An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

Thank you for pointing out, I think, a substantial problem.  The argument over vocabulary is an attempt to force an admission of a contested premise.

It's simply a request that you don't take sides over a contested premise. Is that so much to ask?

Yes.  That is too much to ask.

What if I want to take sides? 

What if I don't want to be silenced by one side?

What if I want to have the same right to speak my mind, and to use the same vocabulary as is used by GLAAD, the New York Times, federal judges, and on and on and on?

What if I have grave reservations about "admitting" something that I may not necessarily believe?

I'm being quite serious in comparing this to Jordan Peterson's points and arguments made as to non-gendered pronouns.  

Quote

ETA: he just spit up on me, and even that was more pleasant than the attacks on this thread.

I have not "attacked" you.  You must be referencing someone else.  If that has happened, I think that's unfortunate.

But if my refusal to self-censor is an "attack" on you, then I think some introspection on your part is in order.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 21, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or even if they are used in a context of mutual respect. Automatically imputing disrespect to another just because he uses a value-neutral term that one doesn’t like does not strike me as very respectful. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

If the terms are used in a context of love and are mutually and empathetically understood, I think there is freedom for all involved to use either term.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But it has been made clear that for many on the board, they aren't mutually understood.

Institutional, advocacy group or ideological language is appropriate and even necessary for doctrinal or public discourse. Organizations need to hammer that out in a way that allows them to assert their beliefs and influence in a civic, respectful, and peaceful manner.

I think there is room in caring interpersonal relationships for people to adopt terminology that differs from their institutional or ideological language for the sake of preserving the relationship. They can always understand but agree to disagree on doctrinal or ideological matters and yet remain friends, using language that accommodates both parties. Some organizations even accomplish this on an institutional level.

It seems to me that sometimes people inject an institutional mindset into their personal relationships, which is not particularly healthy anyway, but with regards to this topic results in the language and relationship barrier. How people view themselves seems to play into how well they communicate and develop and maintain their personal relationships. I think that is about being slow to offend and quick to accommodate rather than seeking to be right or to control their relationship or dialog.

In all cases, it certainly works both ways in good faith and in seeking the high road, and it takes some skill to be understood.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  That is too much to ask.

What if I want to take sides? 

What if I don't want to be silenced by one side?

What if I want to have the same right to speak my mind, and to use the same vocabulary as is used by GLAAD, the New York Times, federal judges, and on and on and on?

What if I have grave reservations about "admitting" something that I may not necessarily believe?

I'm being quite serious in comparing this to Jordan Peterson's points and arguments made as to non-gendered pronouns.  

I have not "attacked" you.  You must be referencing someone else.  If that has happened, I think that's unfortunate.

But if my refusal to self-censor is an "attack" on you, then I think some introspection on your part is in order.

If you continue to refer to me using a term I find disrespectful, you aren't being silenced, and I'm not trying to silence you. But you have to understand that I will consider you to be disrespectful of me, because that is what you are doing. And no, I won't be offended. 

Apparently, referring to someone as trying to control the dictionary, tyrannical, absurd, opposed to a term only when Mormons and Catholics use it, weaponizing said term, Orwellian, punishing dissent, and so on are not considered attacks around here. My mistake. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If you continue to refer to me using a term I find disrespectful, you aren't being silenced, and I'm not trying to silence you.

Okay.  

For the record, I have previously used the word "homosexual."  Do you find that disrespectful too?

Quote

But you have to understand that I will consider you to be disrespectful of me, because that is what you are doing. And no, I won't be offended. 

I respect your opinion.  I just choose to not be governed by it.

I can't help your subjective assessment.  If I use "homosexual," you might take that as offensive and disrespectful.  If I use "gay" in discussions with someone else, he might take that to be offensive and disrespectful.

Meanwhile, nobody is accusing GLAAD or the New York Times or the LA Times of being "disrespectful" when they use the term "same-sex attraction."  I can't help but wonder as to the reasons for this disparate treatment.  

Quote

Apparently, referring to someone as trying to control the dictionary, tyrannical, absurd, opposed to a term only when Mormons and Catholics use it, weaponizing said term, Orwellian, punishing dissent, and so on are not considered attacks around here. My mistake. 

