An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

And when it is consistently used in scholarly articles such as I linked to before?

That's the frustrating thing about language: it changes in usage and connotation. Like it or not, "same-sex attraction" has become associated with certain ideological groups. Either way, we're talking about a message board here, not an academic journal. I'd just caution people against assuming certain terms are value-neutral. If in doubt, don't use the term. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

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. 

I'm glad you are able to get out and attend church. Did things go better at church yesterday? 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm glad you are able to get out and attend church. Did things go better at church yesterday? 

Did not go. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's the frustrating thing about language: it changes in usage and connotation. Like it or not, "same-sex attraction" has become associated with certain ideological groups. Either way, we're talking about a message board here, not an academic journal. I'd just caution people against assuming certain terms are value-neutral. If in doubt, don't use the term. 

But we reference academic journals a lot here...or at least the conversations I like to get involved in and read do. 

I suspect I am going to feel the same way about "Mormonism".  This will be used in academic texts and if I am discussing these texts, I will prefer to use the language they do.  I have no clue how I am going to resolve this yet.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

But we reference academic journals a lot here...or at least the conversations I like to get involved in and read do. 

I suspect I am going to feel the same way about "Mormonism".  This will be used in academic texts and if I am discussing these texts, I will prefer to use the language they do.  I have no clue how I am going to resolve this yet.

Depends on the context, but yes, that's probably good practice. What I'm not understanding is the attitude that I'll use the words I want to use, no matter what. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

But we reference academic journals a lot here...or at least the conversations I like to get involved in and read do. 

I suspect I am going to feel the same way about "Mormonism".  This will be used in academic texts and if I am discussing these texts, I will prefer to use the language they do.  I have no clue how I am going to resolve this yet.

Calm, my opinion is that if you are quoting something (put in quotes), that's different than when you're just expressing things in your own words.  Stating that someone has same-sex attraction rather than simply saying that they are gay or lesbian is what is being referred to I think.  I would never say that someone "had same-sex attraction" or "suffers from same-sex attraction" who was gay.  I think that's when it's offensive because it gives the connotation that person suffers from a disease, disability or ailment of some sort.

That's my take on it....but others can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

And the BBC (emphasis added): "If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit."

And the LA Times (emphasis added): "Through the epigenome, the results suggest, some facet of life experience likely also primes a man for same-sex attraction."

And the Bisexual Resource Center (emphasis added): "Where does bisexuality begin and end? Human sexuality is sometimes seen as a continuum, with same-sex attractions on one end and different-sex attractions on the other...").

And on and on and on.

"Same-sex attraction" is a neutral, clinical term.  It does not carry political or ideological baggage (and if it does, then so do terms like "gay" and "queer," which must also be abandoned).

Thanks,

-Smac

Notice the grammar that they're using in your examples. The word "gay" wouldn't work grammatically in context.

"If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for gay, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit." Bad grammar. The only variation of gay they could use would be "gayness," which would be both unprofessional-sounding and likely offensive. Homosexual has likewise come to be used like a slur. Same-sex attraction works fine clinically as a noun to describe the phenomenon. It works very poorly as a descriptor of people.

There is no reason whatsoever to substitute the clumsy "experiencing same sex attraction" instead of "gay" or "lesbian" when the word is used as an adjective, rather than a noun.

"James is Gay. Jennifer is a lesbian.  As a gay person, James noticed his same-sex attraction starting at age 11."

Simple.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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 think "same-sex attraction" is about as clinical and value-neutral as one can hope to get.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I think "same-sex attraction" is about as clinical and value-neutral as one can hope to get.

That we're having this discussion is evidence to the contrary. 

[Gray]

Notice here in the cited BBC piece:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

People are described as gay:  "reflects how many gay people feel about their sexuality."

The experience is described as same-sex attraction: "If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit."

Big difference between that and calling a person "same-sex attracted" or "suffering from same-sex attraction."

 

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think "same-sex attraction" is about as clinical and value-neutral as one can hope to get.

Ok.  But, some who are gay or lesbian have expressed that it's offensive and have asked others to be respectful of that and not use it to describe them.  Why would you ignore this and not honor their request?   Is it so difficult for you to understand their feelings and do as they ask?

Edited August 20, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

Just now, ALarson said:

Ok.  But, some who are gay or lesbian have expressed that it's offensive

And others who have said they prefer it to "gay or lesbian."

So who gets to make the ultimate call?  Anybody?  Nobody?

Just now, ALarson said:

and have asked others to be respectful of that and not use it to describe them. 

And if that request is circumscribed and reasonable, I would attempt to accommodate it as to the individual.  But I'm not about to let some self-appointed individual control my vocabulary, particularly when my vocubulary is objectively within the bounds of reason, civility and decorum.

On the other hand, if "some who are gay and lesbian" are specifically targeting religious people and seeking to curtain their use of "same-sex attraction," while not simultaneously expecting entities like GLAAD and the APA and the New York Times and the LA Times to not use "same-sex attraction," then . . . well . . . "Houston, we have a problem."  

