An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[RevTestament]

10 hours 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 have come to the conclusion that the objections LGBTQ have with the term Same-Sex Attraction has to do with its use as referring to a condition one would find in the DSM for example. They don't believe they have some kind of treatable condition or disorder so seek a term to refer to their identity. The gays I know I always refer to as gay, but not to them. I would call them what they prefer, as I would expect them to refer to me as I prefer - if that is LDS Christian, or straight or whatever. I believe in being respectful to people's wishes. However, on this site and elsewhere when talking about people in general, I do sometimes use Same-Sex Attraction, to refer to a type of feeling or behavior. Not all people with SSA act upon it. Some have opposite-sex attraction as well, so I consider it to be a broader term than gay or lesbian. In short I think we see this issue about the same. I wouldn't say that person has gay or gayness. They are gay. It is used as a term of identity rather than a "condition" or behavior. That is the battle-line being drawn and debated. The same thing with those with abnormal gender identity issues. They want to be seen as normal and treated that way. Nevertheless, on a bell curve they are outside the normal range. I think the mistake society is making is to treat them differently than other people. There is a difference between letting people be what they choose, and fostering it.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

"Mormon cult" is pejorative.  It is designed to offend and insult.

In contrast, "same-sex attraction" is a clinical, value-neutral term, such that it has been used by such organizations as GLAAD, the APA, the New York Times, the LA Times.  Numerous federal judges have also used it in formal, published decisions, including those finding in favor of gay people.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

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. 

In contrast, "same-sex attraction" is a clinical, value-neutral term, such that it has been used by such organizations as GLAAD, the APA, the New York Times, the LA Times.  Numerous federal judges have also used it in formal, published decisions, including those finding in favor of gay people.

So I reject the notion that it is a "weaponized" term.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

10 hours 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.  

Lots of evil has been perpetrated in the history of this world where "no offense was intended."  Ignorance is not an excuse.   We're getting educated about these differences and the experiences of flesh and blood human beings.    These real people are mistreated regularly, often on a daily basis because of prejudice and ignorance.  I thought Christianity was supposed to be about not judging people and standing up for the little guy.  

Asking people to change their vocabulary to show respect shouldn't be a hard thing to do.  

[jkwilliams]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

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 defition 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.

.

Excellent points all. Think about the word "boy." Value-neutral, right? It's a word that has described a male human who hasn't yet reached adulthood. It's meant that from very early on in the development of the English language. But it also has a specific, demeaning connotation when it's used to refer to a black man. "Same-sex attraction" seems perfectly innocuous, except that for some reason, it's become the descriptor of choice for those who insist that being attracted to the same gender is some kind of "condition" or "affliction" you have to endure or struggle against or suffer. As I mentioned, if you google "same sex attraction," the vast majority of links will be to articles from that particular viewpoint. Some quotes from the first page of Google results:

Quote

 

"Struggling With Same-Sex Attractions" -- Family Research Council

Same-sex attraction is compared to "thorns in the flesh," "affliction," "addiction," "weakness." -- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"I’m a Christian who experiences same-sex attraction. ... The Bible knows nothing of the concept of “sexual orientation” – so no-one is ever referred to in the Bible as being gay, lesbian, straight, or bisexual." -- Living Out

"Because the label "same-sex attraction" hadn't come out, I thought I was gay. ... Through all of my reading and study, I discovered there's a difference between homosexuality and same-sex attraction, just like there's a difference between sin and temptation. I didn't realize the term "same-sex attraction" even existed until the end of my time as an undergraduate." -- Today's Christian Woman

"Weak masculine identity is easily identified and, in my clinical experience, is the major cause of SSAD [Same-Sex Attraction Disorder] in men. Surprisingly, it can be an outgrowth of weak eye-hand coordination which results in an inability to play sports well. This condition is usually accompanied by severe peer rejection." -- Catholic Education

And so on. (By the way, I'm pretty good at soccer and tennis, so there goes that theory.)  Note that you don't get a link to usage of "same-sex attraction" that isn't from a conservative religious or political perspective until the third page of results. 

Language is always in flux, and those who try to fix meaning in stone might as well put out their puny arm to stop the Mississippi River. Back to one of my favorite Terry Eagleton essays:

Quote

Meaning that has been written down is bound to be unhygienic. Words that could only ever mean one thing would not be words.

