivialized nor overlooked if we wish to understand how the participants developed
the meanings and interpretations they have for gay labels bakla and bading. In ‘Sexual
Behavior as Symbolic Interaction’, Gecas and Libby (1976) pointed out that the process
of being socialized into sexuality begins as soon as we leave the womb, with parents
responding differently to sons and to daughters. This is followed by the development of
patterns of behavior that are deemed consistent with one’s gender identity, long before
we even understand what appropriate sexual behavior is. Similarly, research in gender
psychoanalysis also suggests that gender socialization significantly affects the
development of people’s gender attitudes and behaviors. During these stages, boys
and girls are exposed to different messages (both implicit and explicit) about sexuality
and gender. In relation to this, Swearer et al., (2008) said that boys have shown greater
sensitivity to social and cultural messages about gender-normative behaviors for men
and are more prone to harsher reactions from other boys and girls whenever they would
demonstrate gender atypical behavior like (ex. running like a girl). Furthermore, it has
also been shown that ‘gender lessons can remain intact for college-age males who may
express hostility toward LGB people (or those perceived to be LGB) as a part of the
gender policing that occurs among men to establish and maintain rigid gender
boundaries and to punish deviant gender expression’ (Franklin, 2000; Harris, 2008;
Harris & Edwards, 2010; Kimmel, 2010; Schope & Eliason, 2000). A typical Filipino
example of such ‘lessons’ would be warnings to boys not to be feeble or clumsy which
was very much the case for VL (‘huwag kang lalampa-lampa’ / ‘huwag duduwag-duwag’
/ ‘huwag kang babakla-bakla’) as these traits are perceived to be ‘unmasculine.’ In
instances similar to VL’s experience, older males impress upon younger ones the
undesirability of being bakla – something that has to be avoided at all cost (Pascoe,
2007). Studies suggest that male students draw on beliefs they have been conditioned
to in defining masculinity and the things to avoid to maintain their masculinity such as
being gay or effeminate (Woodford et al., 2013). In essence, boys can become anything
they want, just not bakla. From here, we can surmise that the content bakla and the
speech acts of warning, asking, and admonishing all fit within the larger contexts of
episode (conversations about gender) and relationship (familial relationsips).
In addition to messages centered on gender-normative behaviors, sex-based
expectations for boys’ and girls’ abilities are also communicated during children’s early
years as seen in the interview excerpt with participant JMA. Related studies have
shown that parents of elementary school–age boys held higher expectations and
estimations of competence in comparison with parents of girls. Levels of allowable
emotional display are also emphasized in gender socialization (ex. ‘Bakit ka umiiyak?
Bakla ka ba?) (Garcia & De Guzman, 2017), similar to what RJV had experienced.
When the participants were asked about the meanings and interpretations they have
ascribed to bakla and bading in a broader sense, many drew from how these labels
were used on them and around them by significant others at different episodes.
On the other hand, some participants’ earliest experiences with homosexual-
themed communication were during episodes of peer talk with classmates and friends.
Such was the case with RM:
RM (straight male): Naririnig ko lang rin po, sa mga gumagamit [inaudible]….

Ah sabihin po nating nung bata pa po ako sabihin nating mga kaklase ko,
kaibigan din...
Gay informant MVL recounted a similar episode during his childhood:
MVL (gay): uhm buong ano ko po yun elementary po ako nun na 'pag
naririnig ko po siya... uhmm bata pa po ata ako nun kasi-- kasi medyo
malambot na po ang galaw ko dati nung bata po ako so siguro po sa mga
kaklase ko po ata.
In the extracts above, RM and MVL drew from their earliest encounters with gay
labels. According to D. Plummer (2001), homophobic terms enter people’s vocabularies
as early as primary school. Although words like bakla and bading are not yet loaded
with sexual connotations at this stage, he argued that they are far from being
indiscriminate utterances of derision. Rather, homophobic terms draw on ‘a complex
array of meanings that are precisely mapped in peer cultures and boys quickly learn to
avoid homophobia and to use it decisively and with great impact against others’ (D.
Plummer, 2001) More often than not, the broad range of meaning they invoke include
being timid, acting like a girl, not conforming to peer expectations, and being too smart.
D. Plummer concluded that these meanings change as boys mature. For gay informant
JJC, an incident during 6th grade proved to be a turning point:
JJC (gay): Siguro sir, no’ng ano, grade 6, ‘yon. Kasi ano ako no’n, parang top
student, so syempre, bida-bida, ganon, bida-bida ako—aminin ko naman.
Tapos, may sunod sa’kin, parang ano, maldita, as in attitude talaga. Ayon,
tinawag nya akong ano, ‘bakla.’ ‘Bakla ka kasi, kaya ka ganyan,’ ganon-
ganon. Umiyak ako, kasi, ayon yung mga time na ‘di ko pa tanggap na bakla
ako. Pero ayon na yung naaalala kong unang-unang-una na nasabihan ako
nang ‘bakla’ directly.
Contrasting RM’s disinterested retelling of his experience and MVL’s pensive
recollection, JJC’s carried emotional weight. During the interview, there was a
noticeable change in JJC’s demeanor and tone. I also noticed that his responses were
marked by short pauses in between sentences. He also looked like he was about to
tear up. These nonverbal hinted that the experience of being labeled bakla had been
emotionally upsetting for him. Although JJC did not speculate as to the intention of his
classmate, his response (crying) to the act of labeling indicated that he understood the
undercurrents of the utterance. What made JJC’s experience more aggravating was the
fact that he had not yet publicly disclosed his kabaklaan during that time.
Gay informant MIB also went through a similar phase, though he was more
forthcoming with his experience. Much like JJC, peers had also labeled informant MIB
bakla. Where it brought a great deal of distress to JJC, MIB responded by
disassociating himself from the label. According to MIB:
MIB (gay): That wasn't me that time and pag sinasabi sa 'kin 'yun (referring to
bakla) I deny it. So that made me, uhm, that hurts me a little kasi it could be
implicated into something that you are not. Uhm, parang for example
sinasabihan ka nila ng bagay na hindi naman nila sure or nasasabihan ka nila
ng mga bagay na hindi naman, uhm, hindi naman nila alam and then ibabato
nila sa 'yo 'yon out of nowhere (parenthetical note mine).
JJC and MIB’s experiences are replicated in JMA’s account of having been
labeled bakla by his peers. In the following extract, JMA shared how the label was used
on him as an identity marker:
JMA (gay): ...during my high school years, mga grade 7 – grade 7 to grade 8,
Sabi ko sa mga – kasi ano na ko eh parang malambot na ko...magaslaw gaslaw
na ko, parang nagi-i-start na magbloom ‘yong kabaklaan ko that time...tinanong
ako no’ng isa kong friend na babae ‘ano itatawag namin sayo? bakla?’ Ang
sabi ko sa kanila ‘ayokong tawagin niyo kong bakla.’ and na-shock sila kasi
syempre, para sa isang kaklase nilang parang all-out tapos hindi – hindi
pumapayag na tawaging bakla...matagal ‘yon hanggang sa umabot ng grade
– hanggang sa maging kaklase ko si…Lao. Parang that time na no’ng grade 10
ako medyo – parang dinidiscover ko na ‘yong sarili ko that time. So, kahit
tawagin akong bakla, okay lang pero no’ng grade 7 to uh half of grade 9
parang ayokong tinatawag ako na bakla.
Looking at JJC, JMA, and MIB’s experiences form a symbolic interactionist
perspective, K. Plummer (1996) explained that society’s reactions to homosexuals and
the homosexual experience are part and parcel: they can never be disentangled. He
argued that homosexuality cannot be understood in isolation or as an intrinsic
experience confined to JJC, MIB, JMA, myself as the bakla researcher, and others who
identify as bakla. Rather, it needs to be seen as an ‘interactive phenomenon that is
constantly linked to society’s reactions to it (K. Plummer, 1996). Unfortunately,
reactions are usually unpleasant as K. Plummer explained: ‘the primary attributes of
homosexuality are often derived from its stigmatizing properties.’ This is further
compounded by their advance – or lack thereof – in taking in their homosexual role or
their passage to the status of homosexuality. In the words of Garcia (2017), ‘bakla
represents a painful stigmatizing weapon deployed against gays.’
During the time they experienced gay labeling, JJC, MIB, and JMA have not yet
publicly disclosed their homosexuality. As Carnaghi & Bianchi (2017) explained,
homosexuals who have yet to ‘come out in public’ about their sexual orientation
(‘individuals with low levels of coming-out’) tended to suffer from more anxiety and self-
directed prejudice since they experience the label as a ‘threat to the categorization of
the self’ (Branscombe et al. as cited in Carnaghi & Bianchi, 2017).
The other aspect of the participants’ responses also highlighted the ubiquity of
gay labels in peer-group situations and in academic settings. The use of heterosexist
language, gay labels, homophobic language, and gay-related expressions in peer-
group settings and academic settings has been well documented in Western literature
(see Pascoe, 2007; Burn, 2000; Kimmel, 2003; Messner, 2005; Plummer, 2001).
Pascoe (2007), in her ethnographic study of masculinity and sexuality in an American
high school observed that girls and boys used gay, fag, and faggot as adjectives
consistently to refer to objects and people, regardless of the target’s actual gender. In
instances when gay epithets were used, it was to mark the difference of the target from
the hegemonic male. Although Plummer and Pascoe were describing what was
happening in the Western context, there are parallels that can be observed in the
Philippines. For instance, a Human Rights Watch report published in 2017 claimed that
LGBT students in Philippine schools often become targets of criticism and
discrimination because of their gender. According to Orbo & Camara (2010), there are
different ways discrimination is enacted through the use of communication and
langueage, chief among them are derogatory terms based on gender, race, sexuality,
and disabilities that labeled people in problematic ways. As Dela Cruz (2015) observed:
‘Homophobic slurs are also still heavily used to show disrespect, which also
forces many to stay in the closet or hide their true identities from family and
friends.’
This sexual orientation-based microgaression as described by Woodford et al.
(2013) are examples of commonplace verbal, nonverbal, and environmental aggression
that communicate negative and often hostile messages to target members of a
marginalized group. And although their use may not always be intended to be
derogatory, it may still cultivate an unfriendly school environment.
Supporting Carnaghi & Bianchi’s (2017) conclusions, Silverschanz et al. (2008)
stated that experiencing and witnessing homophobic name-calling – even those
intended to be jokes – result in anxiety among students who may be part of the sexual
minority. In the following extract, JJC confessed his persisting feelings of insecurity and
insignificance whenever he is around guys, so much so that he does not feel
comfortable playing in other cyber cafés except where he currently plays:

JJC (gay): Pag naglalaro ako sa ibang computer shop parang naa-ano ako, na,
parang, nanliliit ako, ganon, sa ibang computer shop... parang, ‘yun nga, bakla
ako, tapos maglalaro ako ng comp… ang ano—unnatural, sa paningin pa
lang, sir. And, ayoko kasi ng tinitignan, sir. Takot ako. Kaya, lalo na pag puro
lalaki.
JJC’s 6th grade encounter left a lasting negative impression, something he
apparently carries to this day. Carnaghi & Bianchi (2017) added that gay men with
higher levels of coming-out experienced higher levels of self-directed homophobia when
exposed to gay epithets (bakla / bading used as insults) as opposed to category labels
(bakla / bading used as descriptions). It also reinforces the stigmatization of the in-
group to (e.g. bakla / bading for a gay man who is already ‘out’).
Thus far, I have explored the experiences of the participants with the gay label
bakla and its variants. The participants’ narratives revealed that from a very young age
they had learned from significant others (i.e. family, close relational ties) and
generalized others (i.e. friends, wider community) what labels like bakla and bading
mean as they also learn what was our culture consider appropriate and fitting behaviour
for each gender. Their responses also showed that most of them have encountered gay
labels – either directly employed against them or used around them – at an early age.
Persons-in-conversation usually included themselves as well as significant others like
their parents, relatives, and peers. Label use from others has become a base for
participants’ formation of meanings and interpretations. As Gecas and Libby (1976)
pointed out, children ‘begin to understand sexual behavior per se, he (she) has been
developing patterns of behavior appropriate to his (her) gender identity in the context of
which his sexual socialization will take place.’ In other words, we learn early on how to
act and perform vis-a-vis our gender identity with reference to the interactions we have
with significant others and generalized other. During this process, girls learn how to be
girls and boys learn how to be boys, which often includes lessons on how not be bakla.
It is also during these episodes that the participants learned of the constitutive rules that
reveal the meaning of gay labels (what does bakla mean?) and regulative rules or rules
of action that pressure us to act in a certain way under specific circumstances (how do I
respond when I encounter the label bakla?).
Matrix 5: Bakla: Meanings that arise from social interactions
Codes Theme Explication In Vivo Codes

Gay Labels Bakla: Meanings The meanings When I interact with
Bakla / Bading that arise from assigned to the words my macho…very
macho titos, kahit –
Personal history social interactions bakla and bading if you show a sign
Childhood arise from social of ano being
experiences interactions. That is, feminine being a
Parents people learn early on femini – very ano
na siya very – ang
Peers / classmates what it means to be laking big deal na
Relatives bakla / bading as they sa –ang laki…ang
Early exposure to are socialized into laking deal na para
gay labels gender roles and sa kanila and
Past interactions ideologies and as pinagsasabihan ka
nila. Napapagalitan
they learn what it ka nila pag naging
means to be girly ka gano’n.
masculine and what it Kapag umiyak ka,
means to be bakit ka umiyak
kasi ”bakla ka ba?”
feminine.
During my high
school years, mga
grade 7...nagi-i-start
na magbloom ‘yong
kabaklaan ko that
time...tinanong ako
no’ng isa kong
friend na babae
‘ano itatawag
namin sayo?
bakla?’
Siguro sir, no’ng ano,

grade 6, ayon,
tinawag nya akong
ano, ‘bakla.’ ‘Bakla
ka kasi, kaya ka
ganyan,’ yung mga
time na ‘di ko pa
tanggap na bakla
ako. Pero ayon na
yung naaalala kong
unang-unang-una
na nasabihan ako
nang ‘bakla’
directly.
Ah sabihin po
nating nung bata
pa po ako sabihin
nating mga kaklase
ko, kaibigan din...
Bakla: Connotative Meanings
The participants’ early experiences with the terms bakla and bading provide vital
clues in understanding of how they constructed meanings and interpretations for those
labels whenever they are used in social situations, including game talk. Across 20
interviews with the 10 participants, a noticeable pattern emerged: the participants kept
drawing from socio-historical meanings associated with the bakla. Valledor – Lukey
(2012), citing one of the earliest studies that sought to provide a ctaegorical description
of the Filipino homosexual (Samson, Cajurat, Castro, Gabriel, & Granada, 1976)
mentioned effeminate behavior and modesty as ‘overt’ signs of kabaklaan. Although it
has been nearly fifty years since the study was conducted, the descriptions Samson et
al. provided still hold sway, something informant VL articulated:
VL (straight male): Uhm...bakla’ po, sa ngayon, para po sakin, parang it’s a

mere definition of a gender na po. Uhm, pag bakla ka po kasi, para, pag
dine-describe mo po yung isang – yung sarili mo or yung isang tao na
‘bakla’ uhm, lalake po siya – dati, or kahit po yung katawan niya pang lalake
pa rin, pero the way she – she or he moves po, medyo feminine na po,
parang mas kina-categorize niya po yung sarili niya na babae. ‘Tas, ang
babae naman po diba, parang alam naman natin na medyo malambot, ganito,
ganyan, yung pinaka stereotype na babae, malambot ganun. Parang yung mga
bakla po, parang, mas gusto po nila yung ginagawa nung...mga gawaing
pangbabae na, yun, mga ganun...
In the extracts above, VL explained the meaning he has constructed around the
label bakla whenever he encounters it in everyday social situations, including

gameplay. For VL, bakla is ‘a mere definition of a gender’ – a category label or a factual
description of a person. Informant RO offered a similar discourse:
RO (straight male): Yung ano po, yung about, nagkakagusto sa guy...Ta's

