“Why not say you’re gay?” Choosing a self-identifier

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Got it.  When I say "experiencing same sex attraction" I mean experiencing sexual/physical attraction whether acted upon or only felt.

Lisa Diamond's categories are what I am using.

This is an article that discusses female sexual fluidity and has a few terms I haven't heard before, like heteroflexible.  It has a more gossipy tone ( sexcapades in the Hamptons kind of thing) to me than acedemic but the author cites a number of studies that are useful so posting it with that caution:

https://observer.com/2016/05/gay-until-labor-day-stretching-female-sexuality-in-the-hamptons/

Much better interview of Lisa Diamond if you want to stick to the less 'lifestyles of the rich and beautiful' material:

https://www.ttbook.org/interview/new-science-sexual-fluidity

She uses the term " heteroflexible" as well, it didn't register the first time I read this.

 

Thanks. 

So this kind of bears out what I said earlier — and what kllindley confirmed — that there are likely many, many people who experience same-sex attraction but we will never know it because they keep their sexuality a private matter. The terms “gay” or “LGBTQ” obviously don’t apply to such people — which is why I refuse to apply those terms in a blanket way to any and everyone who has ever experienced same-sex attraction, no matter how brief or fleeting, though I will apply them to all who embrace those terms as self-identifiers. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I admit that when I started this thread, I was apprehensive about how it would play out. But at this juncture, I have to say that, all in all, we have had a productive and stimulating discussion, though admittedly there have been some occasional testiness and insults and there were some subtle efforts early on by a couple of posters to poison the well and get the thread shut down. 

So I’m generally pleased. I hope the tone can remain civil, if not cordial, for however long we continue. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Don’t accept “gay” or “LGBTQ” as self-identifiers. 

The post from kllindley came just today. I’ll try to find it and give you a link. 

Edited to add:

It's on page 8, the 19th post down on the page. I tried unsuccessfully to link to the specific post, but if you are unable to locate it, let me know, and I'll copy and paste the text from the post.

The post that Klindely that you are requesting is talking about sexuality preference but not about how they wish to be identified.  Two different issues.If you tihnk it says what you want it to say, you are going to have to quote the part that does that.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The post that Klindely that you are requesting is talking about sexuality preference but not about how they wish to be identified.  Two different issues.If you tihnk it says what you want it to say, you are going to have to quote the part that does that.

This is the specific portion of kllindley’s post I have in mind, and yes, it is about how folks who experience same-sex attraction wish to be identified. It was an eye-opener for me, because it shows that by far, the majority don’t self identify with the gay label. I suspected there were some, even many, but I had never imagined it was the majority:

Quote

And really, the numbers are not even close.  1.8% of the US population identifies as gay or lesbian, the number who identify as something other than straight is like 3.8%   But when asked about sexual behavior in the last 12 months, 6% have engaged in same-sex sexual activity.  When asked about attraction to individuals of the same-sex, the number jumps up to between 10 and 25% depending on the age group.  So you want Church leaders to use "Gay" to keep from offending the 1.8% even if they are more accurately talking about the 20% who experience any degree of same-sex attraction or even the 3.8% who identify as something other than straight?  It's like getting upset that politicians refer to Christians in America and expecting them to just use Catholic, because  some Catholics might be offended that they are not being recognized or feel that referring to them as generic Christians is denying their Catholicism.

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

My point was simply that "gay" isn't a value neutral term. It used to be a derogatory label...until it wasn't...except, of course, when it sometimes still is - depending on who is saying it or how it's being used. 

 

I totally agree with this.  ALL labels are subject to change over time.  Most have.  And yes all terms can be used as a slur as well depending on how they are used.  But the term gay is not viewed by the gay community as being derogatory.

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

You were talking about being gay, but not acting on it (i.e., "If you are gay, don't act on it").

So, if "being gay" means 'being attracted (physically / romantically / emotionally) to members of the same sex,' then "acting gay" would, in context, mean acting on that attraction. 

I didn't mean anything like 'acting in a way that might stereotypically be associated with gay men or women.' 

Admittedly, it isn't a formulation I have ever used - mainly because I've never thought of someone being some-adjective, but not acting on it. That just sounds a little strange to me. It's kind of like saying, 'It is okay to be Scottish, so long as you don't act on it.' It just doesn't compute.

 

I think this is core of the problem with how the Church addresses this issue.  It seems as though the Church assumes that if you say you are gay then you must be acting on that.  Of course this is nonsense.    It is like saying that if you are in your 20's, then you must be sleeping around.  Both assumtions are wrong.  And to some extent, both assumptions are offensive to those who are not having sex.

