Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, sunstoned said: 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. I'm sorry to hear that this leftist "safe-zone" fad has invaded my home state. A university, of all places, should be a location where one is exposed to a diversity of opinion and learns to evaluate, defend or revise one's own views. The "safe-zone" dogma has led to the "heckler's veto" on campuses at Berkley and elsewhere, in which guest speakers are prevented from delivering their speeches because the event is shut down by lawless mobs. 2
kllindley Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 The more I read this thread, I wonder if there isn't some miscommunication. I want to be clear about my position. I do not think that using "same-sex attracted" is a very good descriptor for a person. I don't say anyone "is SSA." Even in conservative circles, that usage is pretty obsolete. "Experiences SSA", or less commonly, "has SSA" is specifically talking about the attractions and not the identity. This is not a trivial distinction. When I hear that a person in some way is something other than 100 heterosexual, I don't jump to the label "gay." Especially when working professionally with youth, it is important to not rush to label any signs of same-sex attraction as "gay." 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Nope. I’m saying you shouldn’t insist on one or the other, in which case you would be making a value-neutral statement. But demonizing a value-neutral expression like "same-sex attraction" is insisting on the one over the other. 1
sunstoned Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 8 hours 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 doesn't matter what the reasons are, or if you or I agree with them or not. If someone doesn't want to be addressed or labeled in a particular way, then we should respect that. Edited August 21, 2018 by sunstoned 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, kllindley said: The more I read this thread, I wonder if there isn't some miscommunication. I want to be clear about my position. I do not think that using "same-sex attracted" is a very good descriptor for a person. I don't say anyone "is SSA." Even in conservative circles, that usage is pretty obsolete. "Experiences SSA", or less commonly, "has SSA" is specifically talking about the attractions and not the identity. This is not a trivial distinction. When I hear that a person in some way is something other than 100 heterosexual, I don't jump to the label "gay." Especially when working professionally with youth, it is important to not rush to label any signs of same-sex attraction as "gay." I don't know very many people who do say anyone "is SSA." For one thing, it is horrible grammar. Correctly expressed, it wold be that a person has same-sex attraction (or SSA, if it must be abbreviated). Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Stargazer Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: It’s not crazy because we’re becoming more aware of variations in human experiences including sexuality and gender identity. Was it crazy when we started to treat other races as equals? Or gave women the right to vote? Whats so crazy about being more respectful of people that have different experiences than the average? How crazy is it to be loving and tolerant? Crazy like all those crazy Christians?!?!? It's crazier because while understanding that there are variations in human experiences, we're going off the deep end in taking offense about how it is all is to be described, especially where no offense is intended, especially when the words in question are perfectly normal neutral English words. The term "same-sex attraction" is offensive! Especially because it describes the state of sexual attraction of one person to other persons of the same sex? Is that especially because it is dead-on accurate? Or that until a week ago last Friday people, even people who experienced "same-sex attraction", were using the term to describe their experience? The other bit of insanity is insisting that just because the term doesn't describe every last aspect of human sexual variance, we can't use it to describe any of it? And then, because someone gets incredulous over people taking offense at a term which perfectly accurately describes an aspect of the human experience and/or behavior, other people start making false equivalences, like equating the insanity of being offended at neutral descriptive words, with race prejudice, gender inequality, and religious bigotry! Maybe I should just shut up and let the insanity roll on.
sunstoned Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm sorry to hear that this leftist "safe-zone" fad has invaded my home state. A university, of all places, should be a location where one is exposed to a diversity of opinion and learns to evaluate, defend or revise one's own views. The "safe-zone" dogma has led to the "heckler's veto" on campuses at Berkley and elsewhere, in which guest speakers are prevented from delivering their speeches because the event is shut down by lawless mobs. I think you are missing my point. Probably because I did not not give enough information. The safe zone concept is meant to provide a place for an minority and underrepresented population (LGBTQIA) can take refuge. These are the people who are usually bullied and heckled by the white, straight majority in Utah because of their orientation. And just like many other minorities, there needs to be special protections/laws in place to protect them from the majority. In Utah, the majority are white, heterosexual, and belong to a conservative religion that opposes gay marriage. I have seen first had the need for programs like safe-zone. 2
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: But demonizing a value-neutral expression like "same-sex attraction" is insisting on the one over the other. Asking you not to make a judgmental statement that I have “just a condition” is not the same as asking you to make the opposite judgment, whatever that might be.