yung pananamit nila about sa pambabae ta's yon. Kilos babae, ta's lakad
pambabae ta's, yun po.
RO’s answer dwelt on the stereotypical characteristics of the bakla that have
become the hallmark of Filipino homosexual: ‘the effeminate, cross-dressing man
swishing down the streets’ characterized further by a desire for other men (Garcia,
2004).
Gay informant MVL’s answer fell along the same line when he was asked about
the meanings and interpretations he has for bakla and bading, though his answer
leaned more on the identity rather than the characteristics that form part of the identity:
MVL (gay): ...siguro po ngayon na hearing that stuff po mas gusto ko po kasi
yung 'bading' na term kesa sa 'bakla' kasi parang medyo pang-kalye po yung
'bakla' so, parang feeling ko po mas siguro I can in a way po na accept it pa din
siya kasi binibigyan ka na ng ano eh parang may identity ka na.
For gay informant MVL, bakla and bading conveyed a denotative meaning; one
that marked his belongingness to a social group instead of him being some confused
and displaced ‘other’. But more than the designation of an identity, what I found more
interesting was his distinction between bakla and bading. MVL found bading more
acceptable than bakla, citing that the latter sounds ‘pang kalye’ or street slang –
language that is usually associated with people in the lower class. Gay participants JMA
and MIB also hinted at this association between the label bakla and class status. In
separate interviews, both participants recalled instances when they have witnessed
bakla and bading deployed by straight male gamers and attributed its usage to the
actors’ perceived social standing:
JMA (gay): Usually ang customers do’n…mga tambay, mga lalaking dugyutin.
Ayon naririnig ko siya (referring to bakla / bading) almost everytime. Lalo na
pag…dalawang – parang alam mo ‘yong nagkocom – nagkocompete ‘yong
dalawang barangay na ‘tara laro dito’ tapos pag may gano’ng ganap...
nagsisigawan sila. ‘Ayan takbo bakla takbo!’ (parenthetical note mine).
As for informant MIB, this is what he had to say:
MIB (gay): Well, mostly mae-experience mo 'yan sa mga computer shop na...
mura lang. When I say mura lang is, uhm, 10 pesos per hour? And compare mo
dun sa computer shop na pinaglalaruan ko is 25 pesos per hour...pag naglalaro
sa mga ganung klaseng comp shop, ang ingay talaga, and then makakarinig ka
ng kantyawan...
Connotations associated with the sexual vary because of our differences in
exposure to such language, the social positions we occupy, and other social – personal
characteristics like gender. For JMA and MIB, the meaning they constructed around
bakla and bading during those instances had less to do with its connotative meanings
per se and more to do with what that language reflected about its agents. In both cases,
homosexual-themed communication situated in ‘cheap’ cyber cafés signified one’s
social class and background. Another possible explanation comes from the range of
meanings attributed to the word bakla (Benedicto, 2008). For instance, Tan (1995 as
cited in Benedicto), noted how gender and class intersect in the word bakla because of
its enduring association with bakla men (effeminate gay men) proprietors of low-end
beauty salons / beauty parlors in the slums (hence, the baklang parlorista streotype) or
bakla personalities working as comedians. Although Benedicto acknowledged that the
word bakla does evoke the image of tacky beauticians and impersonators, he was not
fully convinced of the bakla’s class content, citing that the association may be the result
of the agent and target’s subjectivities rather than some generalized social construction.
In JMA’s case, his class subjectivity was made apparent by his use of the word tambay
to categorize agents that used gay labels. The word tambay usually evokes the image
of ‘men who are notorious for hanging out in the streets for long hours owing to lack of
formal work; socio-economically, the tambay is often imagined belonging to the lower
class’ (Salazar, 2020) As for MVL’s impression that bading is a nicer term, Benedicto
asserted that bading is actually more insulting compared to bakla as the former
relegated the target to a compounded position of revulsion – that of effeminacy and low
social status.
Taken together, the meanings and interpretations offered by VL, MVL, JMA, and
MIB demonstrate that although category labels like gay (in Western contexts), bakla
and bading may mean what the words are intended to factually describe, they still carry
more than their descriptive content. Indeed, Austin (1962) refuted this positivist notion
that words merely describe and verify the state of things; in his view, words have the
power to produce, construct, and do things such as issuing commands, making
requests, and even changing status, instead of just simply reflecting social reality
(Scott, 2017). Consistent with Austin, Benedicto (2008), stated that words like labels
have a ‘productive power of naming.’ Although ‘labels do not produce subjects per se,
they have the ability to position the labeled within distinct relationships based on
sexuality, gender, and class.’ Similar to Benedicto, Carnaghi & Bianchi (2017) asserted
that although the labels gay, bakla, and bading convey factual information about
someone’s gender or group membership they can still uninterntionally activate
‘stereotypical concepts related to gays’ or bakla with very real consequences for its
targets. Regardless if the intention was to provide descriptive information or to
disparage, Rose (1962) believes that language is rarely ever neutral for so long as it
expresses attitudes and meanings. That is, the words that we use carry denotations
and connotations that ‘place concepts in the value domain’ (Gecas and Libby, 1976).
The participants’ responses certainly invoked bakla-related stereotypes and
culturally developed meanings when they explained what bakla meant to them: men
who are soft, behaved like women, and saw themselves as women. Their responses
also showed that most of the time, the stereotypical concepts and meanings these
labels call forth are the stigmatizing properties of bakla and kabaklaan. It also does not
help that the concept of homosexuality has no non-derogatory Tagalog equivalent
(Benedicto, 2008) thus dooming bakla and bading to call up negative connotations
whenever they are used.
Most of the participants were unaware that they were mining from a quarry of
meanings constructed around bakla that had negotiated from our colonial past and
continues to be renegotiated under different contexts and day-to-day experiences down
to the present. Thus, when the participants drew on meanings such as ‘kilos babae’ or
‘malamya’ or ‘takot,’ they were drawing from a reservoir of meanings that had already
been established in our culture. Moscovici (1984) and Billinh (1996) had pointed out
that cultural ideas and the discourses that flow from the cultures we inhabit shape our
social representations of symbolic objects around us. This points us to the ‘importance
of retrospective explanations and justifications in shaping and constituting social actions
and language’ (Scott, 2017) and the necessity of tracing the origins of the meanings
associated with bakla in order to understand why it means whatever it means now.
According to Quintos (2011), the earliest references to bakla (spelt bacla in the
records) as the effeminate cross-dressing man were from records left by the Spaniards
such as the various vocabularios, diccionarios, confessionarios, and manuals. Quintos
explained that Spanish frays used the term bacla to mark distinctions between the
actions of native Filipino males and the asog (cross-dressing natives). These
distinctions often focused on the asog’s occupations, lifestyle, and clothing. The bacla
as the soft effeminate man can also be seen in The Manners, Customs, and Beliefs of
the Philippine Inhabitants of Long Ago: Being Chapters of A late 16th Century Manila
Manuscript. Historians Quirino & Garcia (1961, as cited in Quintos, 2011) also
commented on how the asog, bayoguin, and binabayi (today’s binabae, another
variation of bakla) looked and behaved so much like real women that it was impossible
to tell them apart. It is safe to assume that the asog’s misleading appearance might
have contributed to the bacla’s definition in the Vocabulario de la Lengua Tagala (1860)
as one of false appearance or false beauty. This will be explored in greater detail later
on. Needless to say, the bacla as the effeminate man is very much alive in present day
Philippines, especially in the stereotypical hyperfeminized depictions of the bakla in
Philippine media. According to Benedicto (2008) the labels bakla and bading ‘connote a
continuum of effeminacy’ that may designate an individual as more bakla (gayer) than
others. Finally, as Tan (2001, as cited in Lacsamana, 2015) put it, ‘one could not be
bakla if he was not effeminate.’
The parade of connotative meanings for bakla continued in the response
offerred RJV:
RJV (straight male): Siguro parang connotation lang when they say, ‘parang
bakla,’...siguro sa tingin nila ang lamya...kasi I think the most times na
natawag akong 'bakla' or when they used to insult me is usually parang
effeminate 'yung gawa, like kapag nagbabasketball kumapos, 'pag bakla kasi
you don't have enough power...or kapag mabilis ka namang umiyak bakla
ka nanaman, kapag -- kapag natakot ka, bakla ka rin...
RJV’s response demonstrated just how much of a bind heterosexual men are in:
show even a hint of femeninity and they may be labeled bakla, bading or both. Exactly
‘who’ classifies as bading is up in the air according to Benedicto (2008), as the bading
and bakla identity is ‘constantly being renegotiated’. Pascoe (2007), was on the same
page, stating that the identity of gay, fag, and faggot is not fixed; it is fluid. Just about
everyone can be labeled gay, fag, and faggot in Western society for whatever reason.
As one informant in Pascoe’s ethnogrpahic study stated:
“What kind of things do guys get called a fag for?” Ben answered, “Anything . .
.literally, anything. Like you were trying to turn a wrench the wrong way, ‘Dude,
you’re a fag.’ Even if a piece of meat drops out of your sandwich, ‘You fag!’ ”
Each time Ben said, “You fag,” his voice deepened as if he were imitating a
more masculine boy. While Ben might rightly feel that a guy could be called a
fag for “anything . . . literally, anything,” there were actually specific behaviors
that, when enacted by most boys, could render them more vulnerable to a
fag epithet (p. 57)
The same can be said in the Philippines. Refuting Tan’s claim that being
effeminate is contingent to being labeled bakla, one does not necessarily have to be an
effeminate homosexual to be called bakla, as demonstrated by RJV’s account. As
Pascoe’s study documented, becoming gay / bakla has less to do one’s actual sexual
preference and identity but more with exhibiting weakness or failure in masculine
endeavors of competence, show of strength, and dominance – essentially everything
DOTA2 and LoL is about.
But apart from being effeminate, the word bakla has a long history of connoting
other things, one of which is duwag / takot / kaduwagan (coward / timorous / cowardice)
As I have observed, duwag emerged as the predominant response when participants
were asked what the labels bakla and bading meant to them:
VL (gay): Pilipino tayo parang natatak na po sa atin na, pag bakla ka

duwag ka, lagi kang nag hehesitate gano’n po ‘yon po…parang ‘yon na rin
po ang na ano sa akin… napasok sa sarili ko. Nasanay na rin.
The meaning VL has constructed for bakla is embedded within the larger
context of cultural archetypes (understandings of speech acts, contracts, episodes, and
life scripts that are shared by a particular social group). Indeed, bakla’s long-standing
affair with being duwag, fearful, and indecisive can be traced back to the usage of the
word bacla in various old documents, primarily in Spanish vocabularios and pasyon.
Citing the Vocabulario de la Lengua Tagala (1860), Quintos (2011) explained that the
word bacla, which is now bakla, had been used to mean either of the following: fear of
an object or a change of mind or interest. These definitions of bacla have certainly

endured as their specters still haunt the modern the word bakla, even in the context of
gaming. The repetitive use of bacla to depict lack of resolve or being weak-willed in the
Passion ni Jesu Christong Panginoon natin na Tola (de Noceda & Sanlucar, 1990 as
cited in Quintos, 2011) was one of the earliest associations of bacla to cowardice and
fear. The word bacla in Jesus Christ’s dialogue in the pasyon, according to Qunitos,
was used to hint at a change of plan and a decision not to push through with what had
originally been intended by Jesus’ apostles. In other words, they hesitated, hence
nabacla. As RM succinctly put it:
RM (straight guy): Yon nga po kapag nagpakita ka ng ano…ng kadugawagan

at lalaki ka. Madalas kong naririnig na kapag nagpakita ka ng kaduwagan
parang sasabihin sayo bakla ka or nababakla ka.
The theme of kaduwagan / duwag in relation to bakla was also referenced by
gay informant FK. In the following extract, FK recalled his experience where the gay
slur jokla (a variation of bakla) was used on him and his interpretation of the slur:
FK (gay): ...takot...siguro yun po. Parang na-attach po kasi yung ‘bakla’ sa

matatakotin, sa mahina, parang ganun. So yun, parang...hindi niya siguro...di
niya siguro inaindentify, as, ahh, I’m a th—third gender, pero sinabi niya
siguro na ‘takot ka ba?’ parang ganun. Siguro yun yung meaning behind that
‘jokla’ po.
Unlike bakla and bading, which can sometimes be ambiguous, I classified jokla
as a slur. Slurs can be understood as words or nouns that denigrates its target on the
basis of their perceived membership in a particular group or identity category. Loaded
descriptivism (Bach, 2018) views slurs as loaded words because ‘their meanings add
the property of implied contemptibility to that of group membership.’ This points us to
one notable feature of slurs: they are used as substitutes to neutral terms that are also
applicable to the people or group they refer to without the negative or stereotypical ‘side
comments.’ FK’s observation that the agent failed to identify him with the ‘third gender,’
plus the added comment on FK’s hesitation all place jokla in the gay slur category.
Informant RM, on the other hand, sees a logical progression from effeminate to
duwag to bakla. He sees the label as a consequence of not being able to adhere to the
masculine standards. In his own words:
RM (straight male): Kas-kasi po kapag sa yon nga po may standard po kasi

tayo sa pagiging lalaki at kapag hindi po natin na-meet ‘yon, ang nagiging
definition po natin ng mga duwag is pagiging feminine po. Tapos kung
hindi po natin na-meet ‘yong ano standard na ‘yon…nag uh nagpakita ka
ng feminine side mo as a lalaki uhm parang mahahalintulad ka na…na
bakla.
In the extract above, RM was talked about the pressure to conform to certain
masculine standards to complete or solidify men’s masculinities. Failure to live up to
these standards carries with it the punishment of being identified or labeled gay.
Informant FJ also referenced one’s pagkalalake (manliness):
FJ (straight male): Madadamay rin ‘yong salitang gay as duwag or…or inco
– parang di talaga buo ‘yong…parang manliness mo.
This is better explained by the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic
masculinity, according to Connell (1995 as cited in Schelfhout et al., 2019), is the
practice that legitimizes men’s dominant position in society by subordinating women
and other forms of masculinities including gay masculinities. In this case, being
effeminate and being cowardly are viewed as the polar opposites of being manly and
being brave – hegemonic masculine traits valued in the Philippines. In essence,
hegemonic masculinity functions in part by stipulating a masculine hierarchy that primes
certain types of masculinities and pushes other masculinities to the fringes where gay
and bakla are situated. That said, kabaklaan / ‘gayness in patriarchal ideology, is the
repository of whatever is symbolically expelled from hegemonic masculinity’ (Connell
2005, as cited in Blackburn, 2018). The concept of hegemonic masculinity in relation to
gaming will be explored in the next section. For now, I would like to mention another
point of interest in FJ’s response: his departure from the word bakla and shift to gay. In
the passage above, FJ, like some of the participants, substituted the word bakla with
the word gay, which some may find problematic as the research specifically deals with
the labels bakla and bading. I would, however, argue that in the Philippine context, gay
and bakla have become synonymous – interchangeable even, partly because ‘the word
bakla has been rather uncritically defined as a conflation of the gay man and the
transwoman’ (Inton, 2017). Garcia (2004) sees this as a product of Western
sexualization – our indoctrination to a new sexual order that eroded our native concept
of gender crossing, supplanted by the Western hetero / homo distinctions as well as the
‘kind of class antagonism between the vulgar and the respectable ascriptions and self-
expressions of the bakla and/or gay identity (Garcia, 2014 as cited in Inton, 2017).
Benedicto, on the other hand, sees this as an ‘indication that what has been made
available (the gay White male stereotype) has been found useful or has been made
useful’ because of our view that all things American are markers of ‘wealth, privilege,
and increasing cosmpolitanism.’ Another explanation for this comes from Deleña &
Masalunga (2019):
‘The word gay is used in the United States and may be used to distinguish the
high class Filipino homosexual. The term has become an acceptable Filipino
adaptation of homosexuality in formal academic writing. It can even be used
without the connotations of sexual desire. In contradistinction to the term bakla,
some Filipinos see gay individuals as more desirable, civilized and modern.’
I clarified this with FJ during the interview and his response leaned more toward
the explanation offered by Deleña & Masalunga:
FJ (straight male): Kasi ewan ko…for me…kasi pag sinabi kong gay parang
formal ‘yong dating kaysa sa bakla gano’n. So kung minsan mas nasasabi
ko gay kaysa bakla…‘yon lang. Parang for formali – parang mas formal talaga
pakinggan ‘yong gay sa bakla na side or bading.
That said, I see the interchanging use of gay and bakla / bading at least within
the domain of the participant’s word choices during the interview as a non-issue.
So far, I have explored the predominant meanings associated with bakla and
bading, that being effeminate and duwag. The goal was not to develop taxonomy of
definitions, meanings, and interpretations; rather, the aim was to show how the various
meanings constructed around the labels bakla and bading transformed these labels into
a specific form of linguistic expression that capitalizes on its and its referents’ otherness
(bacla as a nonindigenous term and the bacla as the opposite of macho / lalake) to
demarcate the borders between the masculine and the bakla. This is best captured in
the following extracts of my interviews with gay participants MVL and JJC:
MVL (straight male): ...sakin yung parang kakaiba po kasi siya dati di ba.
parang different kang tao parang... parang di ka part ng society noon. So
kaya parang yun ginagawa nilang term to tell you na ay ano ganun ka kasi
kakaiba ka hindi ka belong dito parang ganun. So parang ngayon po medyo
na na-understand ko na po siya na kaya ka sina-- siguro kaya ka sinasabihan
ng ganun kasi parang hin-- parang alamin ko sa sarili ko na iba talaga ako
na ganun po talaga.
JJC (gay): Bakla as parang… siguro po ‘yung meaning dati ng bakla talaga
sakin… “iba” -- different, ganon. Parang ‘di ma-identify as girl or ganun. Ayon
lang yung meaning sa’kin, parang pag nakarinig agad ako “bakla” tapos directly
sa’kin, masakit talaga. ‘yun lang, sir.
The responses discussed in this section show what many interactionists and
social constructivists consider an ontological truth: our relaities are constructed through
constant negotiation and renogotiation to produce some agreed upon meanings for
objects, situations, events, etc. The modern day bakla, preceded by the bacla,
represented as timid, effeminate, timorous, confused, and lecherous among other
things are ‘'manifestations of discourses, outcrops of represenations of events upon the
terrain of social life,’ flowing from our discursive culture instead of our private
experiences (Burr, 2003). From these meanings, the symbolic representation of bakla
as the antithesis to Filipino masculinity emerged. The participants’ answers all pointed –
taciltly and/or explicitly – to the bakla’s opposition to the heteronormative and the
hegemonic masculine. The bakla discourse and the portrait (or caricature) it has given
us thus far underscored how the bakla differed from his heterosexual counterpart. The
demonization of our native gender-crossing practices by colonial powers, the added
confusion brought by the introduction of American ‘psychosexual logic,’ and the dubious
association of the bakla to the western concept of homosexuality have all rednered the
bakla as a symbolic deviant ‘at the bottom of a gender hierarchy amongst men’
(Connell, 1995).
Matrix 6: Bakla: Connotative Meanings

Effeminate Bakla: Connotative The labels bakla and Uhm, pag bakla ka
Duwag (coward / Meanings bading has a rich po kasi, lalake po
siya dati, or kahit po
timorous) history of connotative yung katawan niya
Takot (afraid) meanings that often pang lalake pa rin,
Malamya (soft) draw from pero the way she –
Indecisive stereotypes and she or he moves po,
medyo feminine na
Weak stigmatizing traits po.
associated with the
bakla. These Pilipino tayo parang
connotative meanings natatak na po sa atin
continue to shape na, pag bakla ka
duwag ka, lagi kang
how these words are nag hehesitate
used and the gano’n po
meanings assigned to
them even in the Bakla, sa tingin nila
ang lamya...kasi I
context of gaming. think the most times
na natawag akong
'bakla' or when they
used to insult me is
usually parang
effeminate..pag
bakla kasi you don't
have enough
power...or kapag
mabilis ka namang
umiyak bakla ka
nanaman, kapag
kapag natakot ka,
bakla ka rin...
Bakla: Not Man Enough to play DotA2 and LoL
Symbolic interctionism holds that ‘all social phenomena are symbolic—that is,
objects, events, and actions always hold meanings for different individuals’ (Prasad,
2017). That said, what meanings do homosexual-themed communication hold for the
participants? More importantly, what does it mean to be bakla in the context of play?
The participants’ answers echoed the responses they have shared in the previous
section; they continued to invoke duwag / kaduwagan (cowardice), lack of resolve, and
hesitation in constructing meanings for the labels bakla and bading as can be observed
in the following extracts from participants RM, VL, and RO:
RM (straight): sa gaming context, kapag ah, sa time ng susugod na, parang

nag babackout ka...kapag hindi nag-eengage sa laro or sa clash, kapag
may time na hindi niya – hindi niya grinab yong opportunity na gumawa ng set
or uhm mag engage nga. So ‘yon, pwede natin siyang idescribe na bakla siya.
Participant VL echoed a similar view:
VL (straight): ...sa tingin ko po ang ibig sabihin nila is yung medyo takot mag
go or mag in, like lagi pong nag he-hesitate. Tapos, parang hindi po sure
sa mga ginagawa nila...parang kunyari, need na po namin ng ano, ng mag
contest ng objectives – push – tapos parang ano ‘teka lang farm muna ‘ko / farm
lang ako...’ ganun, parang ‘ano ba tong baklang ‘to, ayaw sumama samin’
parang, yun po, parang...masyado siyang takot makipag ano sa kalaban
Participant RO’s answer was also consistent with that of other straight male
participants:
RO (straight): bakla, ganon, duwag kasi 'di pumapasok sa clash, ganon,

takot. More on, more on yung pambaklang takot...duwag kasi hindi siya
masyadong pumapasok do'n sa clash kahit 'di siya gay.
To make sense of these responses, it is important to look at common themes
that emerged from their answers and the different underlying concepts underneath their
responses such as our understandings of gender with reference to gender traits and
performances, masculinities, combat in gaming, and how they all relate to the use of
gay labels in gaming.
One of the ways Filipinos understand gender is by associating certain traits with
gender. Valledor-Lukey (2012), in her study of Filipino gender constructs, asserted that
masculinity and femeninity constructs were defined by negative (socially undersirable)
and positive (socially desirable) trait factors. Negative trait factors associated with
femeninity included being weak, slow to move, difficult to convince, being a loner, and
being timid. Inversely, socially desirable masculine traits identified were being strong,
brave, dominant, shrewd (madiskarte), clever (mautak), and having affinity for others
(mapagkapwa). Negative traits associated with feminity and the opposites of socially
desirable masculine traits that may not necessarily be the identified negative masculine
traits were also the same characteristics identified by Samson et al. (1976) that are
markers of Filipino homosexuality. That said, a man who fails to conform to the
masculine gender trait strereotypes or a man who displays the either positive or
negative feminine gender traits is at risk of being labeled bakla, regardless of his actual
sexual orientation (Valledor – Lukey, 2012). This is consistent with Tan’s (2001)
observation regarding the representation of Filipino homosexuality which operates by
inverting masculine mannerisms with feminine ways. Our understanding of gender also
produces scripts that confine both men and women to certain gender roles and
streotypes. For instance, in the Filipino streotyped view of femeninity, women can only
achieve self-fulfillment and complete womanhood through marriage and motherhood
(Rojas-Aleta et al. 1977, as cited in Vadellor – Lukey, 2012). In the case of men, these
scripts confine men to certain patterns of behavior that evolve into habits and
performances that define their masculinity (Niemi, 2014) such as aggression, stoicism,
shows of dominance, competitiveness, and so forth.
In addition to our socio-cultural constructions of gender and gender traits, Judith
Butler’s (2008) concept of performativity is another useful conceptual frame. According
to Bulter, gender is doing; it is a series of performances that signify one’s gender when
understood in the context of ‘a set of meanings already socially established’ (Butler,