 

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

I believe that perception is, in no small part, driven by those outside the church, including those in the mainstream LGBT community. Even though it isn't true.

 

I am quite confident I have never suggested anything even remotely similar to that. 

 

I totally agree that the perception is mostly drive by those outside the Church.  But I also think there are plenty. in the church that have this perception.  Some members on this board certainly have that perception.  AND it is very true to them.

If the church wants to change that perception, then they should look at what it is doing that is causing that perception.  What I do know is that those feelings will never change if the Church continues to address the LGBT community in a way that many find insulting.  Don't you think the way that you address people would be one of the first thing to consider doing?

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

I totally agree with this.  ALL labels are subject to change over time.  Most have.  And yes all terms can be used as a slur as well depending on how they are used.  But the term gay is not viewed by the gay community as being derogatory.

I think this is core of the problem with how the Church addresses this issue.  It seems as though the Church assumes that if you say you are gay then you must be acting on that.  Of course this is nonsense.    It is like saying that if you are in your 20's, then you must be sleeping around.  Both assumtions are wrong.  And to some extent, both assumptions are offensive to those who are not having sex.

 

I totally agree that the perception is mostly drive by those outside the Church.  But I also think there are plenty. in the church that have this perception.  Some members on this board certainly have that perception.  AND it is very true to them.

If the church wants to change that perception, then they should look at what it is doing that is causing that perception.  What I do know is that those feelings will never change if the Church continues to address the LGBT community in a way that many find insulting.  Don't you think the way that you address people would be one of the first thing to consider doing?

Realistically speaking, what is your best guess as to the percentage of people who self-identify as gay who have never engaged in homosexual behavior but have merely experienced the attraction but not acted on it?

Edited May 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is the specific portion of kllindley’s post I have in mind, and yes, it is about how folks who experience same-sex attraction wish to be identified. It was an eye-opener for me, because it shows that by far, the majority don’t self identify with the gay label. I suspected there were some, even many, but I had never imagined it was the majority:

Quote

And really, the numbers are not even close.  1.8% of the US population identifies as gay or lesbian, the number who identify as something other than straight is like 3.8%   But when asked about sexual behavior in the last 12 months, 6% have engaged in same-sex sexual activity.  When asked about attraction to individuals of the same-sex, the number jumps up to between 10 and 25% depending on the age group.  So you want Church leaders to use "Gay" to keep from offending the 1.8% even if they are more accurately talking about the 20% who experience any degree of same-sex attraction or even the 3.8% who identify as something other than straight?  It's like getting upset that politicians refer to Christians in America and expecting them to just use Catholic, because  some Catholics might be offended that they are not being recognized or feel that referring to them as generic Christians is denying their Catholicism.

 

 

 

I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old.  It took me literally years to be able to deal with it.  Years of crying to God to please take this away from me.  Years of fasting and prayer.  It took years to feel worthy of anyone's love.  I fought this orientation with everything I had.  I did what Church leaders asked of me to get rid of this orientation even when they were empty promises.  Do you know why I went on my mission?  Because I knew God would condemn me for being gay.  And I thought that at least I could stand in front of Him and ask, "Did serving You for two years do anything to give me mercy?"  I was willing to give up two years of my LIFE in hopes of some kind of mercy from God.Yeah I know it is naive logic now, but it was very real to me at the time.  

This is NOTHING LIKE having some fling with the neighbor kid down the block.  This is nothing like some guy curious and "experimenting" to see what it might feel like.  This required a sacrifice of my family for years.  This required a sacrifice of virtually all my friends. This required me being all alone, abandoned by all those around me except one loving sister and a few friends that valued me over my orientation.

This is a story repeated over and over again in the LGBT community.  So excuse me if I am not willing for one minute to put those "experimenting with their sexuality" on the same footing with the rest of the LGBT community.

Edited May 18, 2019 by california boy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So excuse me if I am not willing for one minute to put those "experimenting with their sexuality" on the same footing with the rest of the LGBT community.

Can you explain what you mean by this?  I am not sure how the above relates to those who experience sexual fluidity choose to identify themselves.

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I admit that when I started this thread, I was apprehensive about how it would play out. But at this juncture, I have to say that, all in all, we have had a productive and stimulating discussion, though admittedly there have been some occasional testiness and insults and there were some subtle efforts early on by a couple of posters to poison the well and get the thread shut down. 

So I’m generally pleased. I hope the tone can remain civil, if not cordial, for however long we continue. 

What was brought up in the beginning of this thread (specific to how you view those who are gay) is very relevant to understanding why you insist on continuing to do what you do in relation to this topic.  There was nothing wrong with clarifying that fact as part of your thread on this, imo.  But once established, the discussion moved on which was good, I agree.

