The label "TBM"

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Do you still believe that being gay is having a disease or illness?  Or have your views changed on that since you posted it back then?  

If you still believe that, it now makes sense why you’re ok saying that they “have” same sex attraction like it’s a condition or ailment.  

It does explain a lot if Scott still believes that being gay is a malady or disease.  He's not alone as I know others who also still believe this.

Edited May 14, 2019 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

When I first started posting on this forum many years ago, I did not feel TBM had a negative connotation.  I understood it to mean 'true blue mormon' or 'true believing mormon' and didn't have a problem with being called one and even called myself a TBM.  But that was a long time ago before I had experience with other forums.  After spending several years on another forum which unfortunately fell to the dark side (which is why I'm back here), my reaction to TBM now is negative, because it evolved over time on that forum and other forums to become an insult..  While it once was positive, it came to be used to describe members don't think for themselves; mind-numbed zealots aka;  'sheeple' --which is also meant to insult.  I think if one spends time on forums where posters have freedom to be more critical and attacking of the Church and it's members, It's more obvious that it now has a negative connotation.  It's nice that it did not develop that here.

Well, then I will discontinue using the term TBM from now on. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  I’ve stated as much in previous threads.

SSA isn’t neutral.   And, as I said, I do my best to respect how individuals want to be identified.  I’ve never met, IRL, a homosexual individual who didn’t find the term SSA to be offensive. 

I just had a thought, what if there are people out there that do not want to believe, admit, whatever, that they are gay, and want to keep it at SSA, and try to ignore those inclinations? I see this as being very real, and I may have to take a step back on my feelings of not liking the term SSA fully. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please explain your reasoning here.

Embarrassing that I spelled "Bednar" wrong.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.ldsliving.com/What-the-Media-Got-Wrong-About-Elder-Bednar-s-Comments/s/81467

This is an article about what happened and it definitely sides with Elder Bednar. It in affect says the media etc. got it all wrong. But I watched the whole meeting and I feel that it is a long the lines of saying someone is SSA instead of Gay. That's all, it's what my take is and I'm sticking to it. That's all.

Thanks for explaining, I didn't get what your point was before (similar in terms of aim rather than logic structure).

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just had a thought, what if there are people out there that do not want to believe, admit, whatever, that they are gay, and want to keep it at SSA, and try to ignore those inclinations? I see this as being very real, and I may have to take a step back on my feelings of not liking the term SSA fully. 

There are definitely people out there who see themselves as not being gay but having SSA.   And they should be free to identify themselves that way.  And I will always do my best to follow suit. 

And, when I speak of gay and lesbian individuals, those who identify as having SSA wouldn’t be in that population. 

[Calm]

I think context is important.  Saying something like I have blue eyes or I have long legs is in essence saying I was born with blue eyes or biology gave me long legs.  So simply saying someone has same sex attraction could even be used in an argument against forms of attraction being a choice.  "They have same sex attraction" does not sound to me like it is implying a choice, which seems to me positive usage overall.  I think other context needs to be added before "have same sex attraction" becomes more like "have diabetes" than "have brown hair", the former would be a negative context, imo.

 It therefore often comes down to an emotional argument about whether or not one will respect others' wishes if there is not enough context to provide whether it is viewed as a neutral, biological attribute or a negative affliction.  I think it is appropriate in conversation to refrain when made aware, but people should not be offended until they are sure of how the person is using it.

I try to refrain from its usage on the board, but in my youth I was programmed to view "homosexual" as an insult and it had the definite connotation of behaviour beyond attraction as well, so when I first encountered same sex attraction in the research I adopted it quickly as a less baggaged descriptive term.  Now I know it has baggage for many, I try to avoid except 1) when I am not putting much thought into how I am saying something and therefore revert to what is a neutral/safe term from my own POV and 2) when I am referencing research that uses the term.  I prefer not paraphrasing academic work more than I have to.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think context is important.  Saying something like I have blue eyes or I have long legs is in essence saying I was born with blue eyes or biology gave me long legs.  So simply saying someone has same sex attraction could even be used in an argument against forms of attraction being a choice.  "They have same sex attraction" does not sound to me like it is implying a choice, which seems to me positive usage overall.  I think other context needs to be added before "have same sex attraction" becomes more like "have diabetes" than "have brown hair", the former would be a negative context, imo.