2008 as cited in Healey, 2016). Taking the Butlerian concept of performativity and
Vadellor – Lukey’s gender trait inventory and applying it to femeninity, the result is the
expectation for the caring and nurturing woman to participate in activities that are coded
as feminine such as playing dress-up and engaging in domestic work in the private
sphere. Applying the same logic to masculinity, Filipino masculinity carries connotations
and expecations of strength that usually expressed by being able to endure, aggressive
displays, assertiveness, and dominance (Rubio & Green, 2011). Unlike the private
domestic sphere within wherein femeninity is confined, Filipino masculinity often
operates in the public spheres of war, work, politics, trade, and sports. Apart from these
traditional domains, masculinity is also something that is performed and proved within
and around the context of play, which has become a ‘proving grounds for hegemonizing
performances of masculinity’ (Healey, 2016). Players’ masculinities are constantly being
tested and verified not only within the digital domains of play but also in the collective
‘digital imaginary’ espoused by Burrill (2008) or the tanglible spaces where these
games are played (ex. video arcades, cyber cafés, e-Sports events) and the broader
cultural spaces appropriated for the playing of games. Gaming hisotry tells us this
much. For instance, the game arcade culture of the 80s – 90s was an offshoot of bars
and pool halls that have been predominantly masculine spaces where adolescent
young men congreate. Within these spaces, men are seen as the natives while women
are almost always treated as observers and on rare occasions, unusual participants
(Cotes, 2016). Similarly, works by Taylor et al. (2014), Witkowski (2013), and Schelfout
et al. (2019) have also documented how the public and semi – public spaces of cyber
cafés, LAN gaming, and e-Sports tournaments continue to privilege ‘straight, cis-male
bodies’ (Taylor & Hammond, 2018) and keep women and non-binary people at the
periphery.
Like Burrill, Taylor & Voorhees (2018) advanced a similar but much broader
concept and argued that games like DotA2 and LoL let its participants perform, and
more importantly, constitute themselves as masculine subjects in what they
conceptualized as the ‘masculinity/media apparatus’. Both the digital imgaginary and
the apparatus ‘provide material and institutional conditions for masculine subjects to be
shaped/shape themselves’ (Taylor & Voorhees, 2018) and produce masculinities that
are constantly being contested, subject to the repetitive performance of ‘acceptable’
rites and rituals that prove ones’ masculinity (Burrill, 2008).
Research on gaming has consistently constructed gaming as a ‘traditionally
masculine pursuit’ and a male space that offers insights on how masculinities operate
(Di Salvo, 2016; Healey, 2016). These research often hold on to the assumption that
specific game genres such as first-person shooter (FPS), real-time strategy (RTS), and,
increasingly, multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) genres are conventionally
masculine (Taylor & Hammond, 2018 as cited in Healey, 2016). Part of the reason why
computer games, particulary the aforementioned genres have become masculine
domains is their strong emphasis on competition. Social competition and the fulfillment
that comes with besting other players are some of the most important aspects of game
play (Vermeulen & Van Looy, 2013) and are strong motivators for male participation
(Hartman & Klimmt 2006). What sets MOBAs apart from games like ‘Tetris’ or ‘Crash
Bandicoot’ is that they are not just competitive; they are violently competitive and are
almost always set against a backdrop of conflict and militaristic activities. Srauy &
Palmer – Mehta (2018) observed that most of the time, the primary mechanic and
backdrop in FPSs and MOBAs is combat / war. They also stressed that the combination
of war, conflict, and aggressive combat as backdrops and a core mechanic of games
creates a strong connotation that FPS, RTS, and MOBA games like DoTA2 and LoL are
masculine territories. For instance, a study conducted by Gray (2003) on gender
inclusive game design found out that the use of violence and confrontation to solve
problems were more appealing to male respondents than they are for females. In
another work, Lin’s (2005), male participants indicated that the violence, which is often
enacted through hacking, slashing, and killing, is what makes MMORPGs (genre similar
to FPS, RTS, and MOBAs) masculine games that discourage female presence. Gray’s
(2003). Although Lin (2005) believes otherwise, the study participants’ views resonate
with many scholars and gamers to this day to the point that it has become an
epistemological foundation in gaming research. In addition to being themes and play
elements, violence, combat, and warfare also transform games like DoTA2 and LoL into
something more engaging and exciting. Without the conflict embedded in the game, it
suddenly becomes a stale and tedious activity (Siitonen, 2014) that fails to sustain the
interest of its core male audience.
Inasmuch as rivalry, combat, and violence sustain masculine interest for games
and serve as foundations for constructing games as male territory, these thematic and
play elements reify the strong ‘cultural conception that violence is a normal expression
of the masculine identity’ (Tucker, 2011). This is heavily emphasized by the primary
objective in MOBAs and that is to pummel your enemies and cause their utter defeat
through aggression, antagonism, and violent combat. MOBAs like DoTA2 and LoL
valorize battle / war and aggression and refinforce the idea that violence is a marker of
masculinity, particularly militarized masculinity (Srauy & Palmer, 2018). Drawing from
socio – historical perspectives, Higate and Hopton (2005) argue that militarism and
masculinity are linked with one another in that the former ‘feeds into ideologies of
masculinity through the eroticization of stoicism, risk taking, and even lethal violence.’
The result is the glamorizing of military actions. Seen through Higate and Hopton’s
argument, retreating from combat even – if it makes tactical sense – ore refusing to
participate in melees altogether are perceived as unmasculine and therefore, bakla.
Indeed, across all of interviews with both straight male and gay participants, they
consistently referred to ‘chickening out’ from a fight as a usual antecedent to being
called bakla and/or bading during gameplay. They also repeatedly linked cowardice,
hesitation, and being fearful to kabaklaan, a trend that continues in the responses
provided by RJV, FK, and FJ:
RJV (straight): Actually nangyari 'to two days ago lang din. Kada last game
merong team fight, tapos ako napansin ko na medyo tagilid yung team fight kasi
ahead 'yung kalaban and they were fighting for an objective. Sabi ko parang
wag magkatuloy-tuloy, pero nagtuloy pa rin sila. So 'yun, nagstart sila,
‘Bakla! Bakla!’ parang ganun. Natakot daw ako.
RJV’s account of this episode of play suggests that at one point of the game, he
also experienced a short period of confusion that resulted in his reluctance to jump into
battle. On one hand, his teammates wanted to press the attack and engage the enemy
to complete their objectives. RJV, on the hand, wanted to live and fight another day so
as not to jeopardize whatever advantage their team had or would have. His reluctance
to engage and be aggressive was seen as unmanly enactments of cowardice and fear,
thus making him a target of the bakla label. In computer games like DoTA2 and LoL,
aggression is the only path to success and attaining team objectives (Tucker, 2011). It
can also be argued RJV and his teams’ competing desires of pushing forward versus
retreating caused RJV to experience a momentary bout of confusion In this case, RJV’S
confusion was constructed as being bakla. Garcia (2017) noted, even transient
showings of confusion and hesitation such as in the experience of RJV invite labels of
‘pagkabakla.’
Informant FK elaborated on a similar observation:

FK (gay): pag nag ca-clash po...parang ganun? Then, may parang teammate
po sila na hindi pumapasok or di nakakasama dun sa clash, sasabihin nilang
‘gay’ yun or ‘bakla’ yun in a...in a para...ang feeling ko, ang interpret ko po
dun is, parang takot siya kasi...stereotype. Parang ang gay is takot lagi –
chicken out... Yung – siguro my interpretation on that kasi ah...parang chicken
out yung...para sa kanila chicken out yung mga bakla.
LoL player MIB sees a similar connection between being afraid to take risks in
combat and being labeled bakla:
MIB (gay): takot kasi akong sumugod dun sa kalaban or takot kasi akong
umatake even if kaya ko. Takot kasi akong magrisk, magrisk ng life ko or
ng, ng time ko na sumugod dun sa kanila, that's why matatawag kang
bading.
DoTA / DoTA2 veteran FJ’s answer carried the same themes present in RJV,
FK, and MIBs answers:
FJ (straight): Naduduwag na ano…mag take risk o umabante mga ganyan.

Speaking in a gaming term? Parang kunwari ah…naduduwag – pano ko ba
masasabi to…naduduwag mag initiate or parang ayaw niyang lumabas sa
comfort zone niya gano’on or sabihin na natin ayaw niyang sumama do’n
sa team play kasi baka madehado siya or gano’n, parang pinoprotektahan
niya masyado ‘yong sarili niya.
MIB and FJ’s observations support Higate and Hopton’s (2005) conclusion
regarding militarized masculinity, particularly those concerning risk-taking and
aggressiveness. Besides being non-combative, cowardice and the spectre of kabaklaan
are also associated with hero / champion selections. Heroes / champions who are are
primarily defined by their abilities to escape, elude, and/or stay undeteceed invite
similar bakla discourse and labeling. As informant FJ explained:
FJ: Lahat ng nag-i-invisible sinasabi bading…gay…kasi takot magpakita

gano’n parang ‘yon na agad ‘yong term eh. “Bading naman nitong Riki na
to”...Lalo na no’ng update sa Riki na second skill na lang ‘yon…di ba kasi dati
‘yong Riki last skill niya ‘yong ano [‘yong invi?] Oo ‘yong permanent invi tapos
no’ng nag-update ginawang second skill ‘yon tapos “mas pinabading ‘yong
Riki ah”.
In this comment, FJ explained how certain heroes whose main ability is to be
invisible could sometimes become targets of bakla labels. In DoTA2, these heroes are
not usually in the thick of combat. Instead, they are used more for sneak attacks,
backstabbing, and surveillance – tactics that are in direct contrast to militarized
masculinity’s strong propensity for direct confrontation and aggression. As FJ
explained:
FJ: ‘yon talaga duwag talaga ‘yong meaning no’n eh [referring to bakla] sa
gaming community, parang pag sinabihan kang “ang gay mo
naman”…”ang bakla mo naman”, parang ‘ayon matatakutin ka…duwag ka
parang gusto nilang bawasan ‘yong pagkalalaki mo. Kunwari pag sinabing
gay ka parang hindi ka talaga matapang. So, without the – saying na…kunwari
hindi ka na sasabihan ng bakla para lakas mo parang ano…parang hindi ka
mahina ‘yon. Pag sinabihan kang bakla parang ang hina mo or may kulang
sa’yo or hindi ka matapang gano’n.
Similarly, heroes whose skills and item builds emphasize eluding enemies and
/or skirting around skirmishes also attract bakla labels on occasion. As RJV explained:
RJV (straight): I'm sure you know Puck, yung sobrang hirap niyang habulin oh
my god....So yung function ng character and yung looks ng character yung
nagiging issue kaya natatawag na bakla. Kasi either, I don't know siguro
sobrang masoch- sobrang machistic lang nung mga tao kapag sinasabi nilang,
"Oh tumatakbo ka lang nang tumatakbo," ginagamit nila yung term na
bakla.
Puck is one of the most elusive heroes in the roster with skills that include being
able to teleport short distances and disappearing temporarily – both of which are widely
used as escape mechanisms. Like Riki in informant FJ’s observation, Puck’s ability to
sidestep confrontations and avoid direct contests of strength puts the hero in direct
opposition of hegemonic masculine traits of dominance and assertiveness. It is not
uncommon to hear frustrated players utter the label bakla to describe Puck (or the
person using the hero) because of his / her being takbohin (someone who likes to turn
tail and run) and elusive. In addition to Puck’s elusiveness, the hero’s visual and vocal
characterizations are two other aspects that make Puck – and by extension players who
favor the hero – suceptible to gay labelling. In a gaming culture where homophaulisms
like bakla and bading are commonplace and the purposeful setup of Puck in DoTA2 or
Taric in LoL as effeminate, it is not surprising that these heroes/champions and their
users sometimes invite bakla discourse. In Taric’s case, there is even a YouTube video
dedicated to him where he twirls around and dances to Michael V’s ‘Hindi Ako Bakla’ as
if denying his gayness, which ironically makes him seem more gay. Todd (2016) argues
that visual is a critical component of gaming that extends beyond game design and
includes virtual representations of the self that are often linked to the politics of the body
and sexual identity that happens offline. As Todd (2012) explained in an earlier article:
‘Avatar appearances and the performances of one's gender within an online

gaming environment offer a different experience for each person. In many
instances, avatars affect not only a player's sense of self, but also the way in
which they play the game and interact with others, as well as how others
perceive them.’
While Puck and other ‘girly’ heroes like Crystal Maiden can provide liberating
experiences for virtually representating of the self in the game’s digital environment,
there are times when it can also be problematic (Todd, 2016) such as when a game
avatar contradicts heteronormative norms. Viewed through the lens of masculinity,
bravery, resolve, and aggressiveness are constructed as masculine and therfore
desirable traits to possess (Healey, 2016) while their inverse cowardice, being
effeminate, hesitant, passivity, and elusiveness are constructed as ‘unmasculine,’ gay
or bakla. Also, the research participants’ as well as literature in gaming masculinities
bring to the fore the reflexive relationship between understandings of how to perform
within gaming spaces and how performances situated within these spaces are
interpreted, named, and labeled. Similar to what Healey observed in a group of ‘Call of
Duty’ gamers, in DoTA2 and LoL, cowardly play or being duwag / takot (cowardly /
fearful) is constructed and labeled as bakla. The participants’ experiences also resonate
with Focault’s (1978) argument: the homosexual – in this case the bakla – has made it
possible for society to ‘define individuals for their acts as opposed to being individuals
who participate in and enjoy certain acts.’ And so, bakla is no longer just a categorical
label for homosexuals but has become a symbol for eveything perceived to be
unmasculine or in direct opposition masculine norm. The bakla label, especially when
utilized derogatorily or disparagingly, has become a catchphrase for anything perceived
to be ‘lesser than’ (Todd, 2016) and in this case, a less ‘manly’ player.
A careful analysis of the participants’ responses in this section also revealed
how gender role expectations permeate and regulate gaming as much as it does other
domains of our social lives. The expectations and values of people witnessing the
performance of play alongside performances of masculinity within the culural space of
gaming frame gamers’ understandings of what kinds of play are acceptable and what
should be rejected using homosexual-themed communication. Aggressiveness,
dominance, love of combat, and eagerness to compete are symbolic of ‘pagkalalae’ /
manliness and masculine play. Meanwhile, elusiveness and being sneaky, aversion to
violent combat, and avoiding conflict in in-game skirmishes are symbolic of kalbaklaan
and gay play that are worthy of ridicule and derision. Ultimately, the participants’
answers reveal a sexual heirarchy and structure in MOBA gaming wherein masculinity
and heterosexuality remain the symbolic norms and anyone who displays unmasculine
traits, characteristics, and performances are is symbolically bakla.
Matrix 7: Not man enough to play DoTA2 and LoL

Bakla / Bading Not man enough Bakla and bading are ‘Yon talaga
Duwag (coward) to play DoTA2 and metaphors for duwag talaga
Takot (afraid) LoL anyone deemed not ‘yong meaning
Takbohin (evasive) man enough for the no’n eh [referring
Afraid of game or lacking in to bakla] sa
confrontation masculine qualities, gaming
Not competitive especially those community,
Hesitates during qualities valorized by parang pag
clash hegemonic and sinabihan kang
militarized “ang gay mo
masculinities (i.e. naman”…”ang
aggression, bakla mo
confrontation, naman”, parang
combat) that they ‘ayon matatakutin
need to succeed in ka…duwag ka
playing DoTA2 and parang gusto
LoL. nilang bawasan
‘yong pagkalalaki
mo...Pag
sinabihan kang
bakla parang ang
hina mo or may
kulang
sa’yo...Dahil nga
po ‘yon sa meron
tayong
standards…babalik
po tayo do’n sa
standards. Bilang
kunwari lalaki
siya at hindi niya
na-meet ‘yon
parang nagiging
less siya.
Bakla: A Different Kind of ‘Noob’
The data gnerated suggests that next to cowardice, the gay labels bakla and
bading are often associated with meanings of incompetence and stupidity, similar to
how the words gay and fag have come to mean the same things among English
speaking gamers. Postic and Prough (2014) suggest that the trend of describing
something stupid as gay can can be traced back to the late 20th century though it
continues to persist to this day as evidenced by Pascoe’s (2007) observations on fag
and gay discourse among middle schoolers and Lalor and Rendle-Short’s (2007)
assessment of the usage of gay to denote dimwittedness in Australian English.
Although I did not find literature that would indicate that bacla/bakla had been used to
signify lack of intelligence in Philippine setting, I suspect that the unsavory association
between bakla and lack of intelligence may be the product of Filipino masculine
ideology and masculinity’s subordination of femeninity. Filipino masculine ideology
values intelligence and academic achievement just as much as it values physical
strength, toughness, and bravery (Rubio & Green, 2011). Even in hypermasculine
settings like a fraternity where physical strength and endurance are often seen as the
highest measure of masculinity, intelligence is also invoked and transformed into
streetsmarts that enable ‘nerds’ who are typically seen as frail of body to conquer fear,
pain, and humiliation (Guttierez, 2019). In this regard, we can see how mental
alertness, logic, and objective competence are desirable traits for Filipino men to
possess (Bantug, 1996; Church et al., 1984-85; Gamboa, Luciano, Cruz, & Laforteza,
1972; Guthrie, 1970 as cited in Rubio & Green, 2011) as opposed to the feminine traits
of being rash, indecisive, and emotional. Indeed, the attribution of rationality and reason
to men and the designation of emotion to femeninity have been foundational elements
in the masculine – feminine discourse (Connel, 2005; Blackburn, 2018). From here, we
can also apply the same Philippine ‘hegemonic trope for homosexuality’ that sees
kabaklaan or being bakla / being gay of inversion of manliness and all its
accoutrements. That said, if being duwag (cowardly) and mahina (weak) are
constructed as unmasculine, it stands to reason that being stupid / unintelligent is seen
as unmasculine as well, thus worthy of the bakla label. This is especially true in the
narratives provided by informant RJV with regard to a DoTA2 match he played a couple
of days before our second interview:
RJV (straight): ...there was another time when, uhm, uhh nagfeed ako, sabi
n'ya, 'yun, ‘siguro bakla 'to kaya tanga tanga,’ mga ganun.
In DoTA2 and LoL, to ‘feed’ or ‘feeding’ means to die repeatedly in the game
and ‘feeding’ the opposing team with experience and resources for each time the feeder
dies. In DoTA2 and LoL, feeding is often seen as a marker of incompetence, lack of
skill, and stupidity.
Gay informant JJC interpreted the label bakla as meaning being downright
stupid when it was lobbed at him during a match:
E: Ano sa tingin mo ‘yung meaning na ina-assign nila doon sa term na bakla sa