Calm Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 Quote inherently......historically and customarily These words contradict each other. Inherently means it can't be changed. google for "inherently" Quote in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, Stargazer said: It's crazier because while understanding that there are variations in human experiences, we're going off the deep end in taking offense about how it is all is to be described, especially where no offense is intended, especially when the words in question are perfectly normal neutral English words. The term "same-sex attraction" is offensive! Especially because it describes the state of sexual attraction of one person to other persons of the same sex? Is that especially because it is dead-on accurate? Or that until a week ago last Friday people, even people who experienced "same-sex attraction", were using the term to describe their experience? The other bit of insanity is insisting that just because the term doesn't describe every last aspect of human sexual variance, we can't use it to describe any of it? And then, because someone gets incredulous over people taking offense at a term which perfectly accurately describes an aspect of the human experience and/or behavior, other people start making false equivalences, like equating the insanity of being offended at neutral descriptive words, with race prejudice, gender inequality, and religious bigotry! Maybe I should just shut up and let the insanity roll on. I’ve explained repeatedly why I dislike the label “same-sex attraction.” That you don’t understand doesn’t make you a bigot. But feel free to call me insane because I don’t like being thusly labeled.
Semi Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 People tell me I'm the nicest person they've ever met. I don't speak ill of people and always look for the positive. Each person is a son/daughter of God, and has as much value as me, so ain't gonna judge anyone. Having said that... I believe there is a considerable push by Devil Inc. to turn the world upside down. I don't want a group of people to tell me the sky is now the ground, and the ground is the sky, and if you'd don't accept this new world order of nouns you are just intolerant, mean, and bigoted. There is male. There is female. Can we get back to basics and sanity, please?
Calm Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: 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. Yes, I think a lot of people have used it that way. I also think a lot of people who use it are trying to remove the context of making a judgment, moral or immoral, right or wrong, etc. Edited August 21, 2018 by Calm
Calm Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Language changes. Whether something was historically value-neutral is quite irrelevant. I wouldn't say "irrelevant" because how it was used historically affected its development, but certainly historical use has never stopped a word from taking on new meaning that I can think of.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 40 minutes ago, Calm said: These words contradict each other. Inherently means it can't be changed. google for "inherently" I’m not convinced it’s meaning is non-permanent. It is unambiguous and straightforward. To try to imbue it with a negative connotation just because one doesn’t like some who have used it in the past strikes me as Orwellian.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 39 minutes ago, Calm said: I wouldn't say "irrelevant" because how it was used historically affected its development, but certainly historical use has never stopped a word from taking on new meaning that I can think of. How about “male” or “female”? Do those terms carry different meanings today than historically?
Stargazer Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I’ve explained repeatedly why I dislike the label “same-sex attraction.” That you don’t understand doesn’t make you a bigot. But feel free to call me insane because I don’t like being thusly labeled. So here follows is one of the instances, I guess. As for insanity, I'm not sure I "grok" what the blinking heck you're talking about "being thusly labelled". Especially so when you're not being labelled. As either insane, or same-sex attracted. I was saying in previous posts that it was insane to get offended over usage of non-pejorative words, not that the people getting offended were insane. 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. Well, I have to admit, I don't get it. Not at all. If you were, for the sake of argument, a person with red hair, would it be reasonable to describe you as "red-haired" or "red-headed"? Or would you be offended at that, and prefer to be called a "ginger"? Or would it be the other way around? The thing is, the term "same-sex attraction" describes the attraction, with some precision using the words "same", "sex" and "attraction", that are not commonly misunderstood. It might be a bit clinical, but for all that it seems to be for that very reason quite neutral. On the other hand, the apparent preferred term is "gay", which is not at all precise or neutral, being a euphemism for a homosexual person or for homosexuality that originally meant being happy and light-hearted -- and still does, actually. It is also used as a pejorative ("That's gay!"). Forgive me for not seeing your point at all. You might see it from religious folks, but to me it isn't connected to religion at all. Wouldn't it be fair to say that it might occur rather frequently in scientific publications in articles dealing with the subject of homosexuality? For example, the Journal of Theoretical Biology published an article back in 2004 entitled "The prevalence of male homosexuality: