Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rain

The label "TBM"

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

There is a term I still am fond of and only use it in places where people know my heart.  There just..... isn’t..... a better replacement.  I won’t use it here, it’s offensive to too many. 

And there is one word I mutter that no one else can or will hear. 

I am a big fat phony. 

Edited by MustardSeed

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't surprise me that some people have refused to give up using certain words other people don't like, even though I don't necessarily agree with them.  People come at everything from different perspectives and this topic isn't any different.  

I think that some people believe that if they don't mean a term in an offensive way (if they aren't using it as an insult or to belittle) then they aren't 'choosing to offend.'  Yes, they are choosing to use a word that some people might decide to be offended about, but they see that as the other person's choice and having nothing to do with them.  From that perspective, it's reasonable for someone to deny that they are choosing to offend.

I can agree when you're speaking in very general terms and I see your point (I think Calm's post expresses this well too).

However, when many have expressed why certain labels or ways to identify them personally offends them and some still choose to do so, there is simply no way around the fact they are continuing to choose to do something offensive to that person, IMO.

If this was a racial issue (regarding how all races are offended by certain labels or identities), I cannot imagine anyone continuing to use offensive terms or names once they knew how offensive they were.  

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

It’s not just that some prefer a specific pronoun for themselves. It’s that they want to eliminate all gender-specific pronouns from use by society generally — just as some here seem to want to do with “same-sex attraction.” Maybe you’re not calling for that, but I get the impression others are. 

Share this post


Link to post

My biggest issue with labeling some words or terms as offensive only because some one might not like them is that it can greatly hinder communication and cause people to disengage in discussion rather than worrying about who they might accidentally be offending while they are trying to talk about something.

And it's not just language but practically everything in this day and age that people are ready to be offended about and I think that that, more than anything else, is why people are pushing back against the idea of having to behave in way that they don't agree with to keep someone else from being upset.  If you google 'it's offensive' the links go on and on of people demanding that others find some action or word offensive and stop doing it.  The list of offensive things includes:

  • Cotton used as a decoration
  • The Christmas song "baby it's cold outside"
  • The gillete razor ad that told men to stop hurting people
  • Calling people who have been diagnosed with autism 'autistic'
  • Using the term 'call a spade a spade'
  • Asian salads
  • Halloween costumes 

People are getting tired of "the culture of offense" that our society is becoming known for and they are responding by either shutting up completely (which hurts us more than it helps) or just deciding not to care at all and do whatever they want because people are going to be offended either way.

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not just that some prefer a specific pronoun for themselves. It’s that they want to eliminate all gender-specific pronouns from use by society generally — just as some here seem to want to do with “same-sex attraction.” Maybe you’re not calling for that, but I get the impression others are. 

Correct.  I am not calling for that.  I'm not sure anyone here has.

My point is this:

If you are someone who wishes for people to cease using the name Mormon to describe you or your church.

If you are someone who sees implied contempt in the use of the term TBM.

You ought to take seriously the desire by lesbian and gay persons to not be labeled as "having SSA".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My biggest issue with labeling some words or terms as offensive only because some one might not like them is that it can greatly hinder communication and cause people to disengage in discussion rather than worrying about who they might accidentally be offending while they are trying to talk about something.

And it's not just language but practically everything in this day and age that people are ready to be offended about and I think that that, more than anything else, is why people are pushing back against the idea of having to behave in way that they don't agree with to keep someone else from being upset.  If you google 'it's offensive' the links go on and on of people demanding that others find some action or word offensive and stop doing it.  The list of offensive things includes:

  • Cotton used as a decoration
  • The Christmas song "baby it's cold outside"
  • The gillete razor ad that told men to stop hurting people
  • Calling people who have been diagnosed with autism 'autistic'
  • Using the term 'call a spade a spade'
  • Asian salads
  • Halloween costumes 

People are getting tired of "the culture of offense" that our society is becoming known for and they are responding by either shutting up completely (which hurts us more than it helps) or just deciding not to care at all and do whatever they want because people are going to be offended either way.

