Guest Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 34 minutes ago, rockpond said: I know many who disagree with you on this... and not because they are seeking to feel insulted. No worries, my ego does not required that the rest of the world see it as I do.
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And a lot of people like myself also assume that people who insist and demand that we not use the term "same-sex attraction" and instead use some other happens-to-be-acceptable-to-some-folks-in-some-contexts term may also have "a particular ideological frame of reference." That's fine, but you have to recognize that your use of the term 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?
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: So, how are we to know every audience, as I pointed out in another response, do we to have others fill out a questionable? Use your judgment. If you're at a Family Research Council convention, "same-sex attraction" is just fine.
Stargazer Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 5 hours ago, california boy said: I don’t blame you for getting weary of new terms and descriptions. The term gay has been around for over a half of century. Why the need for the “has SSA” thing is beyond me especially when it is a designation coming from a group not even a part of the community. I remember hearing that for the first time. It was in 1972. Some gentleman came to the door of my apartment looking for someone he knew who he thought still lived there, but I wasn't him. Apparently he thought that I might have been in a relationship with the previous occupant, so he gently propositioned me, asking if I had heard about "gays". Well, I hadn't, but for some reason I understood what he was on about, and said "Yes, but I'm writing a letter to my girlfriend right now, sorry about that!" Whereupon he apologized and left. I was a bit bemused by the whole thing, to be honest. 5 hours ago, california boy said: Glad to hear you don’t approve of the church using the term What term? 5 hours ago, california boy said: I wish I could help you with the latest church name change thing, but you will have to take your complaint to President Nelson I think you're confusing me with someone else; I have no complaint with anything President Nelson has said. 1
smac97 Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That's fine, but you have to recognize that your use of the term will likely carry that ideological baggage. Does the term carry that baggage when it's used by the APA? The New York Times? The LA Times? GLAAD? 19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I guess I don't understand the idea of insisting on a particular wording because we disagree with those who find it objectionable. I don't understand it, either. Objecting to the use of an objective, value-neutral term like "same-sex attraction," and instead insisting on "gay" or some variation on the LGBT initialism (the most absurd being "LGBTTQQIAAP") is unreasonable. (And no, I'm not saying you yourself are doing that.) 19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: "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? I don't think anyone can really say that they speak on behalf of the "gay community." In contrast, Russell M. Nelson does speak on behalf of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thanks, -SMac
smac97 Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 5 hours ago, california boy said: I don’t blame you for getting weary of new terms and descriptions. The term gay has been around for over a half of century. But it's utility as a non-offensive descriptor has not. And even now it's seen as offensive by some. 5 hours ago, california boy said: Why the need for the “has SSA” thing is beyond me especially when it is a designation coming from a group not even a part of the community. Why the need to lecture others for using a clinical, value-neutral term that has been used by such entities as the New York Times, the LA Times, the APA, and GLAAD? 5 hours ago, california boy said: Glad to hear you don’t approve of the church using the term I think it's just fine. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Other than asking before ever speaking with a LGTBQ person what term they prefer... And one would need to know someone is LGTBQ to know to ask..
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Does the term carry that baggage when it's used by the APA? The New York Times? The LA Times? GLAAD? I don't understand it, either. Objecting to the use of an objective, value-neutral term like "same-sex attraction," and instead insisting on "gay" or some variation on the LGBT initialism (the most absurd being "LGBTTQQIAAP") is unreasonable. (And no, I'm not saying you yourself are doing that.) I don't think anyone can really say that they speak on behalf of the "gay community." In contrast, Russell M. Nelson does speak on behalf of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Again, I'm talking about knowing one's audience. If someone is interested in having a productive conversation with gay people, the term is simply not going to help.
california boy Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 20 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I remember hearing that for the first time. It was in 1972. Some gentleman came to the door of my apartment looking for someone he knew who he thought still lived there, but I wasn't him. Apparently he thought that I might have been in a relationship with the previous occupant, so he gently propositioned me, asking if I had heard about "gays". Well, I hadn't, but for some reason I understood what he was on about, and said "Yes, but I'm writing a letter to my girlfriend right now, sorry about that!" Whereupon he apologized and left. I was a bit bemused by the whole thing, to be honest. What term? I think you're confusing me with someone else; I have no complaint with anything President Nelson has said. I thought you were complaining about President Nelson's latest instructions when you posted this Quote I'm getting very weary of greeting each new week with a new word, formerly descriptive and easily understood, that is suddenly offensive to someone. Eventually, we will be reduced to grunts and howls, all descriptive words having become offensive to someone out there. If it wasn't the recent change in the use of the word Mormon, what were you talking about?
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 Just now, california boy said: I thought you were complaining about President Nelson's latest instructions when you posted this If it wasn't the recent change in the use of the word Mormon, what were you talking about? Maybe it was this. 2
smac97 Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Again, I'm talking about knowing one's audience. On this board, the audience is quite varied. As for materials directed toward people who disapprove of the behavior in question, "same-sex attraction" is innocuous and clinical. As for the LDS Church, it apparently did seek to address its intended audience when it created MormonsandGays.org, rather than MormonsandPeopleWithSameSexAttraction.org. 19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: If someone is interested in having a productive conversation with gay people, the term is simply not going to help. With some gay people, I suppose. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: As for materials directed toward people who disapprove of the behavior in question, "same-sex attraction" is innocuous and clinical. That's my point. You seem to acknowledge that it's innocuous and clinical for those "who disapprove of the behavior in question." Do you not understand why it would not seem so neutral for a lot of other people, gay or not?