If the request to "be respectful" is sincere and legit, I will usually honor it.  But if it is an arbitrary request aimed at religionists only, then that's a real problem.

And what we have here, I think, is that "real problem."

Just now, ALarson said:

Why would you ignore that and not honor their request?   Is it so difficult for you to understand and to do this?

I don't ignore it.  I just don't generally let strangers arbitrarily and unreasonably tell me what to do or how to think or what to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

From my perspective, this really doesn’t seem that hard. When addressing those who’s views or self-identifying labels don’t match our own:

If someone refers to themselves as Mormon/LDS, it’s respectful to use those terms in reference to said individual(s).

If someone refers to themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ (or uses the full name of the church), it’s respectful to use that term in reference to said individual(s).

If someone refers to themselves as having SSA/same-sex attraction and/or as being same-sex-attracted, it’s respectful to use that term in reference to said individual(s).

If someone refers to themselves as gay or lesbian, it’s respectful to use that term in reference to said individual(s).

if someone drescribes themselves as a man, woman, transman, transwoman, transgender,  or whatever pronoun they use, it’s respectful to use that term in reference to said individuals.

I think it’s respectful to refer to someone’s significant other however they themselves refer to their significant other (boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/spouse/husband/wife/fiancé, fiancée, etc.)

When speaking generally about communities where multiple nouns are or may be used, I think it’s ok to acknowledge more than one label (such as “...LDS members who are LGBT/experience SSA”...)

I know many people on religious boards like this like to make a big deal about the growing number of letters in the often-named “LGBTQ+ alphabet soup.” While I know and understand there are vocal members of the LGBT community who are fiercely vehement about naming a letter for every sexual minority, virtually no one I know expects or demands that entire list of letters be used in casual conversations. “LGBTQ+” and “all sexual minorities” are the two that I most often employ in casual conversations, and I’ve never been called out on using those two shorthand designations because they’re still inclusive.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Daniel2

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Calm, my opinion is that if you are quoting something (put in quotes), that's different than when you're just expressing things in your own words.  Stating that someone has same-sex attraction rather than simply saying that they are gay or lesbian is what is being referred to I think.  I would never say that someone "had same-sex attraction" or "suffers from same-sex attraction" who was gay.  I think that's when it's offensive because it gives the connotation that person suffers from a disease, disability or ailment of some sort.

That's my take on it....but others can correct me if I'm wrong.

But I am not just quoting, but discussing their findings and I prefer the precision of using their terms when discussing variables being studied rather than substituting my own terms precisely because of connotations attached to labels.

Of course it is easy to see why "suffers" is problematic, but that is separate from "same-sex attraction".  "Suffers" would be offensive in any case where someone didn't see whatever being referred to as an affliction.  I think it confuses the discussion to throw that into the mix.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

But I am not just quoting, but discussing their findings and I prefer the precision of using their terms when discussing variables being studied rather than substituting my own terms precisely because of connotations attached to labels.

Of course it is easy to see why "suffers" is problematic, but that is separate from "same-sex attraction".  "Suffers" would be offensive in any case where someone didn't see whatever being referred to as an affliction.  I think it confuses the discussion to throw that into the mix.

Yes, I get that.  But even just to say that someone "has" same-sex attraction gives the impression you think it's a condition or maybe even an illness.  I don't think that's hard to see.  Rather than just stating someone has same-sex attraction, why not just simply say that they are gay or lesbian?  It just seems like a no brainer to me....especially if we know it's being more respectful of their wishes.

As far as discussing the findings  or studies (that use the term "same-sex attraction"), I think you could clarify that since you are discussing their findings, you'll use their terms to avoid confusion....but that those are not necessarily your own words or terms.

Edited August 20, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

Daniel, is LGBT+ also seen as acceptable because I have a real problem using "queer" because it was such a slur in the schools I attended in my youth (California and Illinois)?  I may eventually get used to it, but at this point even using Q makes me a little sick to my stomach because I think "queer" and flashback to the hate/ridicule tones.

I also have a problem with just using "gay" or "homosexual" to use as a 'generic' term to refer to the LGBT+ community due to my acquaintance in the past with lesbians who deeply felt such usage was extremely exclusive, ignoring their existence.  

LGBT+ avoids both buttons for me.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I get that.  But even just to say that someone "has" same-sex attraction gives the impression you think it's a condition or maybe even an illness.  I don't think that's hard to see.  Rather than just stating someone has same-sex attraction, why not just simply say that they are gay or lesbian?  It just seems like a no brainer to me....especially if we know it's being more respectful of their wishes.

As far as discussing the finding or studies (that use the term "same-sex attraction"), I think you could clarify that since you are discussing their findings, you'll use their terms to avoid confusion....but that those are not necessarily your own words or terms.

Do you see it as problematic to use "is"?