pagkakataon na ‘yon?
JJC (gay): Bobo. Siguro that time po, syempre, parang alam ko naman sa sarili
ko na na-miss ko ‘yung objectives ng team, tapos nagsabi sila bigla ng ganun
(referring to the label bakla), ire-relate ko po talaga s’ya sa salitang bobo
kasi, parang iisipin ko, tanga ko, ganun. Okay, sorry, ganun (parenthetical
note mine)
In RJV and JJC’s experiences, their mistakes and inability to meet the
objectives were taken as signs of lack of ‘intelligence,’ something other players have
linked to kabaklaan or have labeled as bakla. This raises an important question: if the
intention is to communicate that someone, particularly a gay player like JJC, is being
sloppy and stupid or performing poorly in the game, why not just use pejoratives like
bobo and tanga? Croom (2014) explained that compared to standard swearwords and
pejoratives, slurs like faggot, bakla, and bading ‘pack some of the nastiest punches’
language has to offer and that they effectively associate the target negatively with a
gender-loaded attribute of an identity group that the perpetrator / user perceive to be
inferior. In JJC’s case, the use of gay labels bakla and bading are treated as slurs
because of their particularly injurious and offensive nature to JJC, who admitted that he
felt ‘hurt.’
But there is more to this than just associating and labeling a bumbling player
and his poor performance with a stigmatized segment of society. First, it should be
noted that MOBAs – much like sports, which gaming literature considers analogous to
video games / computer games / e-Sports – require the ‘athletic ability to process
information quickly and and produce a skilled performance when rapid decisions and
selections of appropriate responses are critical for success (Nideffer as cited in Conmy,
2005). Regardless if a match ends in victory or defeat, games like LoL and DoTA2
demand a certain degree of mental effort from players. Second, it is also important to to
distinguish how stupidity in relation to intelligence is understood in the context of
gaming. When talking about stupidity (katangahan / kabobohan), the participants and
their teammates are not referring to actual lack of intelligence or imbecillty. Rather, what
they are alluding to is skill / proficiency or the ability to play the game properly and
competitively – an important focus of discussion in gaming (Paul, 2018). In the toxic
meritocracy of LoL and DoTA2, ‘intelligence’ or skill / mastery / proficiency is often
signified by high MMR or ranking, having the ability to outplay stronger opponents using
superior strategy, impeccable timing, high degree of familiarity wtih hero-skill-item
synergies, perceptiveness and being able to counter enemy strategies, abillity to defend
and take territories (bases, towers, nexus, etc.) gold earnings, and kill streaks (Canossa
et al., 2018). Success in any of these aspects or all of them is symbolic of intelligence
and mastery in DoTA2, LoL, and other MOBAs. The importance of gaming mastery, the
contempt for incompetence, and the discursive association between lack of skill and
gay labels have been repeatedly articulated by several participants across different
interviews:
RO (straight): Yung parang sinasabi nila sa'kin sa mind ko na "galingan mo,"

ganyan parang ganon kasi imbis na gawin mong negative yung, negative
thoughts yung salita, gawin mo kasing positive thoughts para imbis na idown mo
sarili mo, gawin mong positive para gumaling ka, para gumaling yung skills
mo. Galingan ‘yong game instead para di ka na lagi trash-talkin ‘yon. More
on sa ginagawa kong positive ‘yong word na ‘yon (referring to bakla) para
galingan ‘yong sarili ko, para hindi na masabi sa akin ‘yong gano’ng word
sa akin.
Informant JMA espoused a similar view:
JMA(gay): parang sinasabi nga na "Bakla galingan mo naman parang ang
dali mo lang patayin!" parang gano’n. Baka ang meaning ng word na ‘yon is
mahina, hindi magaling...ano pa ba uh ayon hindi – hindi skilled gano’n –
gano’n ‘yong mga terms.
Informant MIB added to the insights offered by RO and JMA:
MIB (gay): kung titignan mo kasi 'yung meaning ng bakla tsaka bading
pagdating sa online gaming, ano eh, isa lang talaga ibig sabihin niyan na
"Dude, galingan mo!" I mean, ano ka uhm "Ang tanga mo this, uhm, ang
tanga mo that moment galingan mo naman," "Kaya mo 'yan eh, bakit 'di
mo palagan, bading ka ba? Napakabakla naman nito maglaro."
As these interview excerpts indicate, RO, JMA, and MIB interpret bakla as an
indirect way of telling them that they need to do better in the game, probably because
their performance fell below expectations or they were suffering from a ‘bad day’ or
those bouts of sloppiness. Healey’s (2016) work and observations conerning a group of
Call of Duty LAN party outlines a possible explanation:
‘The linking of “gayness” with “noobiness” suggests a conceptual link between

“gay” play and inexperience. In this respect, noob (with its signifiers of
inexperience)... [is] discursively linked first of all with “the thing you shouldn’t
do”, but are further linked with “gayness”, in a process that seems to shuffle both
noobs and campers to the “bottom of a gender hierarchy among men” (Connell,
1995, p. 78). Inexperience and cowardly play are “gay”: “Real men” are
experienced and brave.
Much like how gay and fag are used in social settings to connote that something
is lame (Pascoe, 2007), the word gay has also carried the connotation of bieng inept,
incompetent, and weak. In gaming jargon, gay, fag, bakla, and bading may also mean
‘noob’ – a term for ‘newbies,’ which is also used derogatorily to undermine or insult
players whose performance is considered to be substandard (Fitzgerald, 2016). In line
with Healey’s observations regarding the need to establish gaming mastery, I argue that
the discursive linking of noobiness and incompetence with gay, bakla, and bading is
also a product of another type of masculinity operating in gaming culture:
technomasculinity. Technomasculinity (Johnson, 2014) is ‘a gendered ideological

perspective that naturally associates men with highly skilled technological work and
advanced knowledge of computers.’ Although technomasculinity is subordinate to
hegemonic masculinity in the masculine hierarchy, both masculinities share a common
concern: mastery. Where hegemonic masculinity concerns itself with being dominant
and sees traits such as competitiveness as ‘natural’ in men, technomasculinity, on the
other hand, concerns itself with mastery of technology, science, engineering, and
maths-based fields like computer engineering and information technology where men
‘naturally’ excel. In the words of Jenson and De Castell (2010):
Technological competence, so seen, has less to do with actual skills and more
to do with construction of a gendered identity—that is, women lack technological
competence to the extent that they seek to appropriately perform femininity;
correlatively, men are technologically competent by virtue of their performance
of masculinity.’
Bergstrom (2012), in a study of EVE Online game gives a relevant example.
Bergstrom (2012) observed that there exist a connection between the skills required to
excel in the male-associated fields of maths and engineering to the skills required to
play the space-themed massively muttiplayer online game (MMO) Eve Online that
result in huge gender gaps and participation in the game. From this perspective, it
logically follows that computing technology, video games, and proficiency in their use
are symbolically masculine and lack of interest and expertise in technology are coded
as feminine.
Jenson and De Castell’s conclusions together with Bergstrom’s (2012) and other
gaming scholars’ observations (see Taylor & De Castell, 2009; Ratan et al., 2015)
highligt how lack of gaming mastery and ultimately, technological incompetence have
been symbolically tied to femininity and other forms of masculinity that are contextually,
historically, and materially marginalized. Under the strict masculine norm of gaming, it is
only natural for real men to be good in gaming; it goes without saying. When someone
whose identity and performance defies the dominant gender scheme, however, his
whole identity is thrown into question thereby making him an attractive target of
homosexual-themed communication. These perspectives offer valuable insights that fill
some gaps with regard to how gay, bakla, and bading have come to mean
incompetence and noobiness in gaming. This formulation, however, could also benefit
from reflecting on ‘girl gamers’ experiences as their experiences often intersect with that
of LGBTQ players.
Numerous observations and studies by various gaming scholars have recorded
and articulated gaming communities’ less than friendly attitudes toward marginalized
players (i.e. women, GLBTQ) (Schelfhout et al., 2019). These marginalized players are
considered ‘others’ in the highly contested domain of gaming, with their claim to the
‘gamer’ identity and membership often challenged on account of their ‘non-maleness.’
Furthermore, their presence also represents an aberration and a disruption of the ideal
gamer fantasy – a player who is symbolically male and straight’ (Richard, 2017). As
such, their presence is usually ‘policed with sexist, racist, and homophobic speech by
the dominate players so that the marginalized players won’t remain and “ruin the game”’
(Vossen, 2018). Within gaming cultures, deviant identities and performances that
disrupt the symbolic masculine norm are seen as gross violations and breaches. While
Gray (2014) maintains that gaming spaces’ ‘relativist approach’ does not render any
behavior or person as ‘inherently deviant, deviance emerges through a labeling process
where some behaviors are identified as bad, undesirable, or unacceptable on the basis
of rules made by those in positions of power...The behaviors that have been identified
as deviant by the gamer community range from taking any sort of offense at bigoted
speech or trash-talk, to simply participating in the game world as ‘other’ (Vossen, 2018).
The ‘othering’ of female players and LGBTQ players in gaming also highlight the
centrality of ‘difference making’ in negotiating access, membership, and participation in
gaming cultures. More often than not, the foci of this difference making are on men and
women’s gaming interests, skill and competence, and ultimately, the disctinctions
between ‘real’ gamers and casual gamers. For instance, women’s aversion to events
centered on dominance, combat, violence, and aggression have created the notion that
they are not interested in games because of the presence of these themes.
Consequently, the small amount of time girls and women devote to gaming, resulting
from their lack of interest, has also created the belief that they are less knowledgeable,
less experienced, and less proficient in competitive games than their male counterparts
who accrue more skills simply because they play more often (Schelfhout et al., 2019).
Indeed, there exists a commonly held belief and lingering image among male gamers
that female players perform poorly in gaming when compared to men because of their
(women’s) lower skill level (Rani et al., 2016; Ruvalcaba et al., 2018). Women’s
perceived lack of intrest and skill also contribute to their lack visibility and relegation to
supporting roles in other gaming spaces such as e-Sports competitions and cyber cafés
as documented by Lin (2017) and Taylor et al., (2014), an experience that extends even
to non-binary players. Kendrick (2015) suggested that women’s lack of interest in
gaming, brought about by their aversion to violence and competition (Hartman &
Klimmt, 2016), has become the bedrock of their definition as inferior gamers. The
implication, according to Taylor and Hammond (2018), is that does not fit the straight,
heterosexual fantasy will find it difficult to participate evenly and success in the highly
masculinized domain of competitive gaming. For these reasons, women and non-binary
players often find themselves positioned at the fringes of gamer culture, constructed as
the less skilled ‘other’, and rarely counted as ‘real gamers’. These comparisons based
on disparities ring true with Williams’ (2000) claim that identities are relational – we
define our selves by comparing our similarities, differences, membership, exclusion,
and status divisions among other things with different reference groups. Goffman’s
(1963) Stigma also provides a useful theoretical lens from which to view this difference
making. Stigma theory classifies people with physical and mental disabilities,
prostitutes, criminals, and homosexuals as stigmatized individuals. In the context of
gaming, we can extend Goffman’s classification to include women as stigmatized
individuals in gaming cultures on account of the prevailing perception that they are
‘handicapped’ in terms of gaming skill and proficiency. When stigmatized individuals
such non-binary people take up activities like computer gaming, something that is
usually not associated with them, they become entangled in a dialtectical tension
between the self-image they ‘the-self-I-think-I-am’ that they claim. (i.e. the gamer
identity) and ‘the self-they-think-I-am’ or what other people they interact with think of
them (e.g. bakla could not be ‘real’ gamers or bakla gamers are not competent
gamers). Patrick and Bignall (1984) explained this tension between the ‘self-I-think-I-
am’ and the ‘self-they-think-I-am’ with greater clarity in their study of wheelers or wheel
chair racers who participate in running marathons in the pursuit of constructing a
‘competent self.’ In it, they wrote:
‘In general, the others whom wheelers encounter have an image of the disabled
individual that they apply to the disabled group. This a priori image of the
wheeler may not be congruent with the indentity by which an individual wheeler
wishes to be known. While the specifics of this a priori image of the
disabled...varies from person to person, it generally involves feelings of pity and
the expectation that the disabled individual is not as competent, able, or active
as "normal" individuals.’
Transformed to reflect the realities of DoTA2 and LoL, we can say that ‘normal’
players (straight, heterosexual male players who do not possess the fateful attribute of
kabaklaan, hence their ‘normalcy) hold an image of the bakla as an inferior gamer who
cannot possibly compete with them on equal footing or whose skills may not be on par
with ‘normal’ straight, heterosexual male players. This usually stirs up feelings of
disbelief, doubt, and incredulity whenever a bakla or someone who is perceived to be
bakla. Participant FJ recalled one such incident when his friends cast doubts over the
skills of another teammate who was openly bakla. Informant VL also experienced
something similar when members of an opposing team downplayed his skills because
they thought he was bakla. These experiences will be explroed in greater detail in
another section.
In sum, the concept of technomasculinity reflects yet another facet of our
understanding of gender roles and gender expectations. From a technomasculinities
lens, mastery of technology, which includes gaming, has always been symbolically
associated with men. Engagement with technologies and proficiency in their use have
both become ‘normal’ characteristics and activities for men to possess and participate
in, effectively producing and reproducing gaming as a ‘man’s world’ where they are
expected to excel to the point that it goes without saying. Anyone who does not fit the
straight male profile such as women and gay and transgender players are often
challenged and sidelined because they are engaging in activities that are not usually
associated with them. Modifying Patrick and Bignall’s (1984) statement to reflect the
realities of computer gaming, we can say that players only become gamers we become
'gamers' ‘both for the personal satisfaction we derive from these activities and for the
social interactions based on them, and the identities created by the competent
performance of them.’ Patrick and Bignall’s assertion, though made in the context of
competitive athleticism, still reflect the necessity of showing competence in order to
claim membership as one of ‘them’ – as a gamer, and it is for this reason that women’s
and GLTBQ players’ abilities, competence, and membership are also almost always
questionned. As ‘stigmatized’ individuals in a ‘career’ that falls outside of what society

expects of them (i.e. being a DoTA2 / LoL gamer), women and GLBTQ+ gamers often
have to contend with ‘normal’ people’s prejudgments and presuppositions about their
gaming ability – that they could not be as good as the ‘normal’ straight, male players
who possess none of the flaws of femininity that might render them incompetent. From
an SI standpoint, ‘passing’ as a ‘normal’ real gamer – someone who is straight, male,
masculine – hinges on gender cues and performances that are being perceived and
interpreted by others as ‘acceptable’ for real gamers (e.g. aggressive, dominating,
violent, confrontational, masterful, etc.) As such performances that suggest
inexperience, sloppiness, incompetence, passivity or any other type of performance that
may be symbolic of how stigmatized individuals would perform and gameplay that fails
to measure up to the masculine norm, are constructed as bakla – a newbie who plays
like a girl, is incapable of performing that meets technomasculine expecations, and
whose incompetence is further compounded by his association to a reviled group. This
also goes to show a core argument of scholars studying gender and sexuality a
symbolic interactionist lens: ‘social meanings give shape to our sexuality. Sexuality has
no meaning other than that given to it in social situations’ (Plummer, 1982). That said,
when a player, regardless of his actual gender, displays feminine traits that have
furstratingly become symbolic of weakness – ‘an insult to prowess in competitive
spaces’ (Tucker, 2011) – he becomes a suitable target of gay labels and other
homosexual-themed communicaiton.
Matrix 8: A Different Kind of ‘Noob’

Bakla / Bading A Different Kind of The labels bakla and Bobo. Siguro
Bobo / Tanga ‘Noob’ bading is a metaphor that time po,
(Stupid) for someone syempre, parang
Galingan mo (Play incompetent / alam ko naman
better) unskilled and plays sa sarili ko na
like a girl. The na-miss ko ‘yung
conflation of objectives ng
noobiness and team, tapos
femeninity effectively nagsabi sila bigla
positions the target of ng ganun
the gay labels in a (referring to the
distinct position of label bakla), ire-
otherness in the relate ko po
masculine hierarchy talaga s’ya sa
that values salitang bobo
technological mastery kasi, parang
(technomasculinity). iisipin ko, tanga
ko, ganun.
Okay, sorry,
ganun
(parenthetical
note mine)
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of the purpose, methodology, and results of
this study. Next, the conclusion is based on the researcher’s intuitions gained through
the results and findings of the study. Then, there are two sets of recommendations
presented. The first recommendation gears toward the practitioners of the field
described in this study. And a recommendation for those professionals, communication
and social studies alike, interested in making the research broad in scope and exceed
the findings presented in this study.
Summary of Findings
This study was undertaken to map out the different multivalent meanings and
interpretations assigned to homosexual-themed utterances used by heterosexual male
gamers within the context of play. Homosexual-themed utterances like bakla and
bading are part of male gamers’ verbal repertoire, but their meanings and are not
always clear. Likewise, the intent behind their use is also not always clear as well. In a
gaming environment that is becoming more and more open to non-binary identities, the
use of homosexual-themed language within gaming circles presents a problem,
especially for gay gamers exposed to it on a consistent basis. This problem has already
been investigated within the academic context (Thurlow, 2001; Pascoe, 2007;
McCormack & Anderson, 2012; Postic & Prough, 2014), sporting contexts (see Magrath
et al., 2013; Anderson, 2002; Magarth, 2018), and in the broader social context (Hall &
LaFrance, 2013; Brikett & Espelage, 2015; Slåtten et al., 2015), and even in gaming
contexts, usually within the frameworks of sexist language, toxicity, and trolling (Gray,
2014; Tucker, 2011;Healey, 2016; Ortiz, 2019) using quantitative and qualitative
research designs and methods. For my research, I utilized case study and generated
data through in-depth interviews with two sets of participants. Interviews were
conducted from July 2019 to January 2020.
After exhausting all means to generate data and after thorough analysis of
codes that emerged from the data, several themes that synthesized the study were
formulated.
1. To answer the question about the participants’ profile, five self-identifying
straight male gamers and five openly gay gamers participated in the study. Out of the
ten participants, one informant plays DoTA2 exclusively, six others play LoL exclusively,
and three others play both games. All of the participants have been playing DoTA2 and
LoL for more than 5 years.
2. The second objective dealt with how straight male gamers act toward gay
gamers. Based on the data provided by the participants, straight male gamers act
toward gay gamers with ambivalence. This was evidenced by the contradicting
positions that they occupied and straddled when talking about homosexuality or
‘kabaklaan’ vis-a-vis prejudice and biases. Their responses also pointed to a gradiation
of attitudes toward gay gamers that range from positive to negative. Negative attitudes
include subtle biases and homonegativity. Positive attitudes, on the other hand, include
solidarity and inclusion of gay gamers.
3. The third objective revolved around the different uses of homosexual-themed
utterances bakla and bading in gaming with respect to the meanings ascribed to these
words. The participants’ responses identified uses for these words: trash talk and
incivility, emotive communication, disparaging and playful humor, microinsults and
backhanded compliments, and pro-bakla language. All these culminate in the theme
multipurpose metacommunicative tool. Homosexual-themed utterances, because of