This thread provides ample evidence that "same-sex attraction" is not value-neutral but has a strong connotation of suggesting that sexual orientation is "just a condition." Those of us afflicted with this condition aren't asking anyone to accept how we see ourselves, but I for one would appreciate others respecting my desire not to be labeled. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Mormon cult" is pejorative.  It is designed to offend and insult.

In contrast, "same-sex attraction" is a clinical, value-neutral term, such that it has been used by such organizations as GLAAD, the APA, the New York Times, the LA Times.  Numerous federal judges have also used it in formal, published decisions, including those finding in favor of gay people.

 

It's not clinical or value neutral when used as a grammatically convoluted substitute for the term gay, lesbian, LGBT, etc.

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Mormon cult" is pejorative.  It is designed to offend and insult.

In contrast, "same-sex attraction" is a clinical, value-neutral term, such that it has been used by such organizations as GLAAD, the APA, the New York Times, the LA Times.  Numerous federal judges have also used it in formal, published decisions, including those finding in favor of gay people.

In contrast, "same-sex attraction" is a clinical, value-neutral term, such that it has been used by such organizations as GLAAD, the APA, the New York Times, the LA Times.  Numerous federal judges have also used it in formal, published decisions, including those finding in favor of gay people.

So I reject the notion that it is a "weaponized" term.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmmm. Weaponized? Did someone say that? Not that I've seen here on this board. You're quite free to use whatever terms you wish, but you have to understand that those of us who are the subjects and objects of that term would prefer you not use it for the reasons I and others have said. Just recognize that I'm going to have a hard time divorcing your "clinical, value-neutral" usage from the usual usage by folks with a particular ideological bent. Accurately or not, I will probably unconsciously associate you with those people who tell me I just have a condition. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Lots of evil has been perpetrated in the history of this world where "no offense was intended." 

And lots of evil has been perpetrated in the history of this world where offense was unreasonably taken.

This quote has been attributed to Brigham Young: "He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary."  Not sure if the attribution is legit, but the principle is sound.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Ignorance is not an excuse.   

I agree.  But we should not reflexively kowtow to the say-so of self-appointed, ax-grinding faultfinders.

Let us instead be guided by reason, common sense, civility and decency.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

"Mormon cult" is pejorative.  It is designed to offend and insult.

In contrast, "same-sex attraction" is a clinical, value-neutral term, such that it has been used by such organizations as GLAAD, the APA, the New York Times, the LA Times.  Numerous federal judges have also used it in formal, published decisions, including those finding in favor of gay people.

It's not clinical or value neutral when used as a grammatically convoluted substitute for the term gay, lesbian, LGBT, etc.

Meh.  

If GLAAD, the APA, the New York Times, the LA Times, and a bunch of federal judges can us it, then so can we.

Can this term be misused?  Sure.  But then, so can "gay" and "homosexual" and "queer" and "faggot" and all the others.  These terms are used with pride by gay people.  These terms are also used in some quarters to denigrate and demean.

The thing is, I don't see "same-sex attraction" being used to denigrate or demean (the other terms above are much more conducive to that).  Rather, the term is used precisely because it is clinical and value neutral.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

And lots of evil has been perpetrated in the history of this world where offense was unreasonably taken.

This quote has been attributed to Brigham Young: "He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary."  Not sure if the attribution is legit, but the principle is sound.

I agree.  But we should not reflexively kowtow to the say-so of self-appointed, ax-grinding faultfinders.

Let us instead be guided by reason, common sense, civility and decency.

I don't understand this "I'm going to use whatever word I damn well please" attitude. I'm not "offended" by your use of "same-sex attraction," but I will just say again that it carries a lot of baggage and is not value-neutral, at least not for those of us who are the subjects and objects of the term. Explaining that to you does not make me a "self-appointed, ax-grinding faultfinder." Speaking of offense, why are you so offended that I don't want to be labeled with that term? 

In my hometown, a community of exiles from Iran developed after the 1979 Iranian revolution. The term "Iranian" is, by any measure, an accurate description of who they are. They were born in Iran, and many of them are still citizens of Iran. So, using the common-sense, value-neutral term "Iranian" should be just fine, right? Maybe if you want to cause a fistfight. To them, "Iranian" associates them with the hard-line Islamic Revolution and the repressive regime that followed. So, invariably, they refer to themselves as "Persians," and people in my hometown have adjusted, and the term "Iranian" seems to be used only as a slur. When I worked at the White House, one of my co-workers was one of these exiles from Iran, but when she introduced herself, she said she was from Persia. I knew exactly what she meant and why.