smac97 Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: That's my point. You seem to acknowledge that it's innocuous and clinical for those "who disapprove of the behavior in question." Do you not understand why it would not seem so neutral for a lot of other people, gay or not? Yes, I acknowledge that. But then, "gay" is not neutral, and is risible and offensive to a lot of people. So is "homosexual." Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, I acknowledge that. But then, "gay" is not neutral, and is risible and offensive to a lot of people. So is "homosexual." Again, know your audience. I'm not sure why that's a controversial position to take.
smac97 Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Again, know your audience. I'm not sure why that's a controversial position to take. I acknowledge that. My point is that there is no consensus from any particular audience. Not about "gay." Not about "homosexual." Not about "same-sex attraction." Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: I acknowledge that. My point is that there is no consensus from any particular audience. Not about "gay." Not about "homosexual." Not about "same-sex attraction." Given that the vast majority of citations of "same-sex attraction" are to conservative (Catholic, Protestant, LDS) 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. 1
ALarson Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Given that the vast majority of citations of "same-sex attraction" are to conservative (Catholic, Protestant, LDS) 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. Exactly. I guess some feel it's ok to continue using this phrase if it just offends "some" of those who are gay or lesbian: 28 minutes ago, smac97 said: With some gay people, I suppose. If I knew I was using a term that even offended any of those involved and they had asked others to respect their request, there would be no question regarding what I'd do. I'd never continue to knowingly offending. Edited August 20, 2018 by ALarson
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Exactly. I guess some feel it's ok to continue using this phrase if it just offends "some" of those who are gay or lesbian: If I knew I was using a term that even offended any of those involved and they had asked others to respect their request, there would be no question regarding what I'd do. I'd never continue to knowingly offending. 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?
Calm Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Again, know your audience. I'm not sure why that's a controversial position to take. I think there is some frustration because audiences are often mixed in preferences if there is more than one person plus it is impossible to know one's audience before the subject comes up and offense may have already been given in just the subject being opened.
smac97 Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Given that the vast majority of citations of "same-sex attraction" are to conservative (Catholic, Protestant, LDS) religions, But nowhere near exclusively. Again: GLAAD. The APA. The New York Times. The LA Times. 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: it's not hard to see the connotation, consensus or not. It's not hard to see the clinical, value-neutral connotation, either. 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Seems like an odd hill to die on, anyway. If someone objects to a word or phrase I use, I usually stop using it. So do I. But in the aggregate, there's very much a mixed bag. Some people object to "gay," some to "homosexual." There's no way to placate everyone. Hence the wisdom of going with a clinical, value-neutral term. 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Our language is good enough to compensate for the loss of potentially offensive terms. Like "gay" and "homosexual?" Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: I think there is some frustration because audiences are often mixed in preferences if there is more than one person plus it is impossible to know one's audience before the subject comes up and offense may have already been given in just the subject being opened. Yep, which is why I would avoid the term "same-sex attraction" 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.
jkwilliams Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: But nowhere near exclusively. Again: GLAAD. The APA. The New York Times. The LA Times. It's not hard to see the clinical, value-neutral connotation, either. So do I. But in the aggregate, there's very much a mixed bag. Some people object to "gay," some to "homosexual." There's no way to placate everyone. Hence the wisdom of going with a clinical, value-neutral term. Like "gay" and "homosexual?" Yep, even those terms. I'm just saying that, because it's been co-opted by groups espousing a particular ideology, it's difficult to argue that "same-sex attraction" still has a "clinical, value-neutral connotation." I'm reminded of my moniker on other boards and on my blog. In my mission, it was a term of mockery directed at us everywhere we went as missionaries, so most missionaries adopted it as a badge of honor, sort of the way some minorities have appropriated certain racist words or American colonists adopted the derogatory term "Yankee." I chose the moniker because I knew that anyone from my mission would instantly recognize the term, something we took a sort of pride in, and when I've explained it to people who weren't in my mission, they understand why I chose it. That word meant a lot to us missionaries. It bound us together and helped us make light of some pretty harsh anti-American sentiment. However, when I brought it up on this board, I got a lot of criticism for using a derogatory, crude term (it's only crude if you understand that it's a euphemism). So, I don't use it here. Likewise, one of the most famous and patriotic statements in Bolivian history has a mild swear word in it, but it is on the walls in almost every government building, statue, and monument in Bolivia. I put it as part of my signature once, as I love the phrase. It's evocative and a source of massive patriotic pride for Bolivians. It was immediately reported as offensive, so I took it off and haven't repeated it. In short, I've made mistakes in reading my audience, but I don't blame the audience, and I don't double-down that I'm not being offensive. I still don't think I was being offensive in either case, but that's not what matters. I misread my audience. Edited August 20, 2018 by jkwilliams 1
Gray Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Being unnecessarily verbose or prolix is not a positive quality. Indubitably. 1
Calm Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 Quote I'm just saying that, because it's been co-opted by groups espousing a particular ideology, it's difficult to argue that "same-sex attraction" still has a "clinical, value-neutral connotation." And when it is consistently used in scholarly articles such as I linked to before?
Guest Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Use your judgment. If you're at a Family Research Council convention, "same-sex attraction" is just fine. John, I can barely get out of the house, much less ride in a car very far, even less likely in any reality, look up and find a "Family Reserch Council convention", on "same-sex attraction". It took me years to be able to finally attend a three hour block at Church, and due to distance and time have not been to the Temple, since May 21, 2012, the day the car accident happened breaking my back in three places.
Recommended Posts