Again, my comments are not focused solely on you.  I am addressing the broader societal problem that you happen to be raising.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 21, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  

For the record, I have previously used the word "homosexual."  Do you find that disrespectful too?

I respect your opinion.  I just choose to not be governed by it.

I can't help your subjective assessment.  If I use "homosexual," you might take that as offensive and disrespectful.  If I use "gay" in discussions with someone else, he might take that to be offensive and disrespectful.

I don't expect anyone to agree with my subjective assessment. I'm asking you not to refer to me using terms I find disrespectful. That you insist on using a disrespectful term to describe me is your choice, but it is disrespectful regardless. That you seem genuinely offended that I don't like being labeled in that way is, well, strange to me. 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, nobody is accusing GLAAD or the New York Times or the LA Times of being "disrespectful" when they use the term.  I can't help but wonder as to the reasons for this disparate treatment.

Again, my comments are not focused solely on you.  I am addressing the broader societal problem that you happen to be raising.

 

That's a great defense. "I wasn't talking about you in particular but about everyone who thinks the same way you do." 

[Gray]

40 minutes ago, USU78 said:

... as the demands are for ever more and more, with no reasonable hope of ever ceasing:  drama is at heart of every demand.

"Laurie got offended that I used the word puke. But to me, that's what her dinner tasted like."

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I respect your opinion.  I just choose to not be governed by it.

No, what you're doing is choosing to be disrespectful.  No one is trying to govern you, a request has been made (that is easily done) and you're refusing to respect it.  It's really just that simple.

Edited August 21, 2018 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

It seems to me that it is the same in that individuals or groups want to retain the right to self-identify.  In any event, churches have claimed moral authority and a church making a label invariably includes a moral judgment that cuts to the core for those so labeled.  So, the mere fact that the church is labeling a group is maybe where the problem lies.  I think the same thing applies to the outside world and the name of the church.  Persecution has been a big part of the name of the church and if the outside world won't accede and still call the church "mormon," I am sure there might be some implicit reminders of the persecution of the past and some spirited responses.

That's the thing, and i think you have it backwards: SSA is not a labeling someone, it is descriptive an attribute one has. Our "self-identity" is children of God, and if that's a label, good! But we are all children of God, and we are not defined by our sexuality.

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I don't expect anyone to agree with my subjective assessment. I'm asking you not to refer to me using terms I find disrespectful.

I'll consider it.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

That you insist on using a disrespectful term to describe me is your choice, but it is disrespectful regardless.

No, it's not.  It contravenes your "subjective assessment," that's all.  And you don't even expect anyone to agree with that assessment.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

That you seem genuinely offended that I don't like being labeled in that way is, well, strange to me. 

I am not offended at all.  I simply don't like unreasoned and unreasonable requests that I abstain from using a term that is clinical and value neutral, and that is used by GLAAD, the New York Times, etc.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

That's a great defense. "I wasn't talking about you in particular but about everyone who thinks the same way you do." 

Fortunately, it has the advantage of being true.

I accept your representations about what you are subjectively thinking and feeling.  I ask for the same consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, what you're doing is choosing to be disrespectful. 

I disagree.  If GLAAD can use the term without being accused of being "disrespectful," then so can I.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No one is trying to govern you, a request has been made (that is easily done) and you're refusing to respect it.  It's really just that simple.

I have considered the request.  I reject it as unreasoned and unreasonable.  

If you are going to suggest, in essence, that "respect" means "reflexively capitulating to any and all demands or requests from anyone, for any reason or no reason at all," then I guess we'll have to disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll consider it.

No, it's not.  It contravenes your "subjective assessment," that's all.  And you don't even expect anyone to agree with that assessment.

I am not offended at all.  I simply don't like unreasoned and unreasonable requests that I abstain from using a term that is clinical and value neutral, and that is used by GLAAD, the New York Times, etc.

Fortunately, it has the advantage of being true.

I accept your representations about what you are subjectively thinking and feeling.  I ask for the same consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm sorry for assuming you were offended. I am not offended that you have accused me of all that Orwellian, tyrannical stuff, but I will simply have to disagree with your assessment. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have asked for clarifications on when use of SSA is acceptable to many on the board who have expressed problems with it.  None of them have responded "never", but have clarified how it works and doesn't work for them.  Presenting it as "unilateral" is not accurate and it appears to me to be a strawman.