the effect of fraternal birth order and variations in family size", in which the term "same-sex attraction" is used rather frequently. It seems to me that it is far more neutral and less polarizing than the word "homosexual," which feels to me rather harsh, while "gay" feels ... "off" somehow. Going back to red-haired people, the euphemism "ginger" sounds "off" in the same way that "gay" does. Like it is super-casual, or super-informal. Like calling a woman a "dame". I will grant you that lots of people who are gay happily use the euphemism to describe themselves; it's broadly acceptable, clearly, so my discomfort (and it isn't strong discomfort) with it is quite idiosyncratic. I've put out a CFR to someone in this thread (forget who, at the moment) who made the claim that "we Mormons" originated the term -- which apparently made it extra offensive. I'd like to see that one proved. It makes my eyes roll. 1
Calm Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: How about “male” or “female”? Do those terms carry different meanings today than historically? Yep....this below is definitely not a historical meaning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners Edited August 21, 2018 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: Yep.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners An analogous application of a word’s essential meaning does not mean that essential meaning has changed. In this instance male and female mean what they have always meant.
Calm Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: An analogous application of a word’s essential meaning does not mean that essential meaning has changed. In this instance male and female mean what they have always meant. "Male" as a word didn't even exist in the past since English has not always existed, so how could it have always meant one meaning? Edited August 21, 2018 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 16 minutes ago, Calm said: "Male" as a word didn't even exist in the past since English has not always existed, so how could it have always meant one meaning? I don't understand the question, as the premise makes no sense to me. A thing need not have "always existed" for it to have existed in the past. The Chevrolet I drive did not always exist, but it has a past that extends back to 2006.
california boy Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 4 hours 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. I don't know anyone who insists that gay is the only respectful way to talk about an entire community. The fact that LGBTQ is very often used to describe the community really disproves your assertion. That acronym specifically identifies diversity as does the gay flag.
california boy Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) If someone joined this board and insisted on using the term "Mormon Cult" whenever he referred to the church, these are the arguments Scott could use to explain why there should be no problem with using that term. Quote If it's not value-neutral, is that because "religious folks" (evangelics) use it, or is it because it is objected to so strenuously and vocally by those who insist "gay" (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is the only acceptable descriptor to use? Quote That could be said about a lot of words and expressions that are, nevertheless, inherently value-neutral . Take homosexuality, (cult) for example. I'd call it value-neutral, yet I have not doubt the term has been used extensively in literature (on many web sites) that condemns homosexuality.(the church) 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. Quote 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. Quote Not any more of a coincidence that those who write ideologically in favor of gay rights (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) (of which there are many) studiously avoid using the term because they want the world to use "gay" (Mormon Cult) 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. Quote 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 (Mormon cult) 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 (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) who want society to see it is a pejorative when it was not historically or customarily intended to be. 5 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Language changes. Whether something was historically value-neutral is quite irrelevant. (the word cult for example) Quote 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. Not allowing the use of the term Mormon cult Quote I'm sorry to hear that this leftist "safe-zone" fad has invaded my home state. A university, of all places, should be a location where one is exposed to a diversity of opinion and learns to evaluate, defend or revise one's own views. The "safe-zone" dogma has led to the "heckler's veto" on campuses at Berkley and elsewhere, in which guest speakers are prevented from delivering their speeches because the event is shut down by lawless mobs. Quote But demonizing a value-neutral expression like "same-sex attraction" (Mormon cult) is insisting on the one over the other. This demonstration by no means, is meant to correct any of your statements. The purpose of this exercise is to see that often when the defense of a position is about something that you find offensive, then perhaps you will reconsider some of your arguments for continued used of how a phrase has been used to weaponize an ideology. Edited August 21, 2018 by california boy