their polysemy and multivalence, can fulfill a multitude of metacommunicative functions
such as insulting, communicating a range of emotions both positive and negative,
humor, compliments / backhanded compliments, and express genuine pleasure and
other pro-social attitudes and states. Primarily, the words bakla and bading are used to
trash talk or deride the target in order to put them off their game or to simply insult their
abilities. It can also be used to express emotions such as dismay, disappointment, and
most notriously, exasperation, frustration, and anger. Besides TT and emotive
expression, the labels bakla and bading are also used jokingly either as a form of
disparagement masked by humor or more commonly as playful conversational humor
that is mostly harmless. Additionally, bakla and bading are also used as microinsults
and backhanded compliments. When used this way, bakla and bading convey a
message of support while simultaneously communicating subtle insults that mostly go
unnoticed (e.g. magaling yan kahit bakla yan). The subversive content of the message
essentially turns the compliment or any well-meaning message into a friendly diss.
Finally, bakla and bading can also be used for more positive ends, usually as a
compliment of sorts (e.g. Si bakla!) When used as pro-bakla language, the negative
connotation is either transformed into a genuinely supportive message that can be
experienced as uplifting and affiliative. The elasticity of homosexual-themed utterances
make them a multipurpose metacommunicative tool for conveying more information
than their content.
4. The fourth objective dealt with the process of interepretation, more specifically,
how do straight male gamers and gay gamers interpret homosexual-themed utterances.
The participants’ answers suggested that they relied on several nonverbal cues to
interpret homosexual-themed utterances, most notably prosody and manner of delivery,
context, and relationship. All of these were grouped under the theme of nonverbal cues
for interpreting homosexual-themed utterances. Among these cues, prosodic elements
such as tone, manner of delivery, intensity, and loudness were the most popular
answers offered by the participants. Indeed, when it comes to homosexual-themed
utterances, the manner in which bakla and bading are uttered can sometimes be more
important than the actual content. Shouting bakla or bading and verbalizing the words
with strong emphasis were interpreted negatively by the participants. Context and
relational factors were also identified as vital clues for interpreting homosexual-themed
utterances. When used in the context of joking, banter, and trash talk, the words bakla
and bading given positive and friendly interpretations. Finally, relationship also plays a
role in the interpretation of homosexual-themed utterances. Utterances from close
personal ties are interpreted more favorably as opposed to utterances from strangers.
5. The last objective dealt with exploring the different meanings and interpretations
assigned by straight male gamers and gay gamers to homosexual-themed utterances in
gaming. Four themes emerged: Bakla and meanings that arise from social interaction,
Conntative meanings, Bakla: Not man enough for DoTA2 and LoL, and Bakla: A
different kind of noob. The responses provided by the participants revealed their own
personal histories with the words bakla and bading and how these contributed to the
meanings these words have for them. Although the meanings of these words are not
fixed, it was clear from the participants’ responses that they have developed their own
catalogues of meanings and interpretations from interactions with significant and
generalized others as they are socialized into gender roles and learn what it means to
be masculine and feminine. Data also revealed that the participants drew heavily from
the connotative meanings of the words bakla and bading as they continue to
renegotiate the meanings of these words through social interaction. These connotative
meanings include being fearful, effeminate, timorous, weak, cowardly, and deviant
among others. As expected, these learned meanings continue to shape how
participants assign meanings and interpretations to gay labels, epithets, and
homosexual-themed utterances in gaming. These findings ultimately led to the two most
important themes in this section. Since the words bakla and bading are still burdened
by connotative meanings that all go back to a deficiency in masculinity, it can be
inferred that being bakla in DoTA2 and LoL means not being man enough for the game.
When one lobs the epithets at another, he is not simply saying that the target is being a
coward or being weak. Rather, the speaker is essentially demoting the subject to lesser
kind of ‘man’ or relegating him to the lowest, most despised strata of masculinity –
homosexuality. To be bakla means not to have the masculine qualities necessary to
succeed in the game. Finally, the words bakla and bading, just like their English
counterparts gay and fag have been used extensively as substitutes if not equivalents
for stupidity, clumsiness, and noobiness. What makes bakla and bading exceptionally
more punishing than words like ‘bobo’ and ‘tanga’ is theur ability to doubly jeopardize
the target by lumpting them into two undesirable categories simultaneously: being a
sexual deviant and being a dolt. Not only is the target demoted in the masculine
hierarchy, he too is relegated to the status of a noob – a deviant that neither has the
masculine capital nor masculine expertise to play and succeed in DoTA2 and LoL.
Conclusions
These are the conclusions that can be drawn based on the objectives of the
study:
1. Profile of the participants
Out of the ten straight male and gay male participants, there are more that
played LoL exclusively compared to those who played both games and those that
played DoTA2 solely. This finding may support claims that LoL has overtaken the once
most played MOBA in the Filipino gaming sphere: DoTA / DoTA2. Perhaps more
important, there are more gay male participants playing LoL compared to straight male
participants. This unequal distribution between the players may suggest that LoL is
more gay-friendly and accessible to gay gamers compared to DoTA and DoTA2.
2. How straight male gamers act towards gay gamers
Gaming may be experiencing a decline in homophobia as younger gamers
become more aware of the deleterious effects of prejudicial attitudes to different
members of the gaming community. The proliferation of the internet, cyber cafés, and
gaming devices, coupled with shifts in societal attitudes toward homosexuality and
prejudice, have contributed gaming becoming a more friendly and inclusive space for
prosocial and positive intergroup interactions. However, despite the seeming decrease
in overt prejudice, gamers still need to be aware of the sublte and covert biases such as
when acceptance becomes predicated on adherance to certain norms or skill
requirements.
3. Uses of homosexual-themed utterances in gaming as a result of their different
meanings
The homosexual-themed utterances like ‘bakla!’ and ‘bading!’ are well
thoughtout expressions that fulfill several metacommunicative functions because of
their polysemy and multivalence. In most cases, homosexual-themed utterances that
feature gay labels are used affiliatively, with little to no serious aggressive intent. At
best, aggression and hostility are ostensible and is mostly overridden by more neutral
intent and uses. Ultimately, the unstated and unacknowledged function of homosexual-
themed utterances in gaming is its regulatory function over gaming and gender
performances in DoTA2 and LoL.
4. How homosexual-themed utterances are interpreted

The manner in which homosexual-themed utterances or gay labels and epithets
like ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’ are said is often just as important as the content itself. ‘Bakla’
and ‘bading’, despite the abundance of associated connotative meanings, do not lend
themselves to interpretation quite easily. Adding more to the complexity is the
differences in the intended meaning of the speaker and the interpretations of those who
are exposed to the utterance. In cases that these words are invoked, interpretations
arise from the way bakla and bading are used by whom for what purpose and with what
effect.
5. Meanings and interpretations of gay labels and epithets / homosexual-themed
utterances used in gaming
Meanings and interpreations for ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’ do not always align in one
another. Despite this, ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’ remain as two powerful metaphors for failure
in gaming. Because of the connotative meanings ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’ carry, they have
become signifcant markers and representations of what a gamer should and should not
be. ‘Bakla’ and ‘bading’ are the epitome of a failed gamer and a failed gaming
masculinity. To be ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’ in gaming means one is seriously lacking in
manly traits (i.e. bravery, strategy, aggression, technological mastery) necassary to
succeed in a very masculine endeavor, at least temporarily.
Recommendations
Communication, Gaming, and Gender Researchers
1. It is recommended that subsequent studies expand the scope of this
researchy by including a wider demographic, especially in terms of age, gender, game
genre played (e.g. mobile, casual, RPGs, FPS, MMOGs, MMORPGs), gaming platform
(mobile, PC, console), sites of play (e.g. home), and contexts (e.g. computer-mediated,
co-located, professional, etc.).

2. As a country with a considerable population of gamers spread across different
platforms, gaming researchers need to move beyond the male-female binary and start
to consider a more diverse gaming population. As such, gaming research can no longer
afford to remain gender blind. It is recommended therefore to continue investigating
gaming through the lived experiences of non-binary gamers like gay gamers.
3. The use of homophobic language has become a contentious issue in gaming,
especially in the wider arena of e-Sports where games like DoTA2 and LoL are main
attractions. While gamers and commentators remain divided, the fact remains that
words like gay, ‘bakla’, and ‘bading’ can convey so many things and prdocude different
consequences. Their meanings are as complicated as their use, the context within
which they are said, the intent of the speaker, and their effects on the listener /
audience. As such, a more holistic approach and view – one that appreciates the
importance of context, effect, intent, social norms, and interlocutor relationship – is
recommended and necessary to address the complicated intersections of gaming,
gender, and language in play.
4. Trash-talk, emotive communication, disparagement and conversational
humor, microinsults and backhanded compliments, and pro-bakla language are far from
being an exhaustive list of the different uses of gay labels and epithets in gaming.
Language is complicated and evolving. As such, these uses may change as gamers
continue to play and as gay gamers become more visible and confident in their place in
Filipino gaming culture. It is recommended for future researchers to refine this list and
and come up with a more comprehensive analysis of the functions of gay labels and
epithets in the communicative practices of gamers. Future researchers may also
choose to focus on one of these elements to better understand the nuances of
homosexual-themed utterances within a specific context.

5. Beyond prosody, context, and relationship, there are also other factors that
come into play when interpreting homosexual-themed utterances in gaming such as the
coupling of gay labels and epithets with intensifiers such as curse words (e.g. ‘bakla
ampota’, ‘tanga mo bakla!’), sexually suggestive comments related to kabaklaan (e.g.
‘pagbibigyan ka namin pag nanalo tayo’), behaviors and actions (e.g. slamming the
keyboard, pounding on the table, etc.), and even facial expressions that may not be
easily obvious for players whose eyes are often glued to their scteen. It is
recommended that these considered and explored in future studies.
6. Studies suggest that there is a link between the use of homosexual-themed
language / homophobic language / derogation using gay labels and epithets / gender
and attitudes and behaviors toward gays. As such, it is recommended for future studies
to combine both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to get a more accurate
picture of gamer attitudes toward gender non-binary gamers. It is likewise
recommended for future researchers to explore and compare intergroup attitudes in
different gaming contexts. As this study is purely descriptive, a correlational approach in
future studies may provide a more definitive answer as to how the male gamer
population acts towards gay gamers.
Gaming communities, its leaders, and gamers
7. It is recommended for leaders in gaming communities, developers, and
publishers to take active steps in co-creating a more supportive environment for non-
heteronormative identities; this begins in teaching ourselves to become more mindful
gamers. Although LGBTQ+ representation in games has seen an increase, inclusion
must move beyond representation, customization, and modding. It should also extend
to our offline gaming practices as well. Gaming culture -- often described as toxic
environments largely because of the discursive practices of its inhabitants – is primed

for change. The increased visbility of women and non-heteronormative identities are
valuable pockets of counter-hegemonic resistance that enrich gaming communities and
keep sexism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, racism, and other forms of prejudice
in check.
8. It is recommended for leaders in gaming communities to create more
opportunities for non-binary gamers to participate without fear of reprisal, antagonism,
and discrimination, especially in large e-Sporting events where non-binary participation
still feels minimal.

REFERENCES
Abedinifard, M. (2016). Ridicule, gender hegemony, and the disciplinary function of

mainstream gender humour. Social semiotics, 26(3), 234-249.
Abel, M., Autor, C., Gripal, A., Demetrio, F. (2016) The Language of Filipino Gamers:
Analysis of the Origin and Meaning of Words Being Used in the Worlds of DotA
and LoL. Malay. 29.1, 45 – 68
Adeyemo, K. S. (2019). Filipino university students’ attitude toward sexual minorities:

implications for international students
Anderson, E. (2009). Inclusive masculinity: The changing nature of masculinities.

[Google Books version] Retrieved from https://goo.gl/bwJS8P
Anderson, E. (2011). The rise and fall of western homohysteria. Journal of feminist
scholarship, 1(1), 80-94. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/VjHH3A
Anderson, E. (2014). 21st century jocks: Sporting men and contemporary

heterosexuality. Springer.
Argyle, M., Alkema, F., & Gilmour, R. (1971). The communication of friendly and hostile
attitudes by verbal and non‐verbal signals. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 1(3), 385-402.
Arndt, H., & Janney, R. (1987). InterGrammar: Toward an integrative model of verbal,
prosodic and kinesic choices in speech (Vol. 2).
Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1975.
Baccam, L. (2002). The Analysis of Ethnic Identity Through the Theoretical Framework
of Symbolic Interactionism (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at
Denver).
Bailey, Benjamin M., "Adolescents' Perceptions of Homophobic Language: Implications

for Bullying Prevention" (2015). All _eses and Dissertations. 5474.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/SRJQPa
Bach, K. (2018). Loaded words: On the semantics and pragmatics of slurs. Bad Words:
Philosophical Perspectives on Slurs, 60-76. Retrieved from:
http://frege.org/phil2120k/pdf/Bach-LoadedWords.pdf
Bakker, J. I. (2007). Definition of the Situation. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology.
Bateson, Gregory, 1953. The position of humor in human communication. In: von
Foerster, H. (Ed.), Cybernetics, Ninth Conference. Josiah Macey Jr Foundation,
New York, pp. 1–47.
Becker HS (1953) Becoming a marijuana user. American Journal of Sociology 59(3):

235–242.
Benedicto, B. (2008). Desiring sameness: Globalization, agency, and the Filipino gay
imaginary. Journal of Homosexuality, 55(2), 274-311.
Bianchi, C. (2014). Slurs and appropriation: An echoic account. Journal of Pragmatics,

66, 35-44.
Bianchi, M., Piccoli, V., Fasoli, F., Zotti, D., & Carnaghi, A. (2017). The impact of
homophobic labels on the internalized homophobia and body image of gay men:
The moderation role of coming-out. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
36, 356–367. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/VQ21GM
Blackburn, G. (2018). Army men: Military masculinity in Call of Duty. In Masculinities in

Play (pp. 37-53). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boxer, Diana, Corte ́s-Conde, Florencia, 1997. From bonding to biting: conversational
joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics 27, 275–294.
Bringula, R., Natanauan, A. C., Bonifacio, J., Manuel, M., & Enriquez, J. B. (2013).
Profile, Gaming Usage and Purposes of Gaming of Internet Café Users in
Manila: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Virtual Communities and
Social Networking (IJVCSN), 5(4), 43-58.
Bringula, R. P., Basa, R. S., Enriquez, J. B. R., Natanauan, A. C., Bonifacio, J., &
Manua, M. (2013). The purposes and effects of cyber cafe usage in Manila. The
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Communication, 7(1), 1-14.
Bromley, S., Mirza-Babaei, P., McAllister G., & Napier J., (2013). Playing to win?
Measuring the Correlation Between Biometric Responses and Social Interaction
in Co-Located Social Gaming. In Multiplayer (pp. 192-202). Routledge.
Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication.

Routledge.
Burn, S. M. (2000). Heterosexuals’ use of “fag” and “queer” to deride one another: A
contributor to heterosexism and stigma. Journal of Homosexuality, 40, 1–11.
Retrieved from
Burrill, D. A. (2008). Die tryin': Videogames, masculinity, culture (Vol. 18). Peter Lang.
Butler, J. (2006). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in

phenomenology and feminist theory. In The Routledgefalmer Reader in Gender
& Education (pp. 73-83). Routledge. Retreieved from https://goo.gl/eVqXya
Caballero, J. A., Vergis, N., Jiang, X., & Pell, M. D. (2018). The sound of im/politeness.
Speech Communication, 102, 39-53.
Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge University
Press.
Carnaghi, A., & Bianchi, M. (2017) Group Labeling. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Communication. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/8YZ2iA
Carnaghi, A., Maass, A., & Fasoli, F. (2011). Enhancing masculinity by slandering
homosexuals: The role of homophobic epithets in heterosexual gender identity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1655–1665. Retrieved from
http://goo.gl/31R2Ec
Carnaghi, A., & Maass, A. (2008). Derogatory language in intergroup context: Are “gay”
and “fag” synonymous. Stereotype dynamics: Language-based approaches to
the formation, maintenance, and transformation of stereotypes, 117-134.
Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and
future of symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology, 64(6), 931-961.
Cary, L. A., Axt, J., & Chasteen, A. L. (2020). The interplay of individual differences,
norms, and group identification in predicting prejudiced behavior in online video
game interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(11), 623-637.
Charon J.M. (2007) Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduc- tion, An Interpretation, An

Integration, 9th edn. Perason Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Coates, Jennifer. "Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy." Journal of
Pragmatics 39, no. 1 (2007): 29-49.
Condis, M. A. (2015). The politics of gamers: Identity and masculinity in the age of
digital media. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/sXE2bV
Conmy, B. (2005). Investigating a conceptual framework for trash talk: Cognitive and
affective states.
Conmy, B., Tenenbaum, G., Eklund, R., Roehrig, A., & Filho, E. (2013). Trash-talk in a
competitive setting: Impact on self‐efficacy and affect. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 43(5), 1002-1014.
Connell, C., & Elliott, S. (2009). Beyond the birds and the bees: Learning inequality
through sexuality education. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 4(2), 83-
102.
Cote, A. C. (2017). “I Can Defend Myself” Women’s Strategies for Coping With
Harassment While Gaming Online. Games and culture, 12(2), 136-155.
Croom, A. M. (2013). How to do things with slurs: Studies in the way of derogatory
words. Language & Communication, 33(3), 177-204.
Croom, A. M. (2014). The semantics of slurs: A refutation of pure expressivism.

Language Sciences, 41, 227-242.
Cruz, C. J., & Mallari, R. B. (2007). Revisiting Social Acceptance of Homosexuality

Among Filipino Youth: Some Theoretical and Methodological Implications.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/1gMK7t
De Jongste, H. (2013). Negotiating humorous intent. Developments in linguistic humour

theory, 179-210.
Dela Cruz, P. (2015). '15 Reasons Philippines is Not Gay Friendly' (a webpage of
Outrage) Retrieved from: <http://outragemag.com/15-reasons-philippines-is-not-
gay- friendly/>.
Deleña, M. I. C. O., & Masalunga, A. G. R. (2019). Establishing the Most Appropriate,

Formal and Academic Filipino Translation of the Term “Male Homosexual”.
Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ana_Masalunga/publication/337398470
DiSalvo, B. J., S. Y. Atwaters, J. Dimond, and A. Bruckman (2009). Gaming

Masculinity: Video games as a reflection on masculinity in Computer Science
and African American culture. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from
https://goo.gl/Xdiqmk
Dormann, C. (2014, July). Fools, tricksters and jokers: categorization of humor in

gameplay. In International Conference on Intelligent Technologies for Interactive
Entertainment (pp. 81-90). Springer, Cham.
Dormann, C., & Biddle, R. (2009). A review of humor for computer games: Play, laugh
and more. Simulation & gaming, 40(6), 802-824.
Duque, J. (2014). Can the Queer Subaltern Speak?. Criterion: A Journal of Literary
Criticism, 7(1), 11.
Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour. Language and

Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1284-1299.
Dynel, M. (2013). Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk. Developments in

linguistic humour theory, 105, 144.
Edwards, D. (2005) ‘Discursive psychology.’ In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (eds), Handbook

of Language and Social Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 257–
73.
Enverga, M. (2011). Magina’s Two Blades: The Dual Nature of Discourse in the Game
Chat of Philippine Dota Players. Philippine Sociological Review, 59, 49 – 65
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/mLGZXZ
Erikson, E.H. (1959) Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: International
Universities Press.
Fan, J., Huang, C., Liu, Y., Lyu, X., Wang, Z., (2017). Understanding MOBA Player
Experience: What Can We Know from Social Big Data? (Technical report)
Retrieved from https://liuyicun.me/pdfs/estr3302.pdf
Ferguson, M. A. & Thomas E. Ford. 2008. Disparagement humor: A theoretical and

empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority and social identity theories.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 21. 283–312.
Fitzgerald, C. (2016). Gaming at the margins. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claire_Fitzgerald10/publication/321825407
_Gaming_at_the_margins_An_ethnographic_exploration_of_gamers'_lived_exp
eriences_of_video_games/links/5a339a61a6fdcc9b2d7880bf/Gaming-at-the-
margins-An-ethnographic-exploration-of-gamers-lived-experiences-of-video-
games.pdf
Ford, T. E. (1997). Effects of stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans on

person perception. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 266–275.
Ford, T. E., Boxer, C. F., Armstrong, J., & Edel, J. R. (2008). More than “Just a joke”:
The prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 159–170.
Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A

prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 79–94.
Ford, T. E., Breeden, C. J., O'Connor, E. C., & Banos, N. C. (2017). Jokes and humor in
intergroup relations. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. WW Norton & Company.
Gaetan, S., Bréjard, V., & Bonnet, A. (2016). Video games in adolescence and
emotional functioning: Emotion regulation, emotion intensity, emotion
expression, and alexithymia. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 344-349.
Garcia, A., De Guzman, M.R., (2017). Parental messages about gender. Nadal, K. (Ed.)
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender [E-reader version].
Retrieved from https://shorturl.at/gpsP7
Garcia, J. N. C. (2004). Male homosexuality in the Philippines: A short history. IIAS