So, yes, go ahead and label me, despite my expressed wishes. You may consider yourself more accurate in your description, but you are putting up an impediment to real communication. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Hmmm. Weaponized? Did someone say that? Not that I've seen here on this board.

California Boy said it.  In this thread.  In the discussion about "same-sex attraction."  I understood his remarks as referencing "same-sex attraction" as "a phrase ... used to weaponize an ideology."

I'm open to correction, of course.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You're quite free to use whatever terms you wish, but you have to understand that those of us who are the subjects and objects of that term would prefer you not use it for the reasons I and others have said.

Until and unless you make similar demands on GLAAD, the New York Times, the LA Times, and all the federal judges who have likewise used "same-sex attraction," your request comes across less as a mere "preference" and more as an attempt to control the vocabulary of religionists.  To force concessions through the use of contested terminology.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Just recognize that I'm going to have a hard time divorcing your "clinical, value-neutral" usage from the usual usage by folks with a particular ideological bent.

Okay.  And you should recognize that Patrick Moynihan had it right: "He who controls the dictionary controls the debate."

"Same-sex attraction" is a clinical, value-neutral term.  You apparently impose or assume a hostile, anti-gay ideology on it, despite its usage by GLAAD, the New York Times, the LA Times, and all the federal judges, none of whom would have any reason to subscribe to such an ideology.  Others impose or assume an ideology on debate-ending efforts to control the dictionary and vocabulary of other people.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Accurately or not, I will probably unconsciously associate you with those people who tell me I just have a condition. 

I trust that reasonable people can use their faculties to rise above unconscious biases and unwarranted assumptions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

California Boy said it.  In this thread.  In the discussion about "same-sex attraction."  I understood his remarks as referencing "same-sex attraction" as "a phrase ... used to weaponize an ideology."

I'm open to correction, of course.

Until and unless you make similar demands on GLAAD, the New York Times, the LA Times, and all the federal judges who have likewise used "same-sex attraction," your request comes across less as a mere "preference" and more as an attempt to control the vocabulary of religionists.  To force concessions through the use of contested terminology.

Okay.  And you should recognize that Patrick Moynihan had it right: "He who controls the dictionary controls the debate."

"Same-sex attraction" is a clinical, value-neutral term.  You apparently impose or assume a hostile, anti-gay ideology on it, despite its usage by GLAAD, the New York Times, the LA Times, and all the federal judges, none of whom would have any reason to subscribe to such an ideology.  Others impose or assume an ideology on debate-ending efforts to control the dictionary and vocabulary of other people.

I trust that reasonable people can use their faculties to rise above unconscious biases and unwarranted assumptions.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not making demands of anyone, and I'm not trying to control anyone's vocabulary, as obviously, I have no power to "force concessions" from anyone. I'm simply letting you know that the term has become loaded and I'd prefer you not use it. I haven't called you "hostile" or "ant-gay" or whatever, so you seem to be making the same kinds of unwarranted assumptions about me that you think one should rise above. 

ETA: I'm reminded of why I generally don't engage in these kinds of topics: it is very difficult to talk to people who opine about how people like me are suppose to think and feel and live, despite their not having a clue what my life is like. Even suggesting that a phrase has become quite laden with political and religious baggage is interpreted as being offended or trying to "control the dictionary" or, worse, using the term as some kind of club with which to beat people. Much in the same way that Mike Muir just wanted a Pepsi, I just wanted to point out that even supposedly clinical terms have political implications. That there's been such angry push-back seems to confirm that, in this case.

Edited August 21, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't understand this "I'm going to use whatever word I damn well please" attitude.

Nor do I.  Who is exhibiting such an unreasoned attitude?  Certainly not me.

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not "offended" by your use of "same-sex attraction," but I will just say again that it carries a lot of baggage and is not value-neutral,

So do "gay" and "homosexual."

"Same-sex attraction" is about as value-neutral and clinical as we can hope to get.  This is probably why GLAAD, the APA, federal judges, the New York Times, and the LA Times have felt at liberty to use it.

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

at least not for those of us who are the subjects and objects of the term.

With respect, I do not think you can or ought to presume to speak for "the subjects and objects of the term."  Nobody elected you.  There is no consensus.  No vote.  

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Explaining that to you does not make me a "self-appointed, ax-grinding faultfinder."