 

 

 

I very much agree with this. And that is why I have declined to make a fuss over the use of “TBM,” even when I can see the subtle, unspoken connotation in it so often, recognizing as I do that some who use it don’t mean anything negative by it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My biggest issue with labeling some words or terms as offensive only because some one might not like them is that it can greatly hinder communication and cause people to disengage in discussion rather than worrying about who they might accidentally be offending while they are trying to talk about something.

This is true.  The inverse is as well (using terms that offend will hinder communication).

I think we, as a society, can always do better at having more sensitivity to the feelings of others AND being slower to take offense.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I can agree when you're speaking in very general terms and I see your point (I think Calm's post expresses this well too).

However, when many have expressed why certain labels or ways to identify them personally offends them and some still choose to do so, there is simply no way around the fact they are continuing to choose to do something offensive to that person, IMO.

If this was a racial issue (regarding how all races are offended by certain labels or identities), I cannot imagine anyone continuing to use offensive terms or names once they knew how offensive they were.  

I agree with you, and I also kind of don't. 

I just read an article where a woman went off on how the term Asian salad is both offensive and racist and demanded that everyone quit using that phrase.  I'm going to continue to use that term when making salad with Asian ingredients though (and so has everyone else).  Sometimes I don't feel that people's feelings about why something having to do with race is offensive are valid or at all reasonable and so I don't alter anything based on their view.

I also read an article about the use of the term Eskimo, where the author, a native Inuit, was sad that she could no longer use the term, even though she completely understood why some native Inuits felt about it as they did.  People don't always agree on what is racist or offensive to their race and in they have a right to disagree.  They don't need to let someone else determine what is racist for them. That's giving people's opinions more power than they should have.

But I agree that there are some issues that seem like such a given that people need to respect the feelings of those around them enough not to use language that causes hurt, even if they disagree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My biggest issue with labeling some words or terms as offensive only because some one might not like them is that it can greatly hinder communication and cause people to disengage in discussion rather than worrying about who they might accidentally be offending while they are trying to talk about something.

And it's not just language but practically everything in this day and age that people are ready to be offended about and I think that that, more than anything else, is why people are pushing back against the idea of having to behave in way that they don't agree with to keep someone else from being upset.  If you google 'it's offensive' the links go on and on of people demanding that others find some action or word offensive and stop doing it.  The list of offensive things includes:

  • Cotton used as a decoration
  • The Christmas song "baby it's cold outside"
  • The gillete razor ad that told men to stop hurting people
  • Calling people who have been diagnosed with autism 'autistic'
  • Using the term 'call a spade a spade'
  • Asian salads
  • Halloween costumes 

People are getting tired of "the culture of offense" that our society is becoming known for and they are responding by either shutting up completely (which hurts us more than it helps) or just deciding not to care at all and do whatever they want because people are going to be offended either way.

I agree that anything can be taken to a ridiculous extreme (as with some of your examples above).

However, this specific request is not one of those times, IMO.  There is nothing ridiculous or extreme regarding a person who is gay making a simple request to avoid terms that insinuate they are suffering from a disease or malady (that they "have" something).  

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Correct.  I am not calling for that.  I'm not sure anyone here has.

My point is this:

If you are someone who wishes for people to cease using the name Mormon to describe you or your church.

If you are someone who sees implied contempt in the use of the term TBM.

You ought to take seriously the desire by lesbian and gay persons to not be labeled as "having SSA".

My impression is that ALarson and  California Boy are two who are advocating the outright discontinuance of the use of the term for any reason at any time. They may feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. 

And I’ve just reiterated that “TBM” is not something I’m inclined to make a fuss over. 

Edited to add: To clarify, my position on use of “Mormon” to identify the Church is that I don’t like it when that or any other term is used in place of the name of Jesus Christ. I see that as the spirit behind President Nelson’s recent directive and why I intend personally to abide by his instruction and why I have defended it. That said, I have not fussed about others using the name “Mormon” — especially well-meaning but less-informed outsiders — and I don’t foresee making a fuss about it going forward. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I agree that anything can be taken to a ridiculous extreme (as with some of your examples above).