Newsletter, 35, 13. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/jCviJ7
Garcia, J.N. (2014). The postcolonial perverse: Critiques of contemporary Philippine

culture, Volume 2. Diliman, Quezon City: The University of the Philippines
Press.
Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and
Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman E (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-facebehavior. New York:

Pantheon.
Goffman, E. (1983) The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review 48, 1, p.1–17.
Gray, K. L. (2014). Race, gender, and deviance in Xbox live: Theoretical perspectives
from the virtual margins. Routledge.
Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. G. (2019). A first look at communication
theory.
Grifiths, M., Davies, M., Chappell, D. (2003). Breaking the Stereotype: The Case of
Online Gaming. CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR Volume 6, Number 1,
2003, 81 – 93 retrieved from https://goo.gl/kcaj7u
Gruner, C. R. (1997). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Hall, J., & LaFrance, B. (2012). “That's gay”: Sexual prejudice, gender identity,
norms, and homophobic communication. Communication Quarterly,
60(1), 3558. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/CRtLyP
Haugh, M. (2014). Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-

Australian conversation. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 76-99.
Haugh, M., & Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular
abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1099-
1114.
Healey, G. (2016). Proving Grounds: Performing Masculine Identities in Call of Duty:
Black Ops. Game Studies, 16(2). Retrived from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313574951_Proving_grounds_Perform
ing_masculine_identities_in_call_of_duty_Black_ops
Hewitt, J. P., & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers. American sociological review, 1-11.
Higate, Paul, and John Hopton. 2005. War, Militarism, and Masculinities. In Handbook
of Studies on Men and Masculinities, ed. Michael S. Kimmel, Jeff Hearn, and
R.W. Connell, 432–447. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved
from: https://b-ok.org/book/5239392/dc4c1b
Hockett, Charles. 1972. Jokes. Studies in linguistics in honor of George L. Trager, ed.
by Estellie Smith, 153–78. New York: Mouton. Reprinted in Hockett, Charles.
1977. The view from language: selected essays, 257–289. Athens: University of
Georgia Press.
House, J. (2006). Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of pragmatics,

38(10), 1542-1558.
Inton, M. N. (2017). The bakla and the silver screen: Queer cinema in the Philippines
(Doctor's thesis, Lingnan University, Hong Kong). Retrieved from
http://commons.ln.edu.hk/cs_etd/30/
Jarrett, J. (2016) ‘Critically Approaching the Playful and Participatory Genealogy of

MOBAs’, Proceedings of 1st International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG,
1- 6th August 2016.
Jay, T. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on psychological
science, 4(2), 153-161.
Jenkins, H. (1998). Complete freedom of movement: Video games as gendered play

spaces. From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games, 1, 262-
296. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/djXE5z
Jenson, J., & De Castell, S. (2010). Gender, simulation, and gaming: Research review
and redirections. Simulation & Gaming, 41(1), 51-71.
Jewell, L. M., & Morrison, M. A. (2010). “But There’sa Million Jokes About Everybody...”:
Prevalence of, and Reasons for, Directing Negative Behaviors Toward Gay Men on
a Canadian University Campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2094-
2112.
Kaye, Lyle., Hellsten, L., Mousavi, A., McIntyre, L., & Morrison, D. (2019). The
Gamer's Mindset: A Retrospective Study Exploring Young Adult Males'
Online Gaming Experiences (Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan).
Kendrick, S. (2015). Misogyny And Gaming: The Maintenance Of A Male-Gendered

Gamer Culture (Doctoral dissertation, Ryerson University). Toronto, Canada
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/gGa1bG
Khandaker, J. (2019). Girl Gamers and Toxicity (Doctoral dissertation).
Kniffin, K. M., & Palacio, D. (2018). Trash-talking and trolling. Human Nature, 29(3),
353-369.
Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of pragmatics,
38(1), 4-25.
Korobov, N. (2004). Inoculating Against Prejudice: A Discursive Approach to

Homophobia and Sexism in Adolescent Male Talk. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 5(2), 178.
Koszałkowska, K., & Wróbel, M. (2019). Moral judgment of disparagement humor.

Humor, 32(4), 619-641.
Kumar, R. (2018). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Sage.
Kushner, D. (2004). Masters of Doom: How two guys created an empire and
transformed pop culture. Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Lacsamana, M. (2015). Rainbow Warriors: Strategies of War in the Inclusion

of Persons of Diverse SOGIE in the Maoist Insurgency in the Philippines
(Doctoral dissertation, Central European University).
Retrieved from https://etd.ceu.hu
Lalor, T., & Rendle-Short, J. (2007). ‘That's so gay’: a contemporary use of gay in
Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 27(2), 147-173.
Lepore, E., & Stone, M. (2018). Pejorative tone. Bad Words: Philosophical Perspectives
on Slurs, 134-53.
Littlejohn, S. W., Foss, K. A., & Oetzel, J. G. (2017). Theories of Human

Communication. 11th Edition.
Lobel, A., Granic, I., & Engels, R. C. (2014). Stressful gaming, interoceptive awareness,
and emotion regulation tendencies: A novel approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 17(4), 222-227.
Magilvy, J. K., & Thomas, E. (2009). A first qualitative project: Qualitative descriptive
design for novice researchers. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 14(4),
298-300.
Magrath, R. (2018). ‘To try and gain an advantage for my team’: Homophobic and
homosexually themed chanting among English football fans. Sociology, 52(4),
709-726. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/EWW3ai
Malyk, M. V. (2014). Sincere backhanded compliments: Exploring social, semiotic and

cognitive dimensions of cryptosemic interaction. Rutgers The State University of
New Jersey-New Brunswick.
Manalansan, M. F. (2015). Bakla (Philippines). In P. Whelehan, & A. Bolin (Eds.), The

international encyclopedia of human sexuality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/tR3FSk
Manalastas, E. J., & del Pilar, G. E. H. (2005). Filipino attitudes towards lesbians and
gay men: Secondary analysis of 1996 and 2001 national survey data. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 53-75.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual
differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being:
Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of research in
personality, 37(1), 48-75.
Martin JS, Vaccaro CA, Heckert DA et al. (2015) Epic glory and manhood acts in
fantasy role-playing: Dagorhir as a case study. The Journal of Men’s Studies
23(3): 293–314.
Martindale, D. (1981). The nature and types of sociological theory. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
McCann, P., Plummer, D., & Minichiello, V. (2010). Being the butt of the joke:
Homophobic humour, male identity, and its connection to emotional and physical
violence for men. Health Sociology Review, 19(4), 505-521.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/rNsr6X
McCormack, Mark(2011) 'Mapping the Terrain of Homosexually-Themed Language',

Journal of Homosexuality, 58: 5, 664 — 679 Retrieved from https://goo.gl/17Bpur
McCormack, M. (2012). The Declining Significance of Homophobia: How Teenage

Boys are Redefining Masculinity and Heterosexuality. (New York. Oxford University
Press
McCormack, M., Wignall, L. & Morris, M. Gay. (2016). guys using gay language:
Friendship, shared values and the intent-context-effect matrix. British Journal of
Sociology, 67(4), 747-767.
Miczo, N., Averbeck, J. M., & Mariani, T. (2009). Affiliative and aggressive humor,
attachment dimensions, and interaction goals. Communication Studies, 60(5),
443-459.
Myers, M. (2018, July 11). Esports Player's Use Of Homophobic Slur Sets Off
Unexpectedly Long Debate’, Kotaku, Retrieved from http://kotaku.com
Nakamura, L. (2014). Gender and race online. Society and the Internet. How networks
of information and communication are changing our lives. Oxford, 81-95.
Navarro, A. H., & Nebot, A. C. (2014). On the importance of the prosodic component in
the expression of linguistic im/politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 10(1),
5-27.
Nguyen, Viet Thanh. “Queer Bodies and Subaltern Spectators.” Race and Resistance:
Literature and Politics in Asian America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
125-141. Web. 19 Dec. 2013.
Niemi, E. J. (2014). The games men play: How community college men use video
games to construct masculinity. Retrieved from
https://commons.lib.niu.edu/bitstream/handle/10843/17731/Niemi_niu_0162D_1
2015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Oberda, K. (2015). The Tone of Speech and its Impact on Interpersonal Relationships.
International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(2), 379.
Oliver, C. (2012). The relationship between symbolic interactionism and interpretive

description. Qualitative health research, 22(3), 409-415.
Orbe, M. P., & Camara, S. K. (2010). Defining discrimination across cultural groups:
Exploring the [un-] coordinated management of meaning. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 283-293.
Ortiz, S. M. (2019). The meanings of racist and sexist trash talk for men of color: A
cultural sociological approach to studying gaming culture. New Media & Society,
21(4), 879-894.
Paaßen, B., Morgenroth, T., & Stratemeyer, M. (2016). What is a true gamer?
The male gamer stereotype and the marginalization of women in video game
culture. Sex Roles. in press. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0678-y
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
[Google Book Version] Retrieved from https://goo.gl/F4KZkp
Patrick, D. R., & Bignall, J. E. (1984). Creating the competent self: The case of the
wheelchair runner. The existential self in society, 207-221.
Paulus, P. B. (Ed.). (2015). Psychology of group influence. Psychology Press.
Pearce, W. B. (2004). Using CMM. Woodside, California: A Pearce Associates

Seminar. Retrieved from
http://www.pearceassociates.com/essays/cmm_seminar.pdf
Pisanski, K., & Bryant, G. A. (2019). The evolution of voice perception. Oxford
handbook of voice studies, 269-300.
Plummer, D. C. (2001). The quest for modern manhood: Masculine stereotypes, peer
culture and the social significance of homophobia. Journal of Adolescence, 24,
15–23. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/fb4gHU
Plummer, K. (1996). Symbolic interactionism and the forms of homosexuality. Retrieved

from https://shorturl.at/frLW9
Plummer, K. (2002). Symbolic interactionism and sexual conduct: An emergent

perspective. In C. L. Williams & A. Stein (Eds.), Sexuality and gender (pp. 1–
32). New York: Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved from
https://kenplummer.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/symbolic-interactionism-and-
sexual-conduct-an-emergent-perspective.pdf
Plummer, K. (2010) “Generational Sexualities, Subterranean Traditions, and the

Hauntings of the Sexual World.” Symbolic Interaction 33.2: 163–190.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2014). Supplement for chapter 14: Qualitative descriptive
studies. Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing
practice.
Popa-Wyatt, M., & Wyatt, J. L. (2018). Slurs, roles and power. Philosophical Studies,
175(11), 2879-2906.
Postic, R., & Prough, E. (2014). That’s gay! Gay as a slur among college students.
SAGE Open, 4(4), 2158244014556996. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244014556996
Pujante Jr, N. T. (2021). Speech for Fun, Fury, and Freedom: Exploring Trash Talk in
Gaming Stations. Asian Journal of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, 1-
11.
Quintos, J. J. (2012). A Glimpse into the Asog Experience: A Historical Study on the
Homosexual Experience in the Philippines. Trans. Philip Y. Kimpo, Jr. Plaridel, 9,
155-169.
Ray, S. G. (2003). Gender Inclusive Game Design: Expanding the Market (Advances in
Computer Graphics and Game Development Series). Charles River Media, Inc..
Reyes, M. E., Balacuit, M., Carangcarang A., Diayon, M., & Lerin, R. M. (2012). Filipino
gay stereotypes in mainstream and independent films. Advancing Literature and
Communications Research, 1(1), 21-42 Retrieved from https://goo.gl/dDBjvA
Richard, G. T. (2017). “Play like a girl”: Gender expression, sexual identity, and
complex expectations in a female‐oriented gaming community. Queer game
studies, 163-178.
Robinson L (2007) The cyberself: The selfing project goes online, symbolic interaction
in the digital age. New Media and Society 9(1): 93–110.
Ruberg, B. (2019). 5. Playing to Lose: Burnout and the Queer Art of Failing at Video
Games. In Video Games Have Always Been Queer (pp. 135-157). New York
University Press.
Rubio, R. J., & Green, R. J. (2011). Filipino Men’s Roles and their Correlates.
Culture, Society & Masculinities, 3(2). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270190476_Filipino_Men's_Roles_and
_their_Correlates
Salazar, J. T. (2020). Rethinking Filipino Masculinities: The Case of the Cosmopolitan

Tambay. Kritika Kultura. Retrieved from: http://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/kk/
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in

Nursing & Health, 23, 334–340.
Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research

in Nursing & Health, 33, 77–84.
Saucier, D. A., O’Dea, C. J., & Strain, M. L. (2016). The bad, the good, the
misunderstood: The social effects of racial humor. Translational Issues in
Psychological Science, 2, 75–85.
Sbattella, L., Colombo, L., Rinaldi, C., Tedesco, R., Matteucci, M., & Trivilini, A. (2014,
January). Extracting Emotions and Communication Styles from Vocal Signals. In
PhyCS (pp. 183-195).
Schelfhout, S., Bowers, M. T., & Hao, Y. A. (2019). Balancing Gender Identity and
Gamer Identity: Gender Issues Faced by Wang ‘BaiZe’Xinyu at the 2017
Hearthstone Summer Championship. Games and Culture, Retrieved from
https://shorturl.at/mqtNP
Sherzer, Joel. 1985. Puns and jokes. Handbook of discourse analysis: discourse and
dialogue, ed. by Teun A. Van Dijk, 213–21. London: Academic Press.
Siitonen, M. (2014). Conflict. In The Routledge companion to video game studies

(pp. 192-198). Routledge.
Skardzius, K. (2015). Playing with Pride: Marginalized Players Claiming Space Through
Community Building and Equity Enforcement in World of Warcraft Woke Gaming.
In K.L. Gray & D.J. Leonard (Eds.). Woke gaming: Digital challenges to
oppression and social injustice. University of Washington Press.
Slaatten, H., Anderssen, N. & Hetland, J. (2015). Gay-related name-calling among

Norwegian adolescents – harmful and harmless. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 56, 708–716.
Somoni, Jehbthah B.M.M., Martin, Lumumba Omweri, and Nyandoro Cephus Kebabe.
2010. “Consumer preference of different cyber café services in Kenya: A critical
evaluation of the factors that influence preference for different cyber café services
in Kisii Town.” African Journal of Business & Management 1:282–291.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/446YRJ
Srauy, S., & Palmer-Mehta, V. (2018). Tools of the Game: The Gendered
Discourses of Peripheral Advertising. In Masculinities in Play (pp. 185-207).
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Stewart K., Choi, H.P. (2003). PC-Bang (Room) Culture: A Study of Korean College
Students’ Private and Public Use of Computers and the Internet. Trends in
Communication 11 (1), 61 – 77 Retrieved from https://goo.gl/MX76Zn
Strain, M. L., Martens, A. L., & Saucier, D. A. (2016). “Rape is the new black”: Humor’s
potential for reinforcing and subverting rape culture. Translational Issues in
Psychological Science, 2, 86–95.
Stryker, S. & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality:

Equivalent, overlapping, or complimentary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly
57, 16-35.
Stubbs, M. (2019, December29 ), ‘Dota 2’ World Champion Johan ‘n0tail’ Sundstein

Banned On Twitch,’ Forbes, Retrieved from http://forbes.com
Siutila, M., & Havaste, E. (2019). A pure meritocracy blind to identity: Exploring the
Online Responses to All-Female Esports Teams in Reddit. Transactions of the
Digital Games Research Association, 4(3).
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual

orientation. John Wiley & Sons.
Sue, D. W., & Capodilupo, C. M. (2008). Racial, gender, and sexual orientation
microaggressions: Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. Counseling
the culturally diverse: Theory and practice, 5, 105-130.
Tampa, R. GG, EZ: Strategic Interaction within ‘League of Legends’ Ranked Games
Tan, Michael L. "Survival Through Pluralism: Emerging Gay Communities in the

Philippines." Journal of Homosexuality (2001): 117-42.
Tan, M. L. (2008). Filipino Keywords Related to Sexuality. Retrived from

https://goo.gl/3iu216
Tang, W. Y., & Fox, J. (2016). Men's harassment behavior in online video games:
Personality traits and game factors. Aggressive behavior, 42(6), 513-521.
Taylor, N., & Voorhees, G. (2018). Introduction: Masculinity and Gaming: Mediated
Masculinities in Play. In Masculinities in Play (pp. 1-19). Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham.
Taylor, N., & Hammond, R. (2018). Outside the Lanes: Supporting a Non-normative
League of Legends Community. In Queerness in Play (pp. 225-242). Palgrave
Macmillan, Cham.
Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., Spears, R., Livingstone, A. G., Platow, M. J., Lala, G., &
Mavor, K. (2020). ‘That's not funny!’Standing up against disparaging humor.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, 103901.
Todd, C. (2016). ‘Male Blood Elves Are So Gay’: Gender and Sexual Identity in Online
Games. The Routledge Research Companion to Geographies of Sex and
Sexualities, 379.
Torino, G. C., Rivera, D. P., Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., & Sue, D. W. (Eds.).
(2018). Microaggression theory: Influence and implications. John Wiley & Sons.
Tucker, S. (2011). Griefing: Policing masculinity in online games (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Oregon). Retrieved from:
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/12140
Valledor-Lukey, V. V. (2012). Pagkababae at Pagkalalake (Femininity and Masculinity):

Developing a Filipino Gender Trait Inventory and predicting self-esteem and
sexism. Retriever from:
https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=cfs_etd
Vanderhoef, J, Newman, Z. “Masculinity” in The Routledge Companion to Video Game

Studies, edited by Mark J.P. Wolf and Bernard Perron (Routledge, 2014) [Google
Books Version] Retrieved from https://goo.gl/V3RB5a
Vermeulen, L., & Van Looy, J. (2016). “I play so I am?” A gender study into stereotype
perception and genre choice of digital game players. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 60(2), 286-304.
Voida, A., Carpendale, S., & Greenberg, S. (2010, February). The individual and the
group in console gaming. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on
Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 371-380).
Vossen, E. (2018). The Magic Circle and Consent in Gaming Practices. In Feminism in
Play (pp. 205-220). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Wellings, E. (2010). Negative Stereotypes of Online Gamers and the Communication

Consequences Unpiublished
West C and Zimmerman DH (1987) Doing gender. In: Fenstermaker S and West C
(eds) Doing Gender, Doing Difference. New York: Routledge, pp. 3–24.
Wharton, T. (2012). Prosody and meaning: theory and practice. In Pragmatics and
prosody in English language teaching (pp. 97-116). Springer, Dordrecht.
Whitley CT (2013) Trans-kin undoing and redoing gender: Negotiating relational

identity among friends and family of transgender persons. Sociological
Perspectives 56(4): 597–621.
Williams, S. [@SkyWilliams]. (2018, July 03). Collquial usage, @SkyWilliams @thoorin.