Calm Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't understand the question, as the premise makes no sense to me. A thing need not have "always existed" for it to have existed in the past. The Chevrolet I drive did not always exist, but it has a past that extends back to 2006. We are talking about the concept that "inherent" can be validly linked with language, something that is always in flux, though certainly not random. That labeling a word "inherently value neutral" makes sense when a change of context changes meaning of words. In many ways "male" has perhaps stayed, in terms of one definition of the word, consistent in meaning since about the 1400's when it first appeared iirc, but has it stayed consistent in value overtime? What about the term "boy", "man"...can one say the same? ----- Cars are also always changing over time, to insist everyone continue to view a Studebaker Champion as a top car because it was a top car in 1950 ignores how it is used in 2018 (very rarely, if at all). Is it inherent in a Studebaker to be a popular, top car? It helped define what top cars were in 1950. Is it used to define cars, to give meaning to them at all in 2018. . Edited August 21, 2018 by Calm 2
california boy Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 If someone joined this board and insisted on using the term "Mormon Cult" whenever he referred to the church, these are the arguments JKWilliamst could use to explain why there should be a problem with using that term. Quote Of course, but there are certain terms that are loaded, and like it or not, "same-sex attraction" (Mormon cult) seems to be one of them. Often it's used in the phrase "struggling with same-sex attraction," (delusional beliefs) which is going to be a non-starter with some people. Quote That's fine, but you have to recognize that your use of the term (Mormon cult) will likely carry that ideological baggage. I guess I don't understand the idea of insisting on a particular wording because we disagree with those who find it objectionable. "Mormon" and "LDS" are quite value-neutral, as well. Should I likewise ignore the request of the church not to use it because of who is asking me not to use it? Quote Use your judgment. If you're at a Family Research Council convention, (Evangelic congregation) "same-sex attraction" (Mormon cult) is just fine. Quote Again, I'm talking about knowing one's audience. If someone is interested in having a productive conversation with gay people (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), the term is simply not going to help. Quote Given that the vast majority of citations of "same-sex attraction" (Mormon cult) are to conservative (Catholic, Protestant, LDS) (Evangelic) religions, it's not hard to see the connotation, consensus or not. Seems like an odd hill to die on, anyway. If someone objects to a word or phrase I use, I usually stop using it. Our language is good enough to compensate for the loss of potentially offensive terms. Quote I've known Evangelicals who think that "pseudoChristian cult" is a perfectly neutral way to describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most sane people would beg to differ, but the existence of such folks means there's no consensus about using that term, either. Does that make it OK? Is using that descriptor an effective way of talking with and about members of the church? Quote Yep, which is why I would avoid the term "same-sex attraction" (Mormon cult) unless I was at a convention of religious conservatives, such as Focus on the Family, where it would be the expected term. Of course, you probably wouldn't find me at such a convention in the first place. (or using that term) Quote I’d say let people say for themselves what they want to be called, if anything. I certainly wouldn’t prefer to be called someone with same-sex attraction. Quote As I said, I dislike “same-sex attraction” (Mormon cult) 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. (trying to devalue the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) To me it isn’t value-neutral at all. It doesn’t offend me, but it carries a lot of baggage, IMO. Quote 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” (Mormon cult) is obviously not the only acceptable descriptor. Quote Precisely. It may have started out value-neutral, but it’s been co-opted. Quote 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, (anti-Christian religious belief) not part of who you are? (Christianity) 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.
california boy Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 If someone joined this board and insisted on using the term "Mormon Cult" whenever he referred to the church, these are the arguments I would use to explain why there should be a problem with using that term. Quote The term SSA (Mormon cult) has only been used by those connected with (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)(Evangelics) and a few other fundamental religious groups. The gay community (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) has never used that term and has never been asked to be referred in that way. A lot of gays (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) find that term very offensive because it sounds like it is some kind of affliction. (Satanic worship) Quote As I said earlier, if someone prefers to use the term SSA (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and has expressed that is their preference, then, like the church stating how it prefers to be addressed, the polite thing to do is to honor their request. Quote I don’t blame you for getting weary of new terms and descriptions. The term gay (Mormon cult) has been around for over a half of century. (a couple of decades) Why the need for the “has SSA” thing (Mormon cult) is beyond me especially when it is a designation coming from a group not even a part of (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) community.
Recommended Posts