However, this specific request is not one of those times, IMO.  There is nothing ridiculous or extreme regarding a person who is gay making a simple request to avoid terms that insinuate they are suffering from a disease or malady (that they "have" something).  

I think my point is that what is 'taken to a ridiculous extreme' for one person is another's 'simple request'.  Who get's to decide which is which?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I agree with you, and I also kind of don't. 

I just read an article where a woman went off on how the term Asian salad is both offensive and racist and demanded that everyone quit using that phrase.  

Like I just posted....anything can be taken to an extreme and I agree it can reach the point of being ridiculous.  But that's not what I was referring to regarding racial labels that are offensive.  I have to believe we all avoid those once we are made aware of how offensive they can be.  Same with the usage of saying someone "has" same-sex attraction.

This is not that difficult to do and I'm amazed there are still some who refuse to be respectful of this request.  We're not just talking about a salad here after-all ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, bluebell said:

I think my point is that what is 'taken to a ridiculous extreme' for one person is another's 'simple request'.  Who get's to decide which is which?  

I think we just need to use our own good judgment and try to be respectful.  This is something that is very personal for some and something that is very simple for others to avoid doing (and there are terms that are not offensive that can be easily used).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

My impression is that ALarson and  California Boy are two who are advocating the outright discontinuance of the use of the term for any reason at any time.

Not true.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71856-the-label-tbm/?do=findComment&comment=1209905749

But if you have a choice to say that someone is gay or someone has same-sex attraction, why not simply say they are gay?  

Is it truly because you still believe they have an illness?  (sincere question)

 

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Like I just posted....anything can be taken to an extreme and I agree it can reach the point of being ridiculous.  But that's not what I was referring to regarding racial labels that are offensive.  I have to believe we all avoid those once we are made aware of how offensive they can be.  Same with the usage of saying someone "has" same-sex attraction.

This is not that difficult to do and I'm amazed there are still some who refuse to be respectful of this request.  We're not just talking about a salad here after-all ;)

You do seem to spend a lot of time being amazed that people don't see things exactly like you do.  :D 

My examples weren't only about salad though.  I also used an example concerning the word 'eskimo' which was not at all extreme or ridiculous.  I'm not sure why you chose to ignore it but I think it brings up an important perspective that should be addressed.  What is offensive to one person is not always offensive to others.  I agree with you that it's good to try to use words that are less likely to cause hurt or annoyance (especially for the sake communication) but I disagree that any one person in a group (or even a group of people in a group) should get to declare what can be said and what must be avoided when speaking about the group.  While the word Eskimo is generally seen as derogatory, there are some native Inuits that prefer the term.  That's valid.

Likewise, there are gay people who prefer the term SSA.  You and I don't get to say whether or not that preference is acceptable.  We don't get to declare that people should avoid that term because others find it offensive.  California Boy doesn't get to do that either, even though he's gay and a part of that group (and I'm not saying he is, just using him as a example).

What seems straightforward and obvious and 'not that difficult' can actually be more nuanced than it appears because we are all different and there will always be someone with a different but reasonable perspective.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not true.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71856-the-label-tbm/?do=findComment&comment=1209905749

But if you have a choice to say that someone is gay or someone has same-sex attraction, why not simply say they are gay?  

Is it truly because you actually do believe they have an illness?  (sincere question)

 

 

I’ve already addressed this. Terms such as “gay” or “homosexual” or “lgbtq” might imply not just orientation but behavior as well. “Same-sex attraction” tends not to do that. It would very accurately apply to someone who has the orientation but chooses not to express it through behavior. And, ostensibly at least, it is general and inclusive in that it could also apply to one who does express the orientation through behavior. 

And why, after declaring it is “not true” that you are calling for the outright discontinuance of the term “same-sex attraction,” do you in the very same post call on me to cease using it? That strikes me as inconsistent. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You do seem to spend a lot of time being amazed that people don't see things exactly like you do.  :D 

That goes both ways of course....others express the same thing regarding their views at times.  