Is "same-sex attracted" problematic or just "same-sex attraction"?  For example, few people would have a problem with "he is extroverted".  A parallel use would be " he is same-sex attracted".  I agree few would say "he has extroversion".

Edited August 20, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

I've never heard a gay/lesbian person, IRL, refer to themselves as SSA.  I try to be sensitive to those on here who identify as SSA but otherwise, I generally use the terms gay, lesbian, and LGBTQ.

I agree with the OP... If we as a church want to be called by certain names, we ought to do our best to respect others' similar wishes.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Do you see it as problematic to use "is"?

Is "same-sex attracted" problematic or just "same-sex attraction"?  For example, few people would have a problem with "he is extroverted".  A parallel use would be " he is same-sex attracted".  I agree few would say "he has extroversion".

I just think it's odd to hold onto that term or phrase rather than just say that someone is gay.  Why such a fight to continue using it or finding a way to be able to use it?  (I'm not saying you are doing this, but I see some here who are).

[Daniel2]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Daniel, is LGBT+ also seen as acceptable because I have a real problem using "queer" because it was such a slur in the schools I attended in my youth (California and Illinois)?  I may eventually get used to it, but at this point even using Q makes me a little sick to my stomach because I think "queer" and flashback to the hate/ridicule tones.

I also have a problem with just using "gay" or "homosexual" to use as a 'generic' term to refer to the LGBT+ community due to my acquaintance in the past with lesbians who deeply felt such usage was extremely exclusive, ignoring their existence.  

LGBT+ avoids both buttons for me.

Yes, I and many of my friends and acquaintances use LGBT+, as well. The + acknowledges others in the tapestry without needing to name them all, as does the term “sexual minorities.”

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just think it's odd to hold onto that term or phrase rather than just say that someone is gay.  Why such a fight to continue using it or finding a way to be able to use it?  (I'm not saying you are doing this, but I see some here who are).

From what I have discussed with others is that they feel very uncomfortable using gay or homosexual because they were offensive terms in their youth.  It is hard to use a word that you associate with ridicule and hate.  Same sex attraction feels safer in part because it has a dry, clinical tone to it. 

And if they haven't engaged in face to face conversations where emotion is much easier to convey, it may be hard to imagine it being seen as emotionally offensive.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, I and many of my friends and acquaintances use LGBT+, as well. The + acknowledges others in the tapestry without needing to name them all, as does the term “sexual minorities.”

Thank you for the input.  Good to know.

[ALarson]

Just now, Calm said:

From what I have discussed with others is that they feel very uncomfortable using gay or homosexual because they were offensive terms in their youth.  It is hard to use a word that you associate with ridicule and hate.  Same sex attraction feels safer in part because it has a dry, clinical tone to it. 

And if they haven't engaged in face to face conversations where emotion is much easier to convey, it may be hard to imagine it being seen as emotionally offensive.

I can see that happening with the usage of the word "queer", but even that is becoming more acceptable.  I just feel that if someone has specifically asked that you not use the term "same-sex attraction" (especially in your communication with them or description of them), that this should be honored and it is definitely disrespectful to continue using if when you know it is offending them.  

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I can see that happening with the usage of the word "queer", but even that is becoming more acceptable.  I just feel that if someone has specifically asked that you not use the term "same-sex attraction" (especially in your communication with them or description of them), that this should be honored and it is definitely disrespectful to continue using if when you know it is offending them.  

I am surprised that queer is coming back and being an okay thing...I was just a young thing when I said "queer beer"...it was slang everybody was using and I didn't know what it at all.  I slapped across the face for that big time.  Times are changin'  But I have seen the advertised for events and such..

Edited August 20, 2018 by Jeanne

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I thought you were complaining about President Nelson's latest instructions when you posted this

I guess I was sloppy when I was writing.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If it wasn't the recent change in the use of the word Mormon, what were you talking about?  

I was complaining that every descriptor commonly used for people seems to be becoming an offensive word.  I don't know how I can describe anyone any longer.  One day at work, someone asked me where Larry Johnson's desk was.  They had never met him, and didn't know what he looked like.  I said his desk was on the western end of this floor, in the group of desks occupied by the members of the project manager group.  He was the only black person among them, but I didn't know whether it was going to be offensive to say he was black.  So I decided to be safe and not describe what he looked like.  I was watching a YouTube video a couple of days ago, about not offending people by use of labels, and among the scenes shown was one of a man who claimed it was offensive to call him "Oriental".  I would have said that he appeared to be of Asian descent, but is this offensive now, too? I sure as hell don't know any longer.   A couple of years ago a guy in my ward got all bent out of shape about how everyone was talking about Jews.  In a lesson on Judaism.  I guess he thought "Jew" was an insult or racial slur.  I don't know what's next.  

Were you thinking I was worried I would have to act offended if someone called me a Mormon?  Because of what President Nelson said?  The answer to that is "no," of course.