Colloquial usage of the word had rapidly evolved it but since then it’s remained
the same. If a word evolves into a slur it’s unconditionally hurtful to most, no
matter the history’. [Tweet]. Retrieved from shorturl.at/bcvA2
Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Kulick, A., & Silverschanz, P. (2013). “That’s so gay”
heterosexual male undergraduates and the perpetuation of sexual orientation
microagressions on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 416-435.
Yip, J. A., Schweitzer, M. E., & Nurmohamed, S. (2018). Trash-talking: Competitive

incivility motivates rivalry, performance, and unethical behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 125-144.
APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
‘BAKLA’ AND ‘BADING’ LABELS AND EPITHETS IN GAMING: SITUATING

MEANINGS, INTERPREATIONS, AND USES IN THE COMMUNICATIVE
PRACTICES OF HETEROSEXUAL MALE MOBA GAMERS
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Problem1: Profile of the participants:
1. Please state your name, your age, and the game/s that you are playing.
2. Please state your gender and sexual orientation.
3. Could you tell me about your gaming experience such as where do you play, with
whom, and for how long have you been playing.
Problem 2: How do straight male gamers act towards gay gamers?
1. Can you describe what it’s like to play with gay gamers?
(Maari mo pang ilarawan ang karansan mo sa pakikipaglaro sa mga baklang
manlalaro?)
2. When was the last time you played with gay play peers?
(Kailan ka huling nakipaglaro sa mga bakla mong kaibigan o kalaro?)
3. How long have you been playing with gay gamers?

(Gaano ka na katagal nakikipaglaro sa mga baklang manlalaro?)
4. How do you feel about gay gamers?

(Ano ang pakiramdam mo o opinyon sa mga baklang manlalaro?)
5. How do you feel about their presence in gaming or them playing DoTA2 / LoL?
(Ano ang iyong pakiramdam o opinion sa presensya ng mga baklang manlalaro sa
DoTA2 / LoL?)
6. (For gay participants): Based on your feelings, observations, and experiences as a

gay gamer, how do you think do male gamers feel about gay gamers?
(Batay sa iyong sariling karanasan bilang isang baklang manlalaro, ano sa tingin mo
ang pakiramdam / opinyon ng mga lalaking manlalaro sa mga baklang manlalaro?)
Problem 3: How are homosexual-themed utterances / gay labels and epithets like
bakla and bading used in gaming as a result of the meanings and interpretations
gamers have assigned to them?
1. What do you use gay labels for?

(Para saan mo ginagamit ang mga ‘gay labels?’)
2. In what situations do you usually use these labels? How do you use these gay
labels?
(Sa anong uri ng mga sitwasyon or pagkakataon mo nagagamit ang mga ‘gay labels’?
Paano mo sila ginagamit?)
3. In the past, what situations prodded you to use these gay labels?
(Sa mga nakalipas na pagkakataon, ano ang nag-udyok sa’yo na gamitin ang mga ‘gay
labels’ na iyong nabanggit?)
4. Has a friend or playmate ever labeled you using any of the gay labels that you’ve
mentioned? What prodded them to call you XX? What do you think was their intention
for calling you XX/XX?
(Mayroon na bang pagkakataon na ginamit ng isang kapwa manlalaro, kalaro, o
kaibigan na kalaro ang isang ‘gay label’ sa’yo? Ano ang nag udyok sa kanila? Sa
palagay mo, ano ang naging intensyon nila nung ikaw ay tinawag nilang XX/XX?)
Problem 4: How do heterosexual male gamers and gay gamers interpret

homosexual-themed utterances?
1. (For gay participants): Can you please tell me about your experiences as a gay
gamer? How about your experience with gay labels used by heterosexual male gamers
or your heterosexual playmates?
(Maari mo bang ibahagi sa akin ang iyong mga karanasan bilang isang ‘gay gamer’ pati
ang mga karanasan mo sa mga lalakeng manlalarong naririnig mong gumagamit ng
mga ‘gay labels’?
2. (For gay participants): As a gay gamer, how does the casual use of gay labels make
you feel?
(Bilang isang ‘gay gamer’ anong nararamdaman mo sa kaswal na paggamit ng mga
‘gay labels’?
3. How do you interpret or what is your interpretation of the gay labels that you hear in
game-related activities?
(Paano mo binibigyang interpretasyon sa mga ‘gay labels’ na naririnig mong ginagamit
sa mga paguusap na may kinalaman sa gaming?)
4. What do you think do heterosexual male gamers mean whenever they use gay
labels?
(Sa iyong palagay, ano ang ibig sabihin ng mga lalaking manlalaro sa tuwing ginagamit
nila ang mga ‘gay labels’?)
5. What do you think are the reasons why gamers use these gay labels during game
play or in game-related activities?
(Ano sa iyong palagay ang mga rason kung bakit ginagamit ng mga lalaking manlalaro
ang mga ‘gay labels’ sa laro o kaya naman ay sa paguusap na may kinalaman sa
paglalaro?)
6. What do you think is their intention for using such language?

(Sa iyong palagay, ano ang kanilang intensyon sa paggamit ng mga ganitong
pananalita?)
Problem 5: What are the different meanings and interpretations assigned by

heterosexual male gamers and gay male gamers to homosexual-themed
utterances that are part of their communicative practices?
1. What gay labels do you use in game-related activities?

(Anong ‘gay labels’ ang ginagamit mo sa tuwing ikaw ay naglalaro o sa mga bagay na
may kinalaman sa iyong paglalaro?)
2. What gay labels have been used on you during play?

(Anong mga ‘gay labels’ na ang mga nagamit sa iyo sa mga okasyong ikaw ay
naglalaro?)
3. How would you define ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’, based on your own understanding and
knowledge of these words and its usage?
(Alinsunod sa ‘yong pagkakaintindi at kaalaman, ano ang ibig sabihin ng mga ‘bakla’ at
‘bading’?)
4. What do you usually mean when you use gay labels such as ‘bakla’ and ‘bading’
while playing?
(Anong kadalasan mong ibig sabihin sa tuwing ginagamit mo ang mga ‘gay labels’ na
‘bakla’ at ‘bading’ sa tuwing ikaw ay naglalaro o pinaguusapan ang mga bagay na may
kauganayan sa iyong paglalaro?)
APPENDIX 2: SAMPLE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
<STRAIGHT PARTICIPANT: FIRST INTERVIEWS>
IDI#: IDI1-1
Informant Code: FJ
Informant Name: [REDACTED]
Date: 7/11/2019 Loc: Sta. Mesa, Manila
Time Started: 2:57PM Time Ended: 3:24PM
E: Alright, uh before we begin i-ano lang...some questions muna regarding sa research.

Bale ‘yong research ko is an investigation kung paano ba ginagamit ng male gamers
‘yong homophaulisms. Pag sinabi nating homophaulisms, these are labels na referring
two case. Well in our case, bakla at bading. So ‘yong homophaulism ay ‘yong bakla at
bading. Uh before we get to the interview, uhm i-acknowledge lang natin na ni-refer ka
ng student ko, si [redacted], and Ikaw ba ay pumunta dito on your own
accord…pumunta ka ba ng hindi pinipilit?
FJ: Opo
E: Do you agree to participate in the interview?
FJ: Opo
E: Sabihin ko lang din na ‘yong magiging responses mo are being recorded right now.
They will be transcribe and gagamitin siya as part of the research. Okay lang ba sayo
na gamitin ang responses mo?
FJ: Oo
E: Would you like for your identity to be ah…to be – ano tawag dito…bigyan ka ng
panibagong pangalan doon sa transcript. Gusto mo bang mag assign ako ng ibang
name para sayo? Instead na [redacted]?
FJ: Okay lang po.
E: At ikaw ay willing participant?
FJ: Opo
E: Okay, sige. Ano lang...short backgrounder lang. Pakilala ka muna, name, age, ano
‘yong game na nilalaro mo tapos kailangan uhm state mo ‘yong gender at sexual
orientation mo kasi dalawa ‘yong...dalawa ‘yong informant ko. Meron akong gay
informant, meron akong straight male informant. So, i-classify mo kung alin doon.
FJ: So…I’m [redacted], 21 years of age. Then, sa games kasi gusto ko ‘yong may
istorya but naglalaro ako nung mga MOBA or fast-life game. Siyempre, nakaha na rin
pag-encounter ng other gamings kasi minsan in-game. So, ayon…pero as a gamer kasi
bata pa lang ako. Gusto ko na talaga yung ano…may istorya pero iyon nga naihatak din
ako sa MOBA kasi yung mga “frennies” nung elementary tapos high school lahat
naglalaro. Eh ginawang multiplayer yung mga campaign games eh. So ayon, doon din
ako na ano…natuto with them.
E: So, ngayon uhm ano ang nilalaro mo sa PC? PC gamer ba? PC? (Opo) Mostly PC?
Ano ang nilalaro mo sa PC ngayon?
FJ: So…as of now, Sims. Lahat ng simulation games.
E: Ah si...simulation ka ngayon?
FJ: Opo. Nahilig ako do’n kasi may designing doon sa [inaudible]…sa simulation games
eh…
E: Na pwedeng applicable sa ME, gano'n?
FJ: Opo. Kagaya do’n sa Sims. Nagde-design ako ng bahay.
E: Uhm sa MOBA naman, ano ang nilalaro mo?
FJ: Sa MOBA, ‘yon DoTA.
E: DoTA. DoTA 1 o 2?
FJ: Both.
E: Both?
FJ: Pero yung mas na – pag offline DoTA 1…pero pag multiplayer na game talaga,
DoTA 2.
E: Sa…computer shop ka ba or sa bahay or pareho?
FJ: Both
E: Sige. Sa ano…ano sa – uhm anong tawag dito…sa na-mention mo nag mo-MOBA

ka na before. So…like games like Starcraft and…and uhm–
FJ: Hindi ko lang na-try ‘yong Starcraft pero Warcraft, oo.
E: Battle Rise na-try mo?
FJ: Oo pero hindi ako naadik masyado do’n…kasi nakikilaro lang ako.
E: Tapos uhm a…ano ang gender orientation mo?

FJ: Ah ‘yon straight male.
E: You classify as straight male. Uhm sa paglalaro, do you usually play with a team o
mas madalas na solo ka?
FJ: Uhm more likely kasi nag umpisa ako sa solo game na lang. Eh pag sa klase…or
pagtapos sa klase nag aantay ng prof. [inaudible]—
E: Kasama na si [redacted] sa laro?
FJ: Oo, nagmu-multiplayer na ko.
E: Ah so sumasali ka na sa kanya? [referring to redacted]
FJ: Opo…ibang MOBA—
E: Ano ‘yon hinahayaan niyo siya?
FJ: Ibang – hindi ano po…naglalaro kami. Alam niyo ‘yong Counter Strike. Ganyan…
‘yan naglalaro kami niyan. Kagaya ng [inaudible]
E: Yung ano…yung mga nakakalaro mo usually pag may kasama ka. ‘Yong
composition niyo. Are you mostly straight? Lahat kayo straight? So, uhm never pa kayo
nakapaglaro with a gay gamer?
FJ: Ah meron po. May tropa ako. ‘Yon ‘yong pinaka-main team ko. ‘Yong kasama ko.
E: Pag sinabi mong main team, constantly mong nalalaro? Tama ba ko? Ay
hindi...constant niyong nakakalaro?
FJ: ‘Yon ‘yong parang pinaka-nakakalaro ko talaga as in simula high school. Sila talaga
‘yon. Which means parang main team…kunwari pag kumilos ang isa sa amin.
Makakatulong ka na kahit hindi ka na magsalita eh pero kasi ‘yong mga kalaro ko
diyan…sisigawan mo pa eh. Bago pa gumalaw eh.
E: Sige. Uhm one of the reasons kung bakit uhm nirefer ka ni [redacted] and one of the
reasons kung bakit in-invite kita or kinonsider kitang informant is because nasabi niya
nga na nagfit ka do’n sa description or atleast uhm na-meet mo ‘yong…’yong criteria na
sinet natin for the informant. Sabi nga natin naghahanap ako ng informant na nagamit
niya ‘yong mga Homophaulisms while gaming. Uhm isa sa goal ko is maintindihan bakit
ito ‘yong ginagamit kasi whenever we’re playing. Ang dami daming kasing pwedeng
gamitin pero for some reason, ito ‘yong nagagamit ng…no’ng players and uhm hindi
naman na kayo – pare-pareho naman tayong nagpunta lang sa computer shops. Alam
na natin and naririnig na natin siya pero for most people – ah lumabas sa isang
tenga…ah pumasok sa kabila lalabas naman sa kabila pero kasi there’s more to it than
that. Gusto ko lang tanungin uhm as far as you can recall and kung…kung ano lang
‘yong consciously na alam mo. Ano na ‘yong alam mo na Homophaulisms or…or labels
na nagamit mo?
FJ: As a…as a trash talk?
E: As a – sig…in the context of trash talk mo siya ginagamit? para sa’yo?
FJ: ‘Yong kapag ano…in-game nagagamit ko ‘yon as a trash talk kasi cul…culture na
kasi sa amin di ba? Sa gano’n…sa gaming industry pag gay, bading…duwag pero
since ayon…ginagamit ko kasi trash talker ako, bata pa lang eh.
E: Pano'ng…edad ka ba nagstart maglaro?
FJ: Sa maglaro talaga ng computer games? (Ah…Oo) Elementary talaga.
E: Anong – may recollection ka ba kung anong…mga ilang taon ka natutong magtrash

talk?
FJ: Ay ‘yong sa trash talking po talaga, elementary kapag may kasamahan ako do’n na
mapang-asar. Eh nangre-rebutt po talaga ako.
E: Ah sumasagot ka talaga?
FJ: uh-hmm [agrees]. Kaya ang daming pikon sa akin…ang daming gustong sapakin
ako
E: May…may time na ikaw ‘yong nag-instigate?
FJ: Ay hindi po…hindi ako ‘yong…ako ‘yong – hindi ako ‘yong nag-i-initiate. Depending
na lang ako kapag…kapag sumabat sila sa akin minsan binabawian ko.
E: Pag sila nagsimula…
FJ: So sila ‘yong magpi-pick out pero never akong…minsan lang. (Minsan lang?) Pag
na-bwi…na-bwisit talaga ako [inaudible]. Pero in terms of then…ginagamit. Hindi pa ata
ako naglalaro no’ng games na yon nagagamit ko na sa trash talking tsaka [inaudible]
pero ‘yon nga since no’ng nakalaro ko ‘tong si [redacted]. ‘Yong gay na kalaro namin.
Hindi na rin masyadong ginagamit din ‘yon eh kasi pag t-in-rash talk mo ng gano’n. May
time na gano’n, pero gay naman siya. Hindi naman insulto ‘yon sa kanya eh…pero
ayon kung mangta-trash talk na rin ako sa iba, mas ginagamit ko ‘yong tapered
na…idiotic sense na mga gano’n kasi wala naman ka-meaning ‘yong tanga diyan.
E: Ah…well. Sige pero sa paglaro uh…sa paglalaro mo can uhm…am I correct in

saying na nagamit mo na ‘yong term na bakla and bading?
FJ: Uh-hmm [agrees]
E: Uh are…are…are these para sayo interchangeable ba sila or uhm me…meron bang

– mas nagagamit mo ba ‘yong bakla…or mas nagagamit mo ba ‘yong bading. Uh ano
lang base on observation.
FJ: Uhm hindi ko naman nagagamit masyado eh. Kasi…’yong as a trash talking ‘nong
time na ‘yon? (Oo) Hindi ko na nga masyadong ginagamit kasi…ano eh…ah tawag
nito…they have…’yong may mga group of people na pinaglalaban nila ‘yong ano nila
eh…’yong karapatan nila about do’n. Kaya kailangan – mamaya magsalita ka tapos
may mga ‘yon nga…na gano’n…edi ako ‘yong mapapasama pero parang respeto na rin
sa kanila. Pero minsan—
E: So conscious decision ito on your part na ano…na huwag ng gamitin itong mga
salitang ito?
FJ: uh-hmm [agrees]. As a respect na din pero kasi minsan pag dala ng ano…ng
emosyon…na-i-speak ko pa rin ‘yong term na ‘yon kasi nakasanayan na eh gano’n.
E: Uhm ‘yong ano…’yong…’yong consciousness mo or atleast ‘yong…yong sa part mo

na ‘wag na siyang gamitin out of respect. Is this something na nangyari na after mong
na-meet ‘yong…’yong kalaro niyo na ano…na bakla din or is this something na even
before niyo pa siyang na-meet kahit papaano may inkling ka na ano…?
FJ: ‘Wag gamitin?
E: Oo, na ’wag gamitin.
FJ: Hindi ko rin masa – hindi nagagamit ko rin talaga.
E: Ginagamit mo talaga siya?
FJ: uh-hmm [agrees]
E: Sige. Uhm…sa ano a…a…as far as these words are concerned. As far as the a…as
far as the words bakla and bading are concerned. Ano ba ‘yong understanding mo sa
mga salitang ito? Ano bang meaning nila para sa’yo? Base lang sa pagkakaintindi mo
or base sa kaalaman mo kung paano ito ginagamit sa pang araw-araw, kung kanino ito
ginagamit or ano ‘yong naoobserbahan mong pag gamit ng mga tao sa salitang ito?
FJ: ‘Yong term na gay is ano diba…’yong male attracted sa male …ayon.
E: We have to be – i-clear ko lang kasi si gay, si bakla at si bading magkaka iba siya. I
mean a…a…uhm ang…are you referring to gay as in gay the English word or are you
referring to gay as in bakla?
FJ: ‘Yong bakla.
E: Ah so…the ah…for…for the purpose ng clarity sabihin na lang natin siyang bakla.
FJ: So, bakla ‘yong mga ano…parang – in a literal na term ‘yon nga attracted sa same
gender which is male pero figuratively sa game…ang bakla o bading sinasabi na duwag
or uh parang…walang kwenta as in gano’n pag na gaming community na Pilipino.
Ewan ko lang gano’n din sa ano…sa ibang bansa kung ganon din term nila pero ayon
nga. Figuratively speaking sinasabi nila na bakla is gano’n nga…kasi nakasanayan na
rin. Culture na rin ng Filipino gaming community.
E: Kapag ginagamit mo siya sa mga pagkakataong naalala mong nagamit mo siya at sa

mga pagkakataong sa tingin mo ay magagamit mo ulit itong term na ‘to for example
naglalaro tayo ngayon at nagamit mo ang salitang bakla at bading or…or puwede
siguro in the past nagamit mo ang salitang bakla at bading. Ano usually ‘yong ibig mong
sabihin pag ginagamit mo ito during gameplay?
FJ: Ayon more on ano…ah…duwag. Gano’n.
E: Duwag…
FJ: Uhm walang kwenta…hindi…pero more on duwag eh. (More on…) Oo, more on
duwag. Kunwari nandoon na kami…nagset initiate na kami tapos ‘yong isa nag ano
pa…parang may doubt pa sumama. Sasabihan mong “bading ka ba?” gano’n or
[parang sasabihin] sige go mo na ‘yan tapos ayaw na [sasabihan mong] “bading ka
ba?” gano’n ‘yong sasabihin mo eh. Klaro ba? Parang…pag takot ‘yon.
E: Pag takot? Ano..Ano...
FJ: Or naduduwag…nahihiya gano’n.
E: Naduduwag saan?
FJ: Naduduwag na ano…mag take risk o umabante mga ganyan. Speaking in a gaming
term?
E: Oo.
FJ: Parang kunwari ah…naduduwag – pano ko ba masasabi to…naduduwag mag

initiate or parang ayaw niyang lumabas sa comfort zone niya gano’on or sabihin na
natin ayaw niyang sumama do’n sa team play kasi baka madehado siya or gano’n.
Parang pinoprotektahan niya masyado ‘yong sarili niya.
E: So parang uhm…kasi baka hindi ito maintindihan ng ano…ng hindi familiar sa

gaming. When we say takot mag-initiate, takot mag-initiate ng battle?
FJ: Oo, takot mag-initiate – takot i-execute ng plan or initiate. Bigla kang papasok then
go through the plan.
E: In most cases na nagamit mo siya would you say na ginamit mo siya to refer to a
person na kakilala mo or mas ginagamit mo siya as – wala ka naman talagang ni-re-
refer na tao? In general terms mo lang siyang ginamit?
FJ: More on in general terms eh