I wasn't referencing you.  I apologize for causing that misunderstanding.

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In my hometown, a community of exiles from Iran developed after the 1979 Iranian revolution. The term "Iranian" is, by any measure, an accurate description of who they are. They were born in Iran, and many of them are still citizens of Iran. So, using the common-sense, value-neutral term "Iranian" should be just fine, right? Maybe if you want to cause a fistfight. To them, "Iranian" associates them with the hard-line Islamic Revolution and the repressive regime that followed. So, invariably, they refer to themselves as "Persians," and people in my hometown have adjusted, and the term "Iranian" seems to be used only as a slur.

The key word here being "invariably."  You are referencing a very small group that, you say, had a cohesive and comprehensive and ubiquitous objection to the term "Iranian."  That is nothing like the situation we have before us.  Nobody speaks for the group of people under discussion.  That group does not have a cohesive and comprehensive and ubiquitous objection to one term or preference for another.  Some like "gay," some do not.  Some like "homosexual," some find it offensive.  Some prefer "same-sex attracted," some do not.

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, yes, go ahead and label me, despite my expressed wishes.

First, I did not know you are gay.

I invite you to review my many thousands of posts.  You will find that I use "gay" and "homosexual" and "same-sex attraction" interchangeably.

You will also note that I have never used palpably offensive/denigrating slurs like "queer" or "fag" or "faggot" or "poof" or "dyke."  I have no desire to offend or denigrate.  But here's the thing: there is no way to avoid it.  There is no term that satisfies everyone.  So we do the best with what we've got.

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You may consider yourself more accurate in your description, but you are putting up an impediment to real communication. 

I think it is you and yours who are putting up an impediment.  I'm not trying to control your vocabulary (and, hence, the debate).  But you are trying to control mine, even though my vocabulary has been used by GLAAD, the APA, federal judges, etc. in clinical and objective ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not making demands of anyone, and I'm not trying to control anyone's vocabulary, as obviously, I have no power to "force concessions" from anyone. I'm simply letting you know that the term has become loaded and I'd prefer you not use it. I haven't called you "hostile" or "ant-gay" or whatever, so you seem to be making the same kinds of unwarranted assumptions about me that you think one should rise above. 

I understand your preference.  I appreciate you communicating it.  I will, however, go my own way.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And lots of evil has been perpetrated in the history of this world where offense was unreasonably taken.

This quote has been attributed to Brigham Young: "He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary."  Not sure if the attribution is legit, but the principle is sound.

I agree.  But we should not reflexively kowtow to the say-so of self-appointed, ax-grinding faultfinders.

Let us instead be guided by reason, common sense, civility and decency.

Thanks,

-Smac

Referring to people in a way that is respectful to them, is common sense and civil and decent and reasonable.  

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand your preference.  I appreciate you communicating it.  I will, however, go my own way.

That's fine. I don't expect you to do otherwise.

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nor do I.  Who is exhibiting such an unreasoned attitude?  Certainly not me.

So do "gay" and "homosexual."

"Same-sex attraction" is about as value-neutral and clinical as we can hope to get.  This is probably why GLAAD, the APA, federal judges, the New York Times, and the LA Times have felt at liberty to use it.

With respect, I do not think you can or ought to presume to speak for "the subjects and objects of the term."  Nobody elected you.  There is no consensus.  No vote.  

I wasn't referencing you.  I apologize for causing that misunderstanding.

The key word here being "invariably."  You are referencing a very small group that, you say, had a cohesive and comprehensive and ubiquitous objection to the term "Iranian."  That is nothing like the situation we have before us.  Nobody speaks for the group of people under discussion.  That group does not have a cohesive and comprehensive and ubiquitous objection to one term or preference for another.  Some like "gay," some do not.  Some like "homosexual," some find it offensive.  Some prefer "same-sex attracted," some do not.

First, I did not know you are gay.

I invite you to review my many thousands of posts.  You will find that I use "gay" and "homosexual" and "same-sex attraction" interchangeably.

You will also note that I have never used palpably offensive/denigrating slurs like "queer" or "fag" or "faggot" or "poof" or "dyke."  I have no desire to offend or denigrate.  But here's the thing: there is no way to avoid it.  There is no term that satisfies everyone.  So we do the best with what we've got.

