Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rain

The label "TBM"

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Well, I'm old enough that 'gay' once had a negative context.  The same with 'queer', but now it's embraced.  It's hard to keep up with what's okay and what's not with the LGBTQ??? community.

Personally, I don't think 'same sex attraction' should be offensive--it's a description and it's not slang--like some of the others which were offensive at one time.....  Probably best to just not reference their sexual preferences at all, unless they bring it up and want to discuss it.

True.  And I agree regarding the term "queer"!!!

My point was just that once we learn something is offensive to someone, most would not continue doing what offended them.

(I'm moving on though....and I'm off to dinner.)

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, alter idem said:

Well, I'm old enough that 'gay' once had a negative context. 

And I'm old enough to remember when it was unambiguously positive, with an association with homosexuality at best slight and not broadly known.  Example:

Quote

 

I'll be seeing you
In every lovely summer's day
In everything that's light and gay
I'll always think of you that way
 
I'll find you in the morning sun
And when the night is new
I'll be looking at the moon
But I'll be seeing you

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Rain said:

I was reading in a thread the other day some discussion about TBM and whether it was a good term or not. That was off topic and I have yet to finish that thread so I don't know if that continued. 

Today I just read another thread with someone using the label. So I decided to start a thread.

I remember the first time I came across the labels of "liahona" and "iron rod" mormons. I remember thinking that most would label me iron rod because of my visable actions, but the liahona part fit me as well. A liahona described to me what we are taught in the church to be - someone who really thinks through things and goes to the Lord for revelation. A Joseph Smith. The iron rod people just held to the rod, giving the impression that only the liahonas were the only ones who thought through things.

What I found was that a lot of those who don't hold on to traditional or orthodox views or actions loved the labels and those who lived traditionally did not like they were thought of as someone who didn't "think". I was one of the later. 

You don't hear so much of liahona and iron rod mormons anymore, but True Believing Mormon or TBM seems to have come from the iron rod label.

I did a quick google search trying to find definitions and came up surprisingly short, but I don't have calm's great google skills. 

I did some what find, however, my feelings about TBM by Blair Hodges in a Tribune article, 'A TBM is "generally understood to be something of a gullible fool who lacks the interest or ability to think critically," Hodges writes, "and thus does not see the obvious fact that Mormonism is ridiculous at best and downright evil at worst."' SL Trib article

I don't  see often "Mormonism is ridiculous at best and downright evil at worst" when I see it used, but almost always I see  "lacks the interest or ability to think critically" implied.

Maybe this will help some understand why some of us don't like the TBM label?

I've seen TBM used in quite a variety of ways, and that is why I don't like using it myself.  Some more antagonistic types seem to use it in the way Blair Hodges describes.  But I see others in some of the less antagonistic groups I've participated in use TBM as a substitute for saying someone is an orthodox Mormon.  In that context it is really just describing a person who has very conservative and correlated beliefs, maybe someone who believes more literally in the church's truth claims and traditional narrative.  Because of the wide variety of uses of this term, I don't like using it myself.  Context is everything with respect to understanding how people are using the term, but its definitely not always used with a negative intent.  

Edited by hope_for_things

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you run across this in your search? 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/same-sex-attraction

It appears to be an academic journal, and it uses same-sex attraction as a clinical expression. Or am I misinterpreting?

I didnt aee that one in my search.  I only checked out about the top 10 results.   Haven't looked too closely to tell if it is scientific or not.  Will do so.

 

Thanks for the link

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

You need to use the scholar option with google to pull up articles (google "google scholar" or add "scholarly articles" as a search term).  "Homosexuality" google search doesn't bring up much in terms of clinical usage either in its top sites for me unless I indicate "scholarly articles".

I have no clue how often "same sex attraction" is used in academic articles vs. "homosexuality, but I have seen it quite a bit when doing research. (Add-on:  my ipad will show numbers in google scholar after all....13,500 for "same sex attraction" and 536,000 for homosexuality...so latter is 40 times more common, but former is not rare).

"same sex attraction" on google scholar 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C45&q="same+sex+attraction"&btnG=

PS:  I am only challenging the idea it is not also a clinical term.  Terms used clinically are often seen as offensive in casual conversation, so being used clinically is no guarantee of nonoffensiveness (cult and myth are examples).

