jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 1 minute ago, kllindley said: I can appreciate and respect that. To be clear: Are you saying that you want to be labeled gay? Nope because I’m not gay. At least I don’t think that describes me at all.
kllindley Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Nope because I’m not gay. At least I don’t think that describes me at all. Okay. I feel the same way. That's why I dislike reading people insisting that gay is the only respectful way to talk about an entire community of people, the majority of whom are not even gay.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: Okay. I feel the same way. That's why I dislike reading people insisting that gay is the only respectful way to talk about an entire community of people, the majority of whom are not even gay. As I said, I dislike “same-sex attraction” because I usually see it from religious folks trying to say it’s not who I am but some kind of affliction to be endured. To me it isn’t value-neutral at all. It doesn’t offend me, but it carries a lot of baggage, IMO. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: As I said, I dislike “same-sex attraction” because I usually see it from religious folks trying to say it’s not who I am but some kind of affliction to be endured. To me it isn’t value-neutral at all. It doesn’t offend me, but it carries a lot of baggage, IMO. If it's not value-neutral, is that because "religious folks" use it, or is it because it is objected to so strenuously and vocally by those who insist "gay" is the only acceptable descriptor to use? Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If it's not value-neutral, is that because "religious folks" use it, or is it because it is objected to so strenuously and vocally by those who insist "gay" is the only acceptable descriptor to use? It is not "value-neutral" because it has been used extensively in literature that condemns nonheterosexual behaviour and even at times the attractions themselves. If "same-sex attraction" was also used frequently in positive ways by those they are applied to, then I see it as likely the negative use would be overshadowed by the positive use (just as "gay" and other terms that used to be slurs are in general acceptable these days because the LGBT+ community in general accepted them as positive, appropriate terms) , but what I see generally is negative and neutral (as in academic texts) use, though as kllindley points out there are those who prefer its usage to describe themselves...I just don't see them as very vocal in the past or currently. This may change in the future or it may not. So it is not one or the other, but a combination of cultural usages that has determined what is respectful speech...pretty much like every other word in existence that has had multiple meanings over time. There is possibly a vicious circle going on as well, as some of those who wish to use it get pushback resist changing and therefore get more pushback, which leads to more vocal resistance, more pushback, and so forth. People don't like to feel forced into behaviours or boxes and both groups are likely feeling pressure to change against their will. Edited August 21, 2018 by Calm 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Calm said: It is not "value-neutral" because it has been used extensively in literature that condemns nonheterosexual behaviour and even at times the attractions themselves. That could be said about a lot of words and expressions that are, nevertheless, inherently value-neutral . Take homosexuality, for example. I'd call it value-neutral, yet I have not doubt the term has been used extensively in literature that condemns homosexuality. Mormonism is another example. The recent directive from President Nelson notwithstanding, I'd call it a value-neutral term, yet many have used it who disapprove of what it denotes. Christian is another example. So are Moslem and Jewish. Multi-level marketing is yet another example. The term itself is value-neutral, yet many have written or spoken about it using that term who have no liking at all for multi-level marketing. In short, it doesn't work to cite the frequency with which a term is used by those who dislike what it denotes as a reason for concluding that it is not value-neutral. Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If it's not value-neutral, is that because "religious folks" use it, or is it because it is objected to so strenuously and vocally by those who insist "gay" is the only acceptable descriptor to use? It seems to have been co-opted by people with an agenda, which is why I don’t like it and ask that it not be applied to me. “Gay” is obviously not the only acceptable descriptor. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 9 minutes ago, Calm said: It is not "value-neutral" because it has been used extensively in literature that condemns nonheterosexual behaviour and even at times the attractions themselves. Precisely. It may have started out value-neutral, but it’s been co-opted. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It seems to have been co-opted by people with an agenda, which is why I don’t like it and ask that it not be applied to me. “Gay” is obviously not the only acceptable descriptor. I disagree it has been "co-opted by people with an agenda." I would observe, however, that it seems to have been disparaged and condemned by people with an agenda.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I disagree it has been "co-opted by people with an agenda." I would observe, however, that it seems to have been disparaged and condemned by people with an agenda. Then we disagree.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Precisely. It may have started out value-neutral, but it’s been co-opted. See my reply to Calm's post. You could argue that about a lot of words and expressions, and it would be just as unconvincing.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 Just now, jkwilliams said: Then we disagree. I think I just said that.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That could be said about a lot of words and expressions that are, nevertheless, inherently value-neutral . Take homosexuality, for example. I'd call it value-neutral, yet I have not doubt the term has been used extensively in literature that condemns homosexuality. Mormonism is another example. The recent directive from President Nelson notwithstanding, I'd call it a value-neutral term, yet many have used it who disapprove of what it denotes. Christian is another example. So are Moslem and Jewish. Multi-level marketing is yet another example. The term itself is value-neutral, yet many have written or spoken about it using that term who have no liking at all for multi-level marketing. In short, it doesn't work to cite the frequency with which a term is used by those who dislike what it denotes as a reason for concluding that it is not value-neutral. So, it’s mere coincidence that almost every reference you find in a Google search is a conservative religious post arguing that it’s a condition, not part of who you are? That some people seem so genuinely offended that people like me and others don’t like the label suggests to me they don’t think it’s value-neutral, either. 2
Calm Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Precisely. It may have started out value-neutral, but it’s been co-opted. I am not sure it was co-opted if you mean intended to change it to convey a negative. I think many socially conservative groups chose to use it because they didn't want to use what was for them negative terms (gay and homosexual being negative terms in their community) and actually thought it would be a safe term to bridge the divide. Otoh, I think some groups may have had an agenda to appear more clinical, more scientific and it is easy to see why this would create a strong negative reaction. Others may have seen the reaction it caused and used it as a passive aggressive attack. And no one likes those. 1