 It therefore often comes down to an emotional argument about whether or not one will respect others' wishes if there is not enough context to provide whether it is viewed as a neutral, biological attribute or a negative affliction.  I think it is appropriate in conversation to refrain when made aware, but people should not be offended until they are sure of how the person is using it.

I try to refrain from its usage on the board, but in my youth I was programmed to view "homosexual" as an insult and it had the definite connotation of behaviour beyond attraction as well, so when I first encountered same sex attraction in the research I adopted it quickly as a less baggaged descriptive term.  Now I know it has baggage for many, I try to avoid except 1) when I am not putting much thought into how I am saying something and therefore revert to what is a neutral/safe term from my own POV and 2) when I am referencing research that uses the term.  I prefer not paraphrasing academic work more than I have to.

And thus the similarity to the TBM usage/discussion, right?  TBM (true believing or true blue Mormon) is an utterly positive, complimentary description of a faithful member of the Church (setting aside President Nelson's direction from last year regarding the use of Mormon).

But TBM is still received by many as derogatory.  Someone on the other thread even called it a slur.

 

And, I agree with your assessment on usage:  refrain when made aware of someone's wishes and don't be offended until one is sure how the other is using it.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

There are definitely people out there who see themselves as not being gay but having SSA.   And they should be free to identify themselves that way.  And I will always do my best to follow suit. 

And, when I speak of gay and lesbian individuals, those who identify as having SSA wouldn’t be in that population. 

True

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I wonder how many pages the typical thread takes around here to devolve to the topic of homosexuality. Is this thread ahead or behind the curve?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Nothing.  Just acknowledging you as the first person I’ve ever met to claim to have OSA.  Congrats!  Couldn’t be more fitting. 

I stated it by way of illustration. There is nothing intrinsically offensive about the term opposite sex attraction, just as there is nothing intrinsically offensive about the term same-sex attraction. And fussing over the one is just as silly as it would be to fuss over the other. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder how many pages the typical thread takes around here to devolve to the topic of homosexuality. Is this thread ahead or behind the curve?

Perhaps that’s a question for rockpond. It is he who steered the thread in that direction. 

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Same-sex attraction is a clinical term, not a cliche. And unlike “TBM,” which implies contempt, it is neutral. 

In any event, I’ve never raised a stink when somebody has used “TBM,” and until this moment, have never even expressed an opinion about it. 

No.  It has been explained numerous times.  SSA sounds like some kind of condition or disease.  The term you are looking for that does not have negative connotations is GAY.  I don't have SSA, I am gay.  There are definite negative connotations to SSA.  Maybe not for everyone, just like TBM is not negative to everyone.  

Like I said earlier in this thread, once brought to my attention that SOME find TBM offensive, that is reason enough for me to use a term that they perfer.  In this case, it is not even shorthand for the perferred usage.  SSA and GAY both are three letters to type.  The one you choose to use tells more about how you treat and respect others.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think some say they find it offensive because it does not support the political narrative they hope prevails in society. Hence it’s a matter of political correctness, a thing  I detest. 

And I don’t believe it’s so much a matter of what they individually prefer to be called. Rather they want everyone to stop using the term no matter whom or what is referred to. 

And this imo is why you continue to use the more offensive term SSM.  You refuse to address those that are gay with respect.  You would ratther use a term that many find offensive because of your one political narrative.  

Personally, I kind of roll my eyes when I see someone use the term SSM.  The vast majority of times it is coming from someone who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or an evangelic. (confirmed earlier in this thread by the Google count of who is using the term SSA).   It is not secret that there are many in those institutions that purposfully don't want to show any respect to those that are gay.  Oh well.  That is their choice.  I don't live my life looking for the approval from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Laatter-day Saints or evangelics.  It is not like I can force others to be respectful and kind to those that are different an believe differently than they do.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder if there would still be objection if instead of saying “same-sex attraction” one were to say “attraction to the same sex.”  Less concise, but it says exactly the same thing. 

How about using the term "breeder" in describing you?  Since you have children, that would be accurate as well.  And I am sure there are some who are straight that wouldn' t take offense to using that term.

If anyone should be more than willing to use a preferred usage, I would think it would be you.  Since you are such a stickler about the use of the word Mormon to describe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?  Isn't the Mormon Church forcing political correctness down everyone's throats by asking to use the preferred usage?

This has always been a one way street for you Scott.  