BINGO!!!!!  I just had to put this in bigger type. If this discussion goes on much longer, I think I will continue to post your comment increasing the type each time.  Or maybe it is time to just walk away from this discussion.  If some haven't gotten the point by now, will anything change in the future?

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It seems that none of those sources are using those terms as an adjective, as a substitute for gay/lesbian/LGBT. That's the difference. If you go out of your way to use it as an adjective describing the person, it is usually done in bad faith as a way of negating someone's sexual orientation. Saying someone is gay is admitting that it's a part of them and it's permanent. It's affirming their identity as a gay person. Saying they are "same-sex attracted" makes it sound transitory, as if it could be "cured" somehow.

Combine this with Calm's quote and nothing further needs to be explained.  The decision is now left to each individual on how they wish to address this issue.

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That's the thing, and i think you have it backwards: SSA is not a labeling someone, it is descriptive an attribute one has. Our "self-identity" is children of God, and if that's a label, good! But we are all children of God, and we are not defined by our sexuality.

Why not just ask these groups how they want to be described and simply do so as the church wants to call itself a certain way? Mormon seems to be a good description, why not just call members of the church mormons? Why make such a big deal over an easy name and try and force people to use such a cumbersome name?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  If GLAAD can use the term without being accused of being "disrespectful," then so can I.

I have considered the request.  I reject it as unreasoned and unreasonable.  

If you are going to suggest, in essence, that "respect" means "reflexively capitulating to any and all demands or requests from anyone, for any reason or no reason at all," then I guess we'll have to disagree.

I've explained the connotations of that phrase and why I don't want to be labeled by it. My brother's children are half-Cuban. One of the kids is quite proud of her Cuban heritage and likes to be called Cuban or Cuban-American. The other two kids have told me they don't like the term, so I don't use it with them. There's nothing coercive about it, and I certainly haven't demanded that they give me their reasons for not using those labels, as if it's up to me to decide they are being unreasonable.

Kindness often does involve reflexively conforming with someone's request. I don't agree with the banning of the terms "Mormon" and "LDS," but I will try to respect what church members ask of me. I don't consider that capitulation, just common courtesy. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Combine this with Calm's quote and nothing further needs to be explained.  The decision is now left to each individual on how they wish to address this issue.

For now.

Is there a risk of requests becoming demands? 

And demands becoming laws? 

And laws being enforced through punishments involving fines, "training" (coercive re-education that tells you to think what "the government" wants you to think), etc.?

If that can happen with preferred pronouns in Canada and New York, can it happen with other words and terms in other jurisdictions?

Yes, I think it's possible.

Meanwhile, GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges are all at liberty to use "same-sex attraction."  But if I do, it's "disrespectful."

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

For now.

Is there a risk of requests becoming demands? 

And demands becoming laws? 

And laws being enforced through punishments involving fines, "training" (coercive re-education that tells you to think what "the government" wants you to think), etc.?

If that can happen with preferred pronouns in Canada and New York, can it happen with other words and terms in other jurisdictions?

Yes, I think it's possible.

Meanwhile, GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges are all at liberty to use "same-sex attraction."  But if I do, it's "disrespectful."

You seem to believe you've been asked to banish that term forever in every context. No one here is asking you to do that, let alone demanding it.

The hysteria about descending into some kind of Orwellian nightmare is more than a little absurd. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've explained the connotations of that phrase and why I don't want to be labeled by it.

But you haven't explained why GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges can use this phrase.  

The existence of the connotations is not self-evident.  Subjectively, yes.  

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My brother's children are half-Cuban. One of the kids is quite proud of her Cuban heritage and likes to be called Cuban or Cuban-American. The other two kids have told me they don't like the term, so I don't use it with them. There's nothing coercive about it, and I certainly haven't demanded that they give me their reasons for not using those labels, as if it's up to me to decide they are being unreasonable.

Kindness often does involve reflexively conforming with someone's request. I don't agree with the banning of the terms "Mormon" and "LDS," but I will try to respect what church members ask of me. I don't consider that capitulation, just common courtesy. 