("Same sex couples" is used around 3 times as often as "homosexual couples" and "same sex couples" twice as often as "homosexual couples" as a side note)

Good tip.  Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about those with same-sex attraction who don’t mind the term or who might actually prefer it? Do they have some claim on your consideration as well? 

Yes.  I’ve stated as much in previous threads.

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about those who don’t want to be identified as, say, lgbtq because of the cultural, political and social connotations of that term? If you succeed in banning or stigmatizing a neutral term like same-sex attraction, haven’t you, in effect robbed them of a preferred term for self-identification? 

SSA isn’t neutral.   And, as I said, I do my best to respect how individuals want to be identified.  I’ve never met, IRL, a homosexual individual who didn’t find the term SSA to be offensive. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Does it really matter what I think when discussing whether the term is intrinsically offensive?I didn’t invent the term.

If one is sexually attracted to the same sex and is thus said to have same-sex attraction and sees nothing wrong with it, where is the logical standing to take offense? 

You can say I have opposite-sex attraction. I will gladly own up to it, seeing nothing wrong with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But apart from it being a cliché, which makes it annoying by nature, I suppose it is the implied contempt that always puts me off whenever I see this term used and why I would never use it myself. 

Here’s what you said on page one of the thread (above).  You feel there is an implied contempt in the use of TBM that “puts you off” even though many here have said there is none  

My point in bringing up your use of SSA is that when I hear it, I also feel there is implied contempt.  I’m sure you would say that you don’t intend that.  And I don’t doubt you.  But, the way it makes many feel ought to be enough to convince you to cut it out of your vocabulary. 

Do as you wish but know that you are making a choice that will offend some.  Perhaps, in your circles, it doesn’t offend many. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

You can say I have opposite-sex attraction. I will gladly own up to it, seeing nothing wrong with it. 

And you get to be the first person in my nearly five decade life that I’ve ever heard claim that they have “opposite-sex attraction”. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does it really matter what I think when discussing whether the term is intrinsically offensive?

Do you still believe that being gay is having a disease or illness?  Or have your views changed on that since you posted it back then?  

If you still believe that, it now makes sense why you’re ok saying that they “have” same sex attraction like it’s a condition or ailment.  

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  I’ve stated as much in previous threads.

SSA isn’t neutral.   And, as I said, I do my best to respect how individuals want to be identified.  I’ve never met, IRL, a homosexual individual who didn’t find the term SSA to be offensive. 

Why isn’t it neutral to say a person is sexually attracted to the same sex if the person is indeed attracted to the same sex? Your declaration, however vehemently expressed, is not self-evident. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Here’s what you said on page one of the thread (above).  You feel there is an implied contempt in the use of TBM that “puts you off” even though many here have said there is none  

My point in bringing up your use of SSA is that when I hear it, I also feel there is implied contempt.  I’m sure you would say that you don’t intend that.  And I don’t doubt you.  But, the way it makes many feel ought to be enough to convince you to cut it out of your vocabulary. 

Do as you wish but know that you are making a choice that will offend some.  Perhaps, in your circles, it doesn’t offend many. 

I’ve said TBM puts me off, but I have never raised a fuss over it, nor am I  doing so now. I’ve never even mentioned it until now. By contrast, you and ALarson appear to want to banish the term same-sex attraction from the public vernacular and, from what I can see, you appear to have no good reason for doing so. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And you get to be the first person in my nearly five decade life that I’ve ever heard claim that they have “opposite-sex attraction”. 

And therefore, what? 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a worthwhile thread, but one that will not have a definitive solution.

We are caught between the need for language to communicate ideas, and the reality that we all interpret language differently - but with some commonality.

I think @USU78 hit it on the head. I don’t think TBM is offensive or wrong on the surface, but we can all use it that way if we want to.  The word “baby” has very different connotations depending on context.

For my purpose it has a solution and has been solved.

I was surprised when some were surprised that it sometimes has a negative connotation. I thought it would be a good topic to discuss. We hit 4 pages. I'm satisfied with that. I also think that some better understand that it can be positive or negative when they didn't before. That works for me as well.   