Edited May 14, 2019 by california boy

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

No.  It has been explained numerous times.  SSA sounds like some kind of condition or disease.  The term you are looking for that does not have negative connotations is GAY.  I don't have SSA, I am gay.  There are definite negative connotations to SSA.  Maybe not for everyone, just like TBM is not negative to everyone.  

Like I said earlier in this thread, once brought to my attention that SOME find TBM offensive, that is reason enough for me to use a term that they perfer.  In this case, it is not even shorthand for the perferred usage.  SSA and GAY both are three letters to type.  The one you choose to use tells more about how you treat and respect others.

It never occurred to me before, but there are negative connotations with "gay" as well. I know it doesn't sit with me well, but I'm not sure how much it is the use of it that I heard on the playgrounds when most of us didn't know it was a label that has to do with homosexuality or my understanding as I grew older. For many it is somewhat synonymous with losing family or friends in the celestial kingdom etc.

I get why you would have positive association with it, but finally I sort of understand why it is like scratching on chalkboard for me. Not that I logically didn't know that before, but now I have the feeling for it.

It all reminds me of my brother. All growing up we called him Jim. He started drinking and doing drugs and went to prison. When he came out he wanted to be called James.

That was a huge struggle for me. I wanted to call him what he wanted because I love him, but the long time calling him Jim more importantly bundled with the association of prison with James still decades later is negative for me even though I always call him that now. 

I want to call people what they want to be called, but I have the word gay even harder to use than calling my brother James. I suspect that some of that has to do with not having someone gay close to me and some of it has to do with the childhood  connotation and admittedly the church's discouragement of its use. It is no wonder to me that many members of the church have a much more positive connotation of same sex attraction than gay. 

I'm not saying that I will continue to use terms that bother people, just sharing my new understanding of why I have felt what I felt. I recognize that usually I avoid either label as much as I can because at this point they both have baggage for me and I see it unlikely that I will lose the baggage soon for either.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder how many pages the typical thread takes around here to devolve to the topic of homosexuality. Is this thread ahead or behind the curve?

Actually I think TBM and SSA should be discussed together in one thread.  The usage of the two is almost exactly the same.  Both are technically correct.  Both some don't find offensive.  Both are offensive to a lot of people that are labled something that they find offensive. And both can be used to further a political agenda.

How a person reacts to both terms should be the same.  Hopefully most would avoid using either term because so many are offened by the usage.  

Personally I am glad that Rockpond brought up SSA in relationship to TBM.  Especially when there are many who have no problem dropping TBM but are fighting tooth and nail to their right to continue to use SSA.  Yes they have the right to continue to offend.  Everyone has a choice on how the continue to use both terms.  

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

It never occurred to me before, but there are negative connotations with "gay" as well. I know it doesn't sit with me well, but I'm not sure how much it is the use of it that I heard on the playgrounds when most of us didn't know it was a label that has to do with homosexuality or my understanding as I grew older. For many it is somewhat synonymous with losing family or friends in the celestial kingdom etc.

I get why you would have positive association with it, but finally I sort of understand why it is like scratching on chalkboard for me. Not that I logically didn't know that before, but now I have the feeling for it.

It all reminds me of my brother. All growing up we called him Jim. He started drinking and doing drugs and went to prison. When he came out he wanted to be called James.

That was a huge struggle for me. I wanted to call him what he wanted because I love him, but the long time calling him Jim more importantly bundled with the association of prison with James still decades later is negative for me even though I always call him that now. 

I want to call people what they want to be called, but I have the word gay even harder to use than calling my brother James. I suspect that some of that has to do with not having someone gay close to me and some of it has to do with the childhood  connotation and admittedly the church's discouragement of its use. It is no wonder to me that many members of the church have a much more positive connotation of same sex attraction than gay. 

I'm not saying that I will continue to use terms that bother people, just sharing my new understanding of why I have felt what I felt. I recognize that usually I avoid either label as much as I can because at this point they both have baggage for me and I see it unlikely that I will lose the baggage soon for either.

I think you are bringing up an entirely different issue.  Yes gay is sometimes used as an offensive expression to indicate someone is not "man enough".  And let me be clear, the gay community is offended when the word gay is used as a slur in that manner.  But that doesn't mean that they don't want to be identified as being gay.  It would be insane to insist that the gay population is offended by the use of the term gay.  Seriously what gay site does not use that term.  OTOH, what gay site uses the term SSA to describe someone who is homosexual.

[JulieM]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

It does explain a lot if Scott still believes that being gay is a malady or disease.  He's not alone as I know others who also still believe this.