I think it is you and yours who are putting up an impediment.  I'm not trying to control your vocabulary (and, hence, the debate).  But you are trying to control mine, even though my vocabulary has been used by GLAAD, the APA, federal judges, etc. in clinical and objective ways.

We're not talking about consensus here. We're talking about communicating with people. If I know that a certain term has negative connotations for a significant segment of a particular group, I'm going to be careful about how and when I use it around that group, no matter how clinical and value-neutral I consider it to be. That is common sense. You already know that, on this board, the term "same-sex attraction" carries baggage for a lot of posters like me. No one elected me, and I'm not a spokesman for a consensus, but of the very few LGBT+ people on this board, it's safe to say most of us would prefer people not use that term, so if you're going to communicate with LGBT+ members of this board, it might be wise to avoid that term, at least here on the board. But you have repeatedly said you don't care what we think and will use it, anyway. To me, whatever your ideological position, that suggests you would prefer to err on the side of communicating poorly rather than simply accommodating our preferences. I'm not offended, just surprised that you aren't interested in communicating to your audience.

Edited August 21, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Referring to people in a way that is respectful to them, is common sense and civil and decent and reasonable.  

I quite agree.  I think "same-sex attraction" is respectful.  GLAAD uses the term.  So does the APA.  So does the New York Times.  And the LA Times.  And numerous federal judges in formal, published opinions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  

If GLAAD, the APA, the New York Times, the LA Times, and a bunch of federal judges can us it, then so can we.

 

Are they using it as an adjective to describe people? Are they using it in place of gay, LGBT, lesbian, etc? If so please demonstrate.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are they using it as an adjective to describe people? Are they using it in place of gay, LGBT, lesbian, etc? If so please demonstrate.

As a writer, I find it funny to believe that because some organization or judge or news outlet used a term, it is forever free of values judgment and political usage. Language is, as Eagleton put it, always profane and promiscuous. It defies our attempts to nail its meaning down once and for all. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Evidently way too difficult of concept for someone to get when they don't really want to. or have any intention of understanding the issue.  

Yes, you can't make someone understand something that they'd rather not understand

[california boy]

I personally am getting pretty tired of this phrase being constantly used by SMAC to justify the refusal to respect how those in the LGBT community find offensive.
 

Quote

 

Until and unless you make similar demands on GLAAD, the New York Times, the LA Times, and all the federal judges who have likewise used "same-sex attraction," your request comes across less as a mere "preference" and more as an attempt to control the vocabulary of religionists.  To force concessions through the use of contested terminology.

 

Can't you tell the difference between how a phrase is used?  I have used same sex attraction many times in this very thread.  No one is saying that those three words should never be spoken again.  Let's look at HOW GLADD uses the term same sex attraction.
 

Quote

 

Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. 

Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple,"

Sexual orientation is the accurate description of an individual's enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to members of the same and/or opposite sex and is inclusive of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, as well as straight men and women

 

Those are the only reference to same sex attraction in their Media Reference Guide.  In every instance they are not talking about same sex attraction as being a condition, they are talking about in reference to an attraction.  

Once again, I am disappointed at how you choose to address the gay community.  I quit responding to your post when i realized how vile and unfair you can be towards me and the gay community.  Unfortunately, given your past diatribes against me and the gay community, I am not surprised in the least that you have no interest in trying to respect how the LGBT community wishes to be referred to. 

 

 

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

That's fine. I don't expect you to do otherwise.

We're not talking about consensus here. We're talking about communicating with people.

Communication centers heavily on consensus.  Agreed-upon definitions of terms.  Dictionaries.  

But that's not the end.  There are connotations.  Hints.  Inferences to be drawn.  Just because "Negro" is in the dictionary doesn't mean that people can or ought to disregard the real-world generalized consensus that, in civil discourse in the United States, "Negro" is no longer an acceptable descriptor for black people.  So people who are interested in "communicating with [other] people" will take that into account.

But there is no consensus here.  Someone is offended by something, no matter which way we turn.  So in the absence of consensus, we each should strive for vocabulary that is objectively as clinical and value-neutral as possible, with the understanding that such an effort will never fully succeed.

I am reminded here of Jordan Peterson's various remarks about how he refuses to use "preferred pronouns," even though failure to do so has been criminalized in Canada.  He and others have characterized the issue - correctly, in my view - as a form of tyranny.

That is how I am coming to view this debate.  It's a form of inchoate/nascent tyranny for a small group of self-selected people to go around telling other people what they can and cannot say, what terms they can and cannot use.  It's an ideological debate being waged by your side, JK, not mine.