So if I continue to use "same-sex attraction" generally, but not directed at you specifically, would that be sufficient?  It seems not, as your prior requests are that I not use the term at all.  But perhaps I have misunderstood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

You seem to believe you've been asked to banish that term forever in every context. No one here is asking you to do that, let alone demanding it.

Great!  So your request is that I not apply "same-sex attraction" to you specifically, but otherwise I am free to use it in a clinical, value-neutral way?

Just now, jkwilliams said:

The hysteria about descending into some kind of Orwellian nightmare is more than a little absurd. 

I bet that if we were to go back in time, say ten years, and ask a bunch of Canadians how they would feel about being punished with fines and whatnot for failing to use fabricated pronouns, they would scoff and talk about that being an absurd "Orwellian nightmare."

And yet here we are, with the nightmare being a reality.  Because that's how incremental tyranny works.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

But you haven't explained why GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges can use this phrase.  

The existence of the connotations is not self-evident.  Subjectively, yes.  

So if I continue to use "same-sex attraction" generally, but not directed at you specifically, would that be sufficient?  It seems not, as your prior requests are that I not use the term at all.  But perhaps I have misunderstood.

I have not asked you never to use that phrase again. Not even once. I have asked you not to use it to describe me. I would ask GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges not to describe me that way, too, but I recognize there are contexts in which that descriptor is appropriate. I don't find it helpful to refer to people that way, and I have explained why (obviously you think my reasoning is absurd, Orwellian, etc.). I did say that it's obvious that I'm not alone on this board in finding that phrase wrongheaded, and it certainly makes sense from a rhetorical perspective not to use such a phrase to describe the rest of the folks here who dislike being labeled that way. So, personally, yes, it's disrespectful to me, and rhetorically, it's a bad strategy. 

Do what you must.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Great!  So your request is that I not apply "same-sex attraction" to you specifically, but otherwise I am free to use it in a clinical, value-neutral way?

I would imagine we'll disagree with when it is used in a clinical way and when it is not. 

Quote

 

I bet that if we were to go back in time, say ten years, and ask a bunch of Canadians how they would feel about being punished with fines and whatnot for failing to use fabricated pronouns, they would scoff and talk about that being an absurd "Orwellian nightmare."

And yet here we are, with the nightmare being a reality.  Because that's how incremental tyranny works.

 

Today, a request for minimal courtesy, tomorrow the world. 

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But you haven't explained why GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges can use this phrase.  

The existence of the connotations is not self-evident.  Subjectively, yes.  

So if I continue to use "same-sex attraction" generally, but not directed at you specifically, would that be sufficient?  It seems not, as your prior requests are that I not use the term at all.  But perhaps I have misunderstood.

Thanks,

-Smac

It has been explained over and over and over again on this thread.  Here it is again in even bigger type.  From Gray:

Quote

It seems that none of those sources are using those terms as an adjective, as a substitute for gay/lesbian/LGBT. That's the difference. If you go out of your way to use it as an adjective describing the person, it is usually done in bad faith as a way of negating someone's sexual orientation. Saying someone is gay is admitting that it's a part of them and it's permanent. It's affirming their identity as a gay person. Saying they are "same-sex attracted" makes it sound transitory, as if it could be "cured" somehow.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What if I want to take sides? 

Then you shouldn't be claiming it's a value-neutral phrase. If you want to take sides, go ahead, but be aware that you are taking sides, and own up to it.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

What if I want to take sides? 

Then you shouldn't be claiming it's a value-neutral phrase.

Sure I should.  If you were to ask me about a controversial issue involving black people (such as the causes of over-incarceration of young black men), then I just might want to take a side on that issue.  But taking a side doesn't mean I should use racist epithets or profanity.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

If you want to take sides, go ahead, but be aware that you are taking sides, and own up to it.

I can both take a side and use value-neutral terms to articulate why I am taking a side.

Thanks.

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

It has been explained over and over and over again on this thread.  Here it is again in even bigger type.  From Gray:

I responded to Gray.  I found his reasoning facile and unpersuasive.

Thanks,

-Smac