I was happy to see kllindley enter the discussion since I value his perspective and I think he adds good insight on these topics.

I don’t think anyone’s opinion has changed here, but at least those with respect and an open mind are willing to hear other’s views and feelings and understand them better.  And also honor their wishes as to how they want to be identified.

Edited May 18, 2019 by JulieM

[USU78]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Realistically speaking, what is your best guess as to the percentage of people who self-identify as gay who have never engaged in homosexual behavior but have merely experienced the attraction but not acted on it?

My oldest brother did HR for a while in the air Force back in the day. He and his colleagues had a saying: "If you say you are, you did."

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I totally agree with this.  ALL labels are subject to change over time.  Most have.  And yes all terms can be used as a slur as well depending on how they are used.  But the term gay is not viewed by the gay community as being derogatory.

I understand that. But negative expressions still exist. It's still derogatory to say things like 'this is so gay' or to speak about 'the gay agenda.' 

I think the church tries to use value neutral language whenever possible to avoid any sort of negative connotation.

Plus, considering the age of many church leaders, I think many of them are in the same position my mom with this (described earlier in a post to HFT). If, for the majority of your life, some expression was considered a slur, it's hard to just switch over and start using it - even if people tell you that's really what they want you to use. 

Another potential factor is that, while 'gay' is the preferred language of the day, who knows whether or not it will revert back to being a slur in the future. Just look at the way racial terms have evolved over time. Regardless of what may have been acceptable back in the day, people still pull quotes from past church leaders that (in today's context) make them look hostile.

 

Quote

I think this is core of the problem with how the Church addresses this issue.  It seems as though the Church assumes that if you say you are gay then you must be acting on that.  Of course this is nonsense.  

I'm sorry, but the overwhelming majority of people - all people - act on their sexual attractions. 

The difference, of course, is that the church considers opposite-sex expressions of attraction in courtship and (later) in marriage to be morally acceptable, while opposite-sex expressions are prohibited.

That's obviously not how those in the mainstream LGBTQ community view things, and that's why there exists this battle over definitions and words. 

 

Quote

I totally agree that the perception is mostly drive by those outside the Church.  But I also think there are plenty. in the church that have this perception.  Some members on this board certainly have that perception.  AND it is very true to them.

I think that's a fair assessment. Lots of us aren't yet Zion-level when it comes to loving our gay brothers and sisters. 

 

[Daniel2]

Lots has been said here. 

The discussion makes the issue seem more complicated than it needs to be and more complicated than it really is

Many have already touched on the simple answer: 

Extend to others the same respect which you hope to be treated with, including respecting their own self-designation. Period.

Same-sex attraction is offensive to some, preferred by some, and benign to others.  

In most of my experience, those who identify as either bisexual or as members of conservative (religions which are non-gay affirming/religions that prohibit same-sex behaviors) are more likely to prefer using the terms “having/experiencing SSA,” and when they so identify, I respect their right to self-determination and use their chosen verbiage.

And also in most of my experience, those who identify with the concept that homosexuality is innate/unchosen/unchangeable (whether religious or not) or lean more liberal (gay-affirming) in their religious view are more likely to prefer the term gay, and when they so identify, I respect their right to self-determination and use their chosen verbiage.

There are exceptions to all of the above, and—surprise!—in case of any of those exceptions,  I respect their right to self-determination and use their chosen verbiage.

Additionally, even as a man who accepts, prefers, and embraces the term gay as most comfortable for me, in certain contexts there are times, even many on this board, that I’ve discussed my own experience by using the phrase, “regarding my own attractions to members of my own sex/gender...,” or “in the way I experience same-sex attraction...” etc. I find this especially useful in discussing the differences between those who experience romantic/sexual attractions to a) exclusively members of their own sex, b) exclusively members of the opposite sex, and c) members of both genders or are more fluid in their gender expression itself. 

I think we all would agree that labels matter.  

I understand why the LDS Faith prefers the term “experiences SSA,” as they eschew labeling one’s self by one’s sexual orientation; to them, identifying as gay implies a possible acceptance of a fallen and possibly impermanent propensity to sin in a way that’s currently prohibited. 

Similarly, I also understand that the LDS Faith has expressed extreme importance in the way and labels by which they identify themselves with regards to the name of their Faith. 

In sum, it’s really not complicated: whether someone you’re speaking with uses the term “SSA” or “gay” regarding themselves, respect their autonomy and reflect that same usage back to them if it comes up, unless they then correct you otherwise. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

FYI, I am going now to do my shift at the temple and thus won’t be available for several hours to respond to questions/comments in this popular and fast-moving thread.