I do try to be open minded and see things from other's perspective.  I also enjoy a good discussion and make every effort to be respectful of others even when we disagree.  This specific discussion is just something I view as being very simple to do and I'd never choose to do something that I knew would offend anyone (especially a member here after they'd made a request that I stop doing something that is easy to avoid doing.)   So yes, that amazes me when someone chooses to continue offending another.

I'll be moving on now.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That goes both ways of course....others express the same thing regarding their views at times.

I do try to be open minded and see things from other's perspective.  I also enjoy a good discussion and make every effort to be respectful of others even when we disagree.  This specific discussion is just something I view as being very simple to do and I'd never choose to do something that I knew would offend anyone (especially a member here after they'd made a request that I stop doing something that is easy to avoid doing.)  

I'll be moving on now.

I didn't mean it in a bad way because you're right, we all do the same thing sometimes.  But discussion is often about perspectives that we don't agree with or that don't agree with ours.  After explaining why some people see it differently I didn't understand the point of repeatedly expressing amazement that some people disagreed with you.

I with you though in that I don't see the point in choosing to use terms that you know are going to offend someone.  It causes unnecessary contention.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't mean it in a bad way because you're right, we all do the same thing sometimes.  But discussion is often about perspectives that we don't agree with or that don't agree with ours.  After explaining why some people see it differently I didn't understand the point of repeatedly expressing amazement that some people disagreed with you.

(Replying then I'm truly moving on as I feel we're just going in circles now.... :) )

I just wanted to clarify that I did not state I was amazed that some people disagreed with me (that never amazes me!).  I stated that I'm amazed that "there are still some who refuse to be respectful of this request".  I try to be respectful of other's requests at times even if I disagree with the reasons behind them (once I learn it personally is offensive to them).   So yes, that's difficult for me to understand....why someone would still choose to offend.

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I with you though in that I don't see the point in choosing to use terms that you know are going to offend someone.  It causes unnecessary contention.

I agree.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My impression is that ALarson and  California Boy are two who are advocating the outright discontinuance of the use of the term for any reason at any time. They may feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. 

And I’ve just reiterated that “TBM” is not something I’m inclined to make a fuss over. 

Edited to add: To clarify, my position on use of “Mormon” to identify the Church is that I don’t like it when that or any other term is used in place of the name of Jesus Christ. I see that as the spirit behind President Nelson’s recent directive and why I intend personally to abide by his instruction and why I have defended it. That said, I have not fussed about others using the name “Mormon” — especially well-meaning but less-informed outsiders — and I don’t foresee making a fuss about it going forward. 

I appreciate your clarification on the term Mormon.  I can't imagine anyone being offended by it.  But your position does seem to disagree with President Nelson's, no?

Quote

And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.

You seem to be happy to make allowances for the nickname, but Pres Nelson suggests making those allowances offends God.  

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2018-10-07/president-russell-m-nelson-the-correct-name-of-the-church-48174

 

Share this post


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

I agree with you, and I also kind of don't. 

I just read an article where a woman went off on how the term Asian salad is both offensive and racist and demanded that everyone quit using that phrase.  I'm going to continue to use that term when making salad with Asian ingredients though (and so has everyone else).  Sometimes I don't feel that people's feelings about why something having to do with race is offensive are valid or at all reasonable and so I don't alter anything based on their view.

I also read an article about the use of the term Eskimo, where the author, a native Inuit, was sad that she could no longer use the term, even though she completely understood why some native Inuits felt about it as they did.  People don't always agree on what is racist or offensive to their race and in they have a right to disagree.  They don't need to let someone else determine what is racist for them. That's giving people's opinions more power than they should have.

But I agree that there are some issues that seem like such a given that people need to respect the feelings of those around them enough not to use language that causes hurt, even if they disagree.

You have to see the difference between one or even a few people calling for a change in the name of a salad and an entire community including two of the most active gay watchdogs, the Human Rights  Campaign and GLADD which issues guidelines on how the press should handle language the exact same way the church uses guidelines on how it prefers to be addressed.that has expressed offense with the term SSA AND explained why they find the term offensive.  Just what would it take to convince you both that the term SSA is offensive to the vast majority of the gay community?

None of the examples you gave is anything like the issue of using the offenisve term SSA.  It is hardly a few people who have some personal beef asking people not to use the term.  