It explains his views here, but I think it’s truly sad that anyone would still believe this today.  

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I stated it by way of illustration. There is nothing intrinsically offensive about the term opposite sex attraction, just as there is nothing intrinsically offensive about the term same-sex attraction. And fussing over the one is just as silly as it would be to fuss over the other. 

Again, it's about how we choose to treat people and how we choose to make them feel.  That's what the TBM discussion boils down to and its what the SSA discussion boils down to.

And the care and respect we afford to God's children is worth making a fuss over.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think you are bringing up an entirely different issue.  Yes gay is sometimes used as an offensive expression to indicate someone is not "man enough".  And let me be clear, the gay community is offended when the word gay is used as a slur in that manner.  But that doesn't mean that they don't want to be identified as being gay.  It would be insane to insist that the gay population is offended by the use of the term gay.  Seriously what gay site does not use that term.  OTOH, what gay site uses the term SSA to describe someone who is homosexual.

Look at how a few are offended if we still use the word “Mormon” or “Mormon Church” on this website!  And then look at the name of this forum 😊

 

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Actually I think TBM and SSA should be discussed together in one thread.  The usage of the two is almost exactly the same.  Both are technically correct.  Both some don't find offensive.  Both are offensive to a lot of people that are labled something that they find offensive. And both can be used to further a political agenda.

How a person reacts to both terms should be the same.  Hopefully most would avoid using either term because so many are offened by the usage.  

Personally I am glad that Rockpond brought up SSA in relationship to TBM.  Especially when there are many who have no problem dropping TBM but are fighting tooth and nail to their right to continue to use SSA.  Yes they have the right to continue to offend.  Everyone has a choice on how the continue to use both terms.  

I agree.  What surprises me is when they try to deny that they are choosing to offend.  I'm not sure how they can't see that this is exactly what they are doing.

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

If anyone should be more than willing to use a preferred usage, I would think it would be you.  Since you are such a stickler about the use of the word Mormon to describe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?  Isn't the Mormon Church forcing political correctness down everyone's throats by asking to use the preferred usage?

I pointed out the irony of this earlier (or at least hinted at it  ).    

I believe that what it comes down to is just showing respect for others who have made a request that they not be identified in a manner that is offensive to them.  Most would honor that request as it's very simple to do, IMO. 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you are bringing up an entirely different issue.  Yes gay is sometimes used as an offensive expression to indicate someone is not "man enough".  And let me be clear, the gay community is offended when the word gay is used as a slur in that manner.  But that doesn't mean that they don't want to be identified as being gay.  It would be insane to insist that the gay population is offended by the use of the term gay.  Seriously what gay site does not use that term.  OTOH, what gay site uses the term SSA to describe someone who is homosexual.

It is new, but not entirely new - you missed my point. The point wasn't about gay being used as a slur. Calling my brother James or Jim has never been a slur.  The point was the association of the words for different people which IS related to this topic. 

My point was that this was helping me understand why I would have a hard time calling someone what they wanted because of my association which was related to why someone would have no problem using a label of their positive association or would stop using a label because of the other person's association. 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  What surprises me is when they try to deny that they are choosing to offend.  I'm not sure how they can't see that this is exactly what they are doing.

It doesn't surprise me that some people have refused to give up using certain words other people don't like, even though I don't necessarily agree with them.  People come at everything from different perspectives and this topic isn't any different.  

I think that some people believe that if they don't mean a term in an offensive way (if they aren't using it as an insult or to belittle) then they aren't 'choosing to offend.'  Yes, they are choosing to use a word that some people might decide to be offended about, but they see that as the other person's choice and having nothing to do with them.  From that perspective, it's reasonable for someone to deny that they are choosing to offend.

I think this mindset comes from the teaching that use to be really popular (especially when teaching 'self-esteem to kids in the 90s) a few years ago of 'no one can make you feel anything' and that people are responsible for how they react to the words of others.  I was taught growing up in school that no one can make you feel angry, sad, jealous, etc.  We were taught that we were 100% responsible for our feelings and could never blame them on anyone else.  We practiced expressing our feelings in ways that took ownership of the emotions that we had and were not allowed to use phrases like "you made me angry" but instead had to say something like "when you did ______ I felt angry." 

I looked it up and it was a line of psychology espoused by Fritz Perls that seemed to have quite the heyday for a while.  I don't know if it's still popular today but it's not surprising to me that some people still find the concept valid.