It's a soft, not-yet-fully-formed tyranny, but tyranny nonetheless.  Better to oppose it now.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

If I know that a certain term has negative connotations among a significant segment of a particular group, I'm going to be careful about how and when I use it, no matter how clinical and value-neutral I consider it. That is common sense.

I will not kowtow to unreasoned and unreasonable and subjective absurdity.

This kerfuffle over "same-sex attraction" is cut from the same cloth as the absurdities we are seeing about fabricated pronouns.  The more we talk, the more I am coming to see that.  And the more I am inclined to resist it.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

You already know that, on this board, the term "same-sex attraction" carries baggage for a lot of posters like me.

And "gay" and "homosexual" carries baggage for others.  So there's no good reason to privilege one term over the other.  

The subtext here, I think, is to control vocabulary, and hence control debate, and hence to control thought.  Fabrciated pronouns are the same sort of effort.  

No.  I will not submit.  I will speak with respect and courtesy, but I will not subject myself to fabricated pronouns or selective indignance about a clinical and value-neutral term like "same-sex attraction."

Just now, jkwilliams said:

No one elected me, and I'm not a spokesman for a consensus, but of the very few LGBT+ people on this board, it's safe to say most of us would prefer people not use that term, so if you're going to communicate with LGBT+ members of this board, it might be wise to avoid that term, at least here on the board.

I'll go my on way, thanks.  

Tyranny.  Nascent tyranny.  Jordan Peterson sees it in demands that he use fabricated pronouns like "ze" instead of "he" and "she," and I see it in your request that I abandon a very reasonable and clinical and value-neutral term "same-sex attraction" in favor of . . . something else.

Nope.  Not gonna do it.  I recognize that you feel strongly about it.  But the people who are foisting "ze" on Canada feel strongly about that.  Strong feelings are not enough.  Reason and reasonableness need to carry the day.  And there is nothing reasoned or reasonable that I have seen about objections to "same-sex attraction."  "Mormons and Catholics use it!" is not reasoned or reasonable.  "I just don't want you to" is not reasoned or reasonable.

Again: GLAAD.  The APA.  The New York Times.  The LA Times.  Numerous federal judges.  If you aren't insisting that these groups abandon "same-sex marriage," then your request comes across as one targeting Mormons.  That's just not cool. 

I will not acquiesce to altering my vocabulary without a pretty good reason for it.  There's no consensus.  There's no alternative term that is universally unoffensive.  There is ample evidence that "same-sex attraction" is about as clinical and value-neutral a term as we can hope to find.  I will continue to use it.  Not exclusively.  Not derisively.  But I will continue to use it.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

But you have repeatedly said you don't care what we think and will use it, anyway.

I have never said that I don't care what you think.  The fact that I have engaged you extensively on this issue demonstrates that I do care what you think.

But at the end of the day, I'm my own man.  I make my own decisions.  You have not persuaded me of your position.  If anything, your arguments are only persuading me further that your request is neither reasoned nor reasonable, that it is akin to the "personal pronoud" absurdities Jordan Peterson has been talking about, that this is an apparent attempt to alter the terms of the debate by controlling vocabulary, and that this sort of behavior is a form of soft, nascent tyranny that I strongly oppose.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

To me, whatever your ideological position, that suggests you would prefer to err on the side of communicating poorly rather than simply accommodating our preferences. I'm not offended, just surprised that you aren't interested in communicating to your audience.

I am interested in communicating.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are they using it as an adjective to describe people? Are they using it in place of gay, LGBT, lesbian, etc? If so please demonstrate.

I encourage you to do your own research.  Perhaps by reading this thread from the beginning.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

On 8/20/2018 at 9:20 AM, smac97 said:

"Gay" used to have a pejorative connotation, but has been "reclaimed."

The U.S. organization GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) advises the media to avoid using the term "homosexual."  "{I}t is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered."

Elsewhere, GLAAD itself uses the phrase "same-sex couple" (emphasis added):

GLAAD also uses "same-sex marriage" as a tag: https://www.glaad.org/tags/same-sex-marriage

GLAAD also uses the phrase "same-sex partner": https://www.glaad.org/blog/catholic-university-stands-professor-after-marriage-same-sex-partner

GLAAD also uses . . . you guessed it . . . "same sex attraction" (emphasis added):

 

You seem to be pretty selectively quoting from GLAAD. Did you miss this right at the top of the page?
 