kllindley Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 That's why I prefer LGBT, though I suppose I should add the "+". (To this point I understood the + (queer, questioning, intersex, et al) to be implied in the term LGBT) While I strenuously oppose being labelled gay, I have no problem saying I'm LGBT. A very few members(and non-members, too) also oppose being lumped into LGBT, because that community has not historically been and is not currently especially welcoming or accepting of people who choose to prioritize faith over sexuality. In addressing a mixed audience, I would use "LGBT/SSA." 3
Calm Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That could be said about a lot of words and expressions that are, nevertheless, inherently value-neutral . Take homosexuality, for example. I'd call it value-neutral, yet I have not doubt the term has been used extensively in literature that condemns homosexuality. Mormonism is another example. The recent directive from President Nelson notwithstanding, I'd call it a value-neutral term, yet many have used it who disapprove of what it denotes. Christian is another example. So are Moslem and Jewish. Multi-level marketing is yet another example. The term itself is value-neutral, yet many have written or spoken about it using that term who have no liking at all for multi-level marketing. In short, it doesn't work to cite the frequency with which a term is used by those who dislike what it denotes as a reason for concluding that it is not value-neutral. "Inherently value neutral" doesn't really make sense to me when speaking about language. Words don't exist outside of the context of which we use them. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: So, it’s mere coincidence that almost every reference you find in a Google search is a conservative religious post arguing that it’s a condition, not part of who you are? That some people seem so genuinely offended that people like me and others don’t like the label suggests to me they don’t think it’s value-neutral, either. Not any more of a coincidence that those who write ideologically in favor of gay rights (of which there are many) studiously avoid using the term because they want the world to use "gay" as the only socially acceptable descriptor and they want the public to conclude that it must be regarded as a function of one's core identity, not just a condition.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, Calm said: I am not sure it was co-opted if you mean intended to change it to convey a negative. I think many socially conservative groups chose to use it because they didn't want to use what was for them negative terms (gay and homosexual being negative terms in their community) and actually thought it would be a safe term to bridge the divide. Otoh, I think some groups may have had an agenda to appear more clinical, more scientific and it is easy to see why this would create a strong negative reaction. Others may have seen the reaction it caused and used it as a passive aggressive attack. And no one likes those. Touché. I don’t think it was intended as a pejorative but rather as a way to say to us “this isn’t who you are but a trial or temptation or affliction the real you has to endure or overcome.” At least that’s how I have seen it used. If I have an agenda, it’s that I don’t want someone else telling me that part of my identity is an affliction.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not any more of a coincidence that those who write ideologically in favor of gay rights (of which there are many) studiously avoid using the term because they want the world to use "gay" as the only socially acceptable descriptor and they want the public to conclude that it must be regarded as a function of one's core identity, not just a condition. There you have it. You want to tell me I have “just a condition,” and you seem to be genuinely mystified as to why I don’t think that’s value-neutral. I don’t know what to say. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, Calm said: "Inherently value neutral" doesn't really make sense to me when speaking about language. Words don't exist outside of the context of which we use them. Inherent would mean the value neutrality of a word is intrinsic to it, an essential characteristic of it. And I would argue that a word or expression could be considered inherently value-neutral if it has been historically and customarily used in that way. I would further argue that a word or expression can be co-opted in a negative way as easily as it can be co-opted in a positive way. So if same-sex attraction has been co-opted (and I don't concede that it has) I think it's just as reasonable to conclude that it has been co-opted by gay rights advocates who want society to see it is a pejorative when it was not historically or customarily intended to be.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Inherent would mean the value neutrality of a word is intrinsic to it, an essential characteristic of it. And I would argue that a word or expression could be considered inherently value-neutral if it has been historically and customarily used in that way. I would further argue that a word or expression can be co-opted in a negative way as easily as it can be co-opted in a positive way. So if same-sex attraction has been co-opted (and I don't concede that it has) I think it's just as reasonable to conclude that it has been co-opted by gay rights advocates who want society to see it is a pejorative when it was not historically or customarily intended to be. Language changes. Whether something was historically value-neutral is quite irrelevant. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: There you have it. You want to tell me I have “just a condition,” and you seem to be genuinely mystified as to why I don’t think that’s value-neutral. I don’t know what to say. So it would follow, then, that you want same-sex attraction to be viewed by everyone as a function of one's core identity. I don't think that's value-neutral either. 2
sunstoned Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: As I said, I dislike “same-sex attraction” because I usually see it from religious folks trying to say it’s not who I am but some kind of affliction to be endured. To me it isn’t value-neutral at all. It doesn’t offend me, but it carries a lot of baggage, IMO. At the university (located in Utah) where I teach, my office has been designated a sale zone. In order to qualify, I took the safe zone training, which is about fostering an environment of inclusion for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, allies, and asexual/nonsexual (LGBTQIA) individuals on the campus and in the surrounding community. It was very informative for me. One thing that did come up in the class was the use of the term "Same-Sex Attraction". This is generally considered a Judgmental and derogatory label that (for right or wrong) is associated with religious organizations. We were specifically advised not to use this term. Edited August 21, 2018 by sunstoned 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 Just now, jkwilliams said: Language changes. Whether something was historically value-neutral is quite irrelevant. I disagree that it's irrelevant. It's an age-old argument, but some contend that language, because it tends to evolve, should have no rules or conventions. Taken to its logical extreme such an attitude would rob language of its usefulness in communication, because there would be no way to standardize it so that it would be meaningful to both the sender and the receiver.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: So it would follow, then, that you want same-sex attraction to be viewed by everyone as a function of one's core identity. I don't think that's value-neutral either. Nope. I’m saying you shouldn’t insist on one or the other, in which case you would be making a value-neutral statement.
Recommended Posts