E: So, kung ako ‘yong kakampi mo nag ah…nag-initiate kung nasabihan mo kong “ah
pre ano ba ‘yan? Ang bakla mo naman.” You are referring to ang bakla ko as in hindi ko
ah…ang bakla ko in a general sense not necessarily not to indicate na “bakla” ako?
FJ: Oo
E: As a matter of gender…
FJ: Oo.
E: Okay, nagamit mo na ang term kay – anong pangalan non? Renzo?
FJ: [redacted]..[redacted]..
E: [redacted]? Huh?
FJ: [redacted]. [redacted]
E: Nagamit mo na ‘to sa kanya na siya ‘yong ni-re-refer mo or…or atleast siya ‘yong
kausap mo?
FJ: Oo…parang ano “hoy, bakla ka talaga!” ‘yon parang gano’n lang pero hindi ko siya
tinatrash talk sa term na bakla gano’n.
E: Ano ‘yong ginawa niya – kung naalala mo pa – ano ‘yong ginawa niya in-game na
would make you say “hoy, bakla ka talaga!” ?
FJ: Ay pag tumili gano’n.
E: Ah talaga? So—
FJ: Pag biglang ano bakla..kunwari di ba tahimik sa shop ‘yan gano’n kami tapos
biglang siyang ginank or sinugod or in-ambush. Biglang sisigaw ‘yan, titili tapos
kakalugin tapos “bading na bading ka na” ginagano’n namin.
E: Is there any reason kung bakit? uhm…
FJ: Na…shock.
E: Na-shock as in nagulat?
FJ: Nagulat talaga.
E: Are you more – hindi naman ito concern na baka malabel kayo na may kasama
kayong bakla or anything? Was that ever a concern to you?
FJ: Hindi.
E: Hindi naman. Ah question lang din si ano…si [redacted], ano usually ang role niya sa
laro?
FJ: Ano kasi kami eh…rotation eh pero doon sa main team ko…support lang din ako.
Eh siya minsan carry. Eh sa time ng ano…ng DoTA, safe lane na carry then…off lane.
E: safe lane carry…ito ‘yong usually..ah ito ’yong ano…malapit sa tower?
FJ: Ano…kunwari sa Radiant side…sa bottom (ah, oo sa baba) kaya minsan off lane
‘yong hide lane. Ayon…pero ano...nagsu-support din ‘yon eh. Depende sa rotation lang
namin gano’n.
E: May mga pagkakataon or sa tingin mo ba uh…may bearing ‘yong role ng isang…uh

ng isang player sa ano…sa laro para mas ma-label siyang bakla?
FJ: Wala…wala kami…ay kasi – pero ‘yong male-labelan ng bakla madalas ‘yon kay
[inaudible]…gano’n
E: Na…regardless kung bakla talaga siya or lalaki siya?
FJ: Oo pero ano…kung sa gaming community lalo na sa DoTA kahit nga sa ML eh.
Kung sino ‘yong ke-carry or ‘yong mabibigay ng malaking…malaking damage pag hindi
siya sumusugod ‘yong sinasabi mong “bakla mo naman.” Ganon… parang ayon.
E: ‘Yong term na bakla and bading nagamit na ba sa’yo ‘to before?
FJ: Sa akin? As a trash talk?
E: Puwede…na ikaw ‘yong ikaw ‘yong tinatrash talk. Ikaw naman ‘yong na-label na
bakla?
FJ: uh-hmm [agrees] kahit sa ano…dati kasi no’ng elementary ako. Basta kabataan ko
kasi na…nature ko puro mga babae eh ‘yong nasa paligid ko kaya minsan na-adapt ko
pagiging babae. So, ‘yon tinatrash talk nila ako ng gano’n pero wala na rin naman sa
akin.
E: Sa in-game, tinatrash talk ka nilang gano’n? Ano naman ang usual reaction mo?
FJ: Wala. Hindi naman po kasi ako pikunin. Hindi ako masyadong pikunin sa mga
gano’n pero pag na-ganon ako. Okay lang kasi kung ano naman mangtatrash talk
gano’n lang din masasabi ko eh.
E: So, wala kang…pa…para sayo hindi naman siya ano…hindi naman siya—
FJ: Offensive?
E: Offensive…or hindi naman siya – the highest form of insult?

FJ: Ah hindi…ah hindi naman…hindi siya sobrang insult talaga pero depende sa player
kung paano niya i-handle ‘yong trash talk eh. May iba talagang…sabihin mo
lang…”tanga mo naman” galit agad eh parang sinusumpa ka na agad.
E: Since matagal-tagal ka na naglalaro, may nangyari ba na ano…may nangyaring na-

observe ka na…ah ito ‘yong term na ginamit or…or nagta-trash talk-an na isa ito sa
mga term na nagamit…tapos nauwi na lang talaga sila sa sapakan or…or—
FJ: No’ng…no’ng [inaudible] pero hindi sa games eh parang trash talk-an lang within
the classroom eh.
E: Ah hindi na sa context ng gaming?
FJ: Hindi…pero sa gaming siguro hindi sa amin eh. Nakita lang naman eh.
E: Sa…sa…within…same shop?
FJ: Same shop tapos nag-aabang lang kami tapos na…na…”bading ka ba?” gano’n
tapos inulit ng inulit tapos tinayuan na [laughs]
E: then sinapak na?
FJ: uh-hmm [agrees]
E: Sa ano naman – wait ano ‘yong itatanong ko…may pagkakataon kasi

may…may…may kaibigan din naman akong gamers and…and most of the time – lalo
na pag maganda ‘yong laro di ba pinag-uusapan ito after ng laro? Kumbaga may
afterlife ‘yong…’yong conversation.
FJ: Pag ano…pag panalo may kuwento.
E: Pag talo?
FJ: Sisihan.
E: Which is kuwento pa rin?
FJ: Oo.
E: Ah…di – meron na bang sa experience mo na uhm…sa afterlife no’ng game or no’ng

nagku-kuwentuhan na kayo about the game or maaring pinagku-kuwentuhan niyo ‘yong
things that are related sa games. For example: characters, ah ‘yong mga updates,
sa…sa characters, sa mga characters na nerf na nag leak doon…or na carry over doon
‘yong…’yong salitang bakla at bading? Na-extend ‘yong gamit ng salitang bakla at
bading.
FJ: Meron sa DoTA gamit na gamit. Kunwari ‘yong ano…’yong Riki…
E: A…alin?
FJ: ‘Yong Riki
E: Ah Riki...‘yong…’yong ano…invisible? Oo.
FJ: Oo. Lahat ng nag-i-invisible sinasabi bading…gay…kasi takot magpakita gano’n

parang ‘yon na agad ‘yong term eh. “Bading naman nitong Riki na to”
E: Not necessarily habang naglalaro, pinag-uusapan lang ‘yong character dito?
FJ: uh-hmm [agrees]
E: Ah gano’n.
FJ: Lalo na no’ng update sa Riki na second skill na lang ‘yon…di ba kasi dati ‘yong Riki
last skill niya ‘yong ano [‘yong invi?] Oo ‘yong permanent invi tapos no’ng nag-update
ginawang second skill ‘yon tapos “mas pinabading ‘yong Riki ah”.
E: [laughs] ‘yon talaga ‘yong description? Atleast sa inyo or naalala mong pinag-
uusapan niyo meron bang isang character na ano…uhm meron bang isang character
na sa tingin mo would – pagpinili siya na isang player would make you…with the
exception of Riki siguro…would make you label them…would make other players…sa
tingin mo lang ah…label them bading or bakla?
FJ: When using a hero?
E: Oo.
FJ: Lahat ng may escape eh na lahat ng may escape na skills tinatawag na agad na
bading eh. Kunwari ‘yong ano nag initiate, tumakbo na naman, bading na agad ‘yon.
E: Pa’no ‘yong ano…kasi al – sa ibang ah…sa ibang context uhm usually pag male
player, male rin ‘yong character na ginagamit pero ah of course nagbabago-bago
naman ‘yan pero would you…ah would it make you call someone bakla o bading kapad
ang hero nila for example ay Crystal Maiden, Lina…’yong mga babae – ‘yong mga legit
na babae sa game?
FJ: Hindi naman po kasi sa akin ang campaign games ko nga kapag create your own
characters, babae ‘yong ginagamit ko din eh. Kahit sa mga…shooting games din
minsan babae kasi ang nipis…nipis ng babae eh. Hindi mo – ang hirap patamaan eh.
Gano’n lang…pero hindi mo naman male-labelan na bading agad ‘yong lalaki pag
babae ‘yong ginagamit pero siguro in terms of game pagka may nasasabihan kang
lalaki na bading. Kunwari naglalaro ka ng dress up mga gano’n…masasabihan mong
“bading ka ba?” Kunwari mga…no’ng ano…kabataan ko sa y8 di ba? Tapos naglalaro
ng dress up o kaya kung ano mang Barbie na laro sa y8. Kakalabitin mo “bading ka ba
pre?” gano’n lang naman ‘yon.
E: Sa ano…uhm…tingin mo ba after this interview, magbabago ‘yong paggamit mo ng

ano…ng salitang bakla and bading habang naglalaro ka?
FJ: Oo naman. Though kasi no’ng…simula ng nakalaro ko kasi si [redacted],

wala…hindi ko na masyado na rin nagagamit.
E: Eh ‘yong iba mong kalaro…they have same ano…the same attitude towards
[redacted] na hindi na rin nila ginagamit?
FJ: Wala kasi kapag inano namin si [redacted] – tinawag naming bakla parang ano lang
eh… biro lang or wala lang—
E: Para sa inyo?
FJ: Kasi – tsaka sa akin din kasi ‘yong volleyball community kasi sa CEA dati kalaro ko
‘yong mga nandoon…parang wala lang din ‘yong kasi pag tinatawag mo silang bakla or
gano’n eh.
E: Si ano…si [redacted] never siyang nag voice out sa inyo na “hoy, ano ba yan
naooffend ako sa ginagawa niyo” or…or…
FJ: Hindi naman…siguro sa ibang taong tumatawag sa kanya kasi sa amin kasi
matagal na rin naming tropa si [redacted] eh.
E: How long? Gaano na katagal na kayo magkakilala?
FJ: Buong ano…buong highschool. Hanggang ngayon kasi nagsimula second year
eh…parang—
E: More than 5 years?
FJ: uh-hmm [agrees]. Mga 7 years na rin ata namin kakilala ‘yang si [redacted] tapos
‘ayon sumasama na – kasi ano siya…di talaga namin ka-section si [redacted],
kapitbahay lang ng kaklase namin si [redacted] then naglaro kami doon sa base ng
kaklase namin kasama ‘yong [redacted] na ‘yon. Which is ano…parang kulang ata kami
no’n tapos nando’n ‘yon then simula no’n nakakalaro na namin. Sumasama na rin sa
mga trip namin pati mga kunwari, tropa kasi naman taga Provident – lugar sa
Marikina…pag nagoovernight kami doon…tambay lang. Sumasama na rin ‘yon. So
parang ‘ayon na naging ka-close na namin si [redacted] pero hindi naman namin
ikinakahiya na may kasama kaming gay gano’n kasi ano eh…hindi naman disability
kapag gay ka eh. Kung tutuusin nga, ang lakas nga niyan eh…pero kapag sinabi mo
kunwari sa gaming community sa amin na hindi kilala si [redacted] tapos kalaro namin.
“Sino ‘yan?” sinasabi ko “ano kaklase ko” tapos sabi niya [inaudible] tapos sabi ko
“bading ‘yan” tapos parang iniisip nila na hindi agad malakas. Parang may – sa gaming
community…may ano eh…may discrimination sa kung gaano…sa kung gaano ka
skilled. Minsan nga pag sinasabing babae sinasabi “magaling ba ‘yan?” parang iniisp
lang nila “pabebe” sa game. Maraming bias doon hindi lang sa real life kahit sa gaming
community din.
E: So si ano…nagstart kayo nila [redacted] na sabit lang talaga siya?

FJ: Oo, sabit lang siya.
E: Tapos bigla na siyang or overtime naging main stay siya? Uhm pero sa loob ng oras
na…I mean sa time…sa haba ng panahon na nagkakilala kayo never niyong napag-
usapan or never siyang naglabas ng sama ng loob sa inyo kapag nagagamit ito—
FJ: Relate sa amin?
E: Oo.
FJ: Hindi naman
E: and hindi…hindi naman kayo nagtanong sa kanya kung naoffend ba siya or…or
what?
FJ: Hindi ‘ayon minsan kasi kunwari naglalaro kami, one time, tapos inaasar ata namin
siya na bading tapos after ng game nga ‘yong kuwentuhan time then tinanong nga
namin “hoy, [redacted] baka mamaya naba-badtrip ka?”…“hindi, okay lang ‘yon”
gumagano’n siya. So, parang ngayon nga…okay din naman baka kasi minsan
naooffend na namin eh. Inaassure namin “[redacted], okay lang ba kahit gano’n?”
parang tinanong namin gano’n. “baka mamaya galit ka na sa amin..” —
E: When was this…itong ah…gaano katagal na (nangyare?)…how long ago was this
‘yong pag uusap niyo?
FJ: Second year ata kami no’n?
E: Ah so medyo ano pa kayo no’n…parang
FJ: Second year college
E: Ah second year college?
FJ: Kasi ano ‘yon eh…’yon ‘yong adik moments namin eh. 8 hours ata…6 hours ata
kami no’n sa shop no’n eh.
E: So parang medyo – may…ilang taon na kayo magkakilala…mga 3 years?
FJ: Oo, ganon mga 4 years siguro…
E: Sabihin natin kahit papa’no may lalim na ‘yong…’yong friendship niyo kahit papaano.
FJ: Pero kasi…’yong sa akin kasi…hindi ko na rin maasar agad ‘yon no’ng una pa lang
kahit inaasar-asar na nila eh.
E: Ba…bakit? A…a…ano bang itsura ni [redacted]? Intimidating ba siyang tao?

Matangkad? Malaki?
FJ: Hindi. Ano talaga pag tiningnan mo ‘yon… unang tingin akala mo lalaking lalaki
tapos may itsura.
E: Ah hindi siya ano…ah hindi siya bakla as in uhm I mean…pa – would you classify
him as like bakla na katulad ko na open or…
FJ: Gano’n naman siya open po…no’ng high school talaga ano ‘yan…nagcocontest na
‘yan sa ano sa escort…
E: hmm sa pageant!
FJ: Oo sa pageant...
E: As…as ang labas ay straight guy?
FJ: uh-hmm [agrees] lalaki tapos si Larry…’yong tropa ko dito na may lahing Canadian
na may itsura. Ano ‘yon nag pageant din tapos parang number 11 ata si Larry tapos
number 12 ‘yon si [redacted]. Tapos di ba naka-stay na sila, biglang gumano’n si
[redacted] kay Larry. Doon na namin nahalata na talagang ano.
E: Doon niyo nahalata na…doon niyo lang nalaman – na-confirm na?
FJ: Oo kasi dati…no’ng una kasi nakikita namin sa Sta. Elena ‘yon. Kilala namin si
[redacted] pero hindi namin ka-close tapos akala namin lalaki tapos nakapageant na ni
Larry. Doon na lang namin nalaman na ano eh…na ganon siya. Tapos simula no’ng
nakilala namin siya, simula no’ng nakita namin ‘yon. Parang…’yon na talaga
pagkakakilala namin sa kanya…bading gano’n
E: Alright, uhm I think okay na muna ako para dito. Uhm almost 30 minutes naman ang
interview natin.
[END OF INTERVIEW]
APPENDIX 3: BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT
Earl Jaynus S. Guzman is an instructor at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines,
College of Communication, Department of Advertising and Public Relations. He is also
serving as social media writer for the University under the Communication Management
Office. He received his bachelor’s degree in political science at Arellano University,
Manila in 2010. Mr. Guzman’s research interests include interpersonal and group
communication, gender and gaming, and gaming communication. He is currently
involved in a multi-disciplinary research under the CHED DARE TO program, which he
and his colleagues are slated to finish in November 2021.

Sample Qualitative Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Qualitative Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES 1

‘BAKLA’ AND ‘BADING’ LABELS AND EPITHETS IN GAMING:

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Earl Jaynus S. Guzman

This thesis, ‘BAKLA’ AND ‘BADING’ LABELS AND EPITHETS IN GAMING:

DIVINA T. PASUMBAL, PhD

KRIZTINE ROSALES – VIRAY M.C. EDNA T. BERNABE, DEM

EDNA T. BERNABE, DEM

KRIZTINE ROSALES – VIRAY, M.C. EMELYN Q. LIBUNAO, DBA

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

ELMER G. DE JOSE, PhD

Date of passing the Comprehensive Examinations: September 28, 2018

This study, which was inspired by my own experiences as a gay gamer, is a

I would like to express my profoundest gratitude to my thesis adviser and

contributions and insights to the improvement of this study/

Her words of encouragement are deeply appreciated.

a source of encouragement, especially during times when I felt inadequate and

My deepest thanks to my friends and relatives who extended their support so

Maribel G. Rafols for their financial contributions.

Finally, my gratitude to my participants who were kind enough to spare me

some of their time so that they could share their stories.

With love and thanks.

‘BADING’ LABELS AND EPITHETS IN GAMING: SITUATING MEANINGS,

INTERPREATIONS, AND USES IN THE COMMUNICATIVE PRACTICES OF

HETEROSEXUAL MALE MOBA GAMERS for the degree MASTER IN

COMMUNICATION at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines embodies the result

institution, except where proper referencing and acknowledgment were made.

EARL JAYNUS S. GUZMAN

language and similar homosexually-themed discourses have recevied scholarly

communicative practices of heterosexual male MOBA gamers. Framed through a

these words are used in gaming, how communicators interpret homosexual-themed

with ambivalence, (2) homosexual-themed utterances fulfill several metacommunicative

functions because of their polysemy and multivalence, (3) communicators relied on a

metaphors for gaming failure and a failure of gaming masculinity.

Keywords: gaming communication, gaming and gender, symbolic interactionism

1 The Problem and Its Setting 1

Statement of the Problem 4

Scope and Limitations of the Study 10

Significance of the Study 10

2 Review of Literature and Studies 14

Philippine MOBA Gaming and Culture 14

Gender and Gaming 18

Bakla, Bading, and Homosexuality 21

Homophobic Language Across Contexts 24

Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature and Studies 36

Tradition of Inquiry and Data Generation Method 39

4 Results and Discussion 42

Profile of the Participants 42

A gradient of ambivalence and solidarity 45

Bakla: Multipurpose metacommunicative tool 66

Nonverbal cues that aid in interpreting

homosexual-themed utterances 106

Bakla: Meanings that arise from social interaction 120

Bakla: Connotative meanings 130

Bakla: Not man enough for DoTA2 and LoL 141

Bakla: A different kind of ‘noob’ 152

5 Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 164

Summary of Findings 164

APPENDIX 1: Research Instrument 189

APPENDIX 2: Sample Interview Transcript 192

Number Title Page

1 Profile of the Participants 44

2 A gradient of ambivalence and solidarity 64

Number Title Page