Quote

 

Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.)
Preferred: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people"

Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP & New York Times Style).

 

 

 

[Gray]

Just now, smac97 said:

I encourage you to do your own research.  Perhaps by reading this thread from the beginning.

Thanks,

-Smac

So far it looks like you've misrepresented at least two sources.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Communication centers heavily on consensus.  Agreed-upon definitions of terms.  Dictionaries.  

But that's not the end.  There are connotations.  Hints.  Inferences to be drawn.  Just because "Negro" is in the dictionary doesn't mean that people can or ought to disregard the real-world generalized consensus that, in civil discourse in the United States, "Negro" is no longer an acceptable descriptor for black people.  So people who are interested in "communicating with [other] people" will take that into account.

But there is no consensus here.  Someone is offended by something, no matter which way we turn.  So in the absence of consensus, we each should strive for vocabulary that is objectively as clinical and value-neutral as possible, with the understanding that such an effort will never fully succeed.

I am reminded here of Jordan Peterson's various remarks about how he refuses to use "preferred pronouns," even though failure to do so has been criminalized in Canada.  He and others have characterized the issue - correctly, in my view - as a form of tyranny.

That is how I am coming to view this debate.  It's a form of inchoate/nascent tyranny for a small group of self-selected people to go around telling other people what they can and cannot say, what terms they can and cannot use.  It's an ideological debate being waged by your side, JK, not mine.

It's a soft, not-yet-fully-formed tyranny, but tyranny nonetheless.  Better to oppose it now.

I will not kowtow to unreasoned and unreasonable and subjective absurdity.

This kerfuffle over "same-sex attraction" is cut from the same cloth as the absurdities we are seeing about fabricated pronouns.  The more we talk, the more I am coming to see that.  And the more I am inclined to resist it.

And "gay" and "homosexual" carries baggage for others.  So there's no good reason to privilege one term over the other.  

The subtext here, I think, is to control vocabulary, and hence control debate, and hence to control thought.  Fabrciated pronouns are the same sort of effort.  

No.  I will not submit.  I will speak with respect and courtesy, but I will not subject myself to fabricated pronouns or selective indignance about a clinical and value-neutral term like "same-sex attraction."

I'll go my on way, thanks.  

Tyranny.  Nascent tyranny.  Jordan Peterson sees it in demands that he use fabricated pronouns like "ze" instead of "he" and "she," and I see it in your request that I abandon a very reasonable and clinical and value-neutral term "same-sex attraction" in favor of . . . something else.

Nope.  Not gonna do it.  I recognize that you feel strongly about it.  But the people who are foisting "ze" on Canada feel strongly about that.  Strong feelings are not enough.  Reason and reasonableness need to carry the day.  And there is nothing reasoned or reasonable that I have seen about objections to "same-sex attraction."  "Mormons and Catholics use it!" is not reasoned or reasonable.  "I just don't want you to" is not reasoned or reasonable.

Again: GLAAD.  The APA.  The New York Times.  The LA Times.  Numerous federal judges.  If you aren't insisting that these groups abandon "same-sex marriage," then your request comes across as one targeting Mormons.  That's just not cool. 

I will not acquiesce to altering my vocabulary without a pretty good reason for it.  There's no consensus.  There's no alternative term that is universally unoffensive.  There is ample evidence that "same-sex attraction" is about as clinical and value-neutral a term as we can hope to find.  I will continue to use it.  Not exclusively.  Not derisively.  But I will continue to use it.

I have never said that I don't care what you think.  The fact that I have engaged you extensively on this issue demonstrates that I do care what you think.

But at the end of the day, I'm my own man.  I make my own decisions.  You have not persuaded me of your position.  If anything, your arguments are only persuading me further that your request is neither reasoned nor reasonable, that it is akin to the "personal pronoud" absurdities Jordan Peterson has been talking about, that this is an apparent attempt to alter the terms of the debate by controlling vocabulary, and that this sort of behavior is a form of soft, nascent tyranny that I strongly oppose.

I am interested in communicating.

Thanks,

-Smac

That you regard a simple request for courtesy to be akin to thought control and tyranny tells me it would be unwise to continue this discussion. 

And for the record, "Mormons and Catholics use it!" has never been one of my arguments. It's how they use it that matters. I resent the implication that I'm a religious bigot because I don't like the way a term is used ideologically.