Edited by Rain
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Here’s what you said on page one of the thread (above).  You feel there is an implied contempt in the use of TBM that “puts you off” even though many here have said there is none  

My point in bringing up your use of SSA is that when I hear it, I also feel there is implied contempt.  I’m sure you would say that you don’t intend that.  And I don’t doubt you.  But, the way it makes many feel ought to be enough to convince you to cut it out of your vocabulary. 

The same argument could be made for knuckling under to any demand from the political-correctness police. 

I raised this point a while ago, but there are people today, bizarre as it seems, who take offense at the use of gender-specific pronouns such as he and she. Are you advocating that we all cut gender-specific pronouns out of our vocabulary because some claim to be offended by their use? Again, I ask, where would the madness end?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

 

 

 

I am in no way a gullible fool... nor am I unable to think critically... I actually love being a strong, faithful Latter-Day Saint woman who lives the Gospel as a believer and, yes, I consider myself TBM in the sense expressed as "true blue, through and through."   I think independently, and resent being portrayed as Mr. Hodges describes... I do not know how the term came to take on a negative connotation... I also do not agree with every word from our leaders in all things.  In those few instances I have taken and will continue to take my issues in prayer to the Lord and wait for further light and knowledge as I study the matter fully.   I have received the witness of the Spirit, heard the still small voice, been awakened by dreams... TBM??  You bet... true blue...

from the beach on a lovely, sunny afternoon almost 70 degrees.. GG

 

Blair does not think you are an unthinking fool.  He is saying that many use the term in that way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why isn’t it neutral to say a person is sexually attracted to the same sex if the person is indeed attracted to the same sex? Your declaration, however vehemently expressed, is not self-evident. 

I don’t think a homosexual individual would take offense to you saying that they are attracted to the same sex.  I believe the offense comes in when you say that they “have SSA”. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve said it puts me off, but I have never raised a fuss over it, nor am I  doing so now. I’ve never even mentioned it until now. By contrast, you and ALarson appear to want to banish the term same-sex attraction from the public vernacular and, from what I can see, you appear to have no good reason for doing so. 

I have no ability to banish a term from public vernacular. 

My desire here was to point out to you (since you’ve insisted on using SSA in the past) that the reasons for someone not wanting to be identified as “having SSA” are similar to the reasons that some here dislike the term TBM. 

That’s all.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And therefore, what? 

Nothing.  Just acknowledging you as the first person I’ve ever met to claim to have OSA.  Congrats!  Couldn’t be more fitting. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The same argument could be made for knuckling under any demand from the political-correctness police. 

I raised this point a while ago, but there are people today, bizarre as it seems, who take offense at the use of gender-specific pronouns such as he and she. Are you advocating that we all cut gender-specific pronouns out of our vocabulary because some claim to be offended by their use? Again, I ask, where would the madness end?

I’ll be honest that transgenderism is something that I really struggle to understand.  So I acknowledge my ignorance up front. 

But if someone tells me that they prefer a specific pronoun, I’ll do my best to use it. 

Share this post


Link to post

I do not really care for labels. They are all too often used to put a person or persons into an unfavored category by another person or group. But it does not matter to me how someone else refers to me. If someone wishes to call me TBM I have no problem with that, even if it is with a sneer. I am secure enough in my beliefs. Rational people will look beyond a label at a person's collective persona to arrive at some type of understanding of that person's beliefs etc. I can interact with those people, even those who do not agree with me, and not worry about the others.

Glenn

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why isn’t it neutral to say a person is sexually attracted to the same sex if the person is indeed attracted to the same sex? Your declaration, however vehemently expressed, is not self-evident. 

This is similar to Elder Bednar stating that there are no homosexuals in the church.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is similar to Elder Bednard stating that there are no homosexuals in the church.

Please explain your reasoning here.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

Please explain your reasoning here.

http://www.ldsliving.com/What-the-Media-Got-Wrong-About-Elder-Bednar-s-Comments/s/81467

This is an article about what happened and it definitely sides with Elder Bednar. It in affect says the media etc. got it all wrong. But I watched the whole meeting and I feel that it is a long the lines of saying someone is SSA instead of Gay. That's all, it's what my take is and I'm sticking to it. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...