But at the end of the day, each of us can decide their own personal behavior.  No one is asking for jail time for those that continue to use offensive terms.  

 

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My impression is that ALarson and  California Boy are two who are advocating the outright discontinuance of the use of the term for any reason at any time. They may feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. 

And I’ve just reiterated that “TBM” is not something I’m inclined to make a fuss over. 

Edited to add: To clarify, my position on use of “Mormon” to identify the Church is that I don’t like it when that or any other term is used in place of the name of Jesus Christ. I see that as the spirit behind President Nelson’s recent directive and why I intend personally to abide by his instruction and why I have defended it. That said, I have not fussed about others using the name “Mormon” — especially well-meaning but less-informed outsiders — and I don’t foresee making a fuss about it going forward. 

 

 

Quote

 

BlueBell

You do seem to spend a lot of time being amazed that people don't see things exactly like you do.  :D 

My examples weren't only about salad though.  I also used an example concerning the word 'eskimo' which was not at all extreme or ridiculous.  I'm not sure why you chose to ignore it but I think it brings up an important perspective that should be addressed.  What is offensive to one person is not always offensive to others.  I agree with you that it's good to try to use words that are less likely to cause hurt or annoyance (especially for the sake communication) but I disagree that any one person in a group (or even a group of people in a group) should get to declare what can be said and what must be avoided when speaking about the group.  While the word Eskimo is generally seen as derogatory, there are some native Inuits that prefer the term.  That's valid.

Likewise, there are gay people who prefer the term SSA.  You and I don't get to say whether or not that preference is acceptable.  We don't get to declare that people should avoid that term because others find it offensive.  California Boy doesn't get to do that either, even though he's gay and a part of that group (and I'm not saying he is, just using him as a example).

What seems straightforward and obvious and 'not that difficult' can actually be more nuanced than it appears because we are all different and there will always be someone with a different but reasonable perspective.


 

You think it is me and ALarson representing the gay community?  Seriously?  This is the only place you are hearing that SSA is an offensive term?  You have to ignore every major group that represents gays, as well as pretty much every gay web site.  There are not SSA web sites, at least created by anyone other that what some church might have put up.

That is like saying Scott Lloyd is the only person who thinks the term Mormon should not be used to refer to the name of the Church.

Edited by california boy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I appreciate your clarification on the term Mormon.  I can't imagine anyone being offended by it.  But your position does seem to disagree with President Nelson's, no?

You seem to be happy to make allowances for the nickname, but Pres Nelson suggests making those allowances offends God.  

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2018-10-07/president-russell-m-nelson-the-correct-name-of-the-church-48174

 

I don’t disagree with President Nelson. 

If, in his judgment as a prophet, seer and revelatory, continued use of a nickname has the effect of supplanting the use of the name of Jesus Christ as the identifier for His church, I will forgo the use of the nickname. 

It is that supplanting that I believe offends God, not the nickname itself. Furthermore, if you will go back and re-read your link, you should be able to see this is precisely what President Nelson is saying: 

QUOTE: “To remove the Lord's name from the Lord's Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior's name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us — even His Atonement."

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Actually I think TBM and SSA should be discussed together in one thread.  The usage of the two is almost exactly the same.  Both are technically correct.

I don't see TBM ever being used in an academic sense though, except as an exploration of the word usage itself.  I think that is a significant difference.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, california boy said:

You think it is me and ALarson representing the gay community?  Seriously?  This is the only place you are hearing that SSA is an offensive term?  You have to ignore every major group that represents gays, as well as pretty much every gay web site.  There are not SSA web sites, at least created by anyone other that what some church might have put up.

That is like saying Scott Lloyd is the only person who thinks the term Mormon should not be used to refer to the name of the Church.

No that is not what I said. You must have been trying really hard to twist my words that badly. 

I said that you and ALarson are at least two who seem to be calling for the outright discontinuance in society of use of the term “same-sex attraction” for any reason whatsoever under any circumstances. I noticed you did not deny this, so I take it you see it as accurate. 

  • Like 1

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...