“Why not say you’re gay?” Choosing a self-identifier

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I have read this three times because I am trying to not misread what you are saying. Don't accept them?  Who is them referring to?  And where is the study Klindeley is referring to?  What are those numbers?  I couldn't find any that Klindley quoted.

Don’t accept “gay” or “LGBTQ” as self-identifiers. 

The post from kllindley came just today. I’ll try to find it and give you a link. 

Edited to add:

It's on page 8, the 19th post down on the page. I tried unsuccessfully to link to the specific post, but if you are unable to locate it, let me know, and I'll copy and paste the text from the post.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Does "dry" as used in that sentence mean "icky and irrational?"

I think she’s getting such a backlash on the stupidity of it that she’s trying to back away from it. 

But I shouldn’t discuss non-Church-related politics here. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

According to numbers cited here by kllindley, there are more who don’t accept them than do

To be clear, klindley’s larger numbers are not about orientation, but experience of attraction to the same sex which may be limited to one person even (the research shows women can be more attracted to individuals than gender, for example; thus some women may be attracted to another woman because she is kind or competent, enjoys the same things they do, or other nonsexual attributes).

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Calm said:

To be clear, klindley’s larger numbers are not about orientation, but experience of attraction to the same sex which may be limited to one person even (the research shows women can be more attracted to individuals than gender, for example; thus some women may be attracted to another woman because she is kind or competent, enjoys the same things they do, or other nonsexual attributes).

Can you find that post from kllindley and give California Boy the link? It’s hard for me to do with an iPod Touch. 

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if political/social power is the reason for some/most in the lesbian community to begin using “gay” as a description, don’t you think there might still be great resentment for having to accept being seen in terms referring to males in their view?

The Briggs initiative was 40 years ago.  I learned about this rivalry from a documentary on the rise of the LGBT community.  After 40 years, I don't think many lesbians still feel that way.  My neighbors are lesbians, married, and have a sweet daughter.  They invite us to gatherings at their house all the time that are mostly other lesbians, their close friends.  They easily refer to themselves and their friends as gay.  

Sorry, but I haven't seen any resentment among lesbians being called gay.  Perhaps some do resent it.  When I meet someone who does resent being called gay, then I will make sure I don't use that term to describe her orientation.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't think anyone would call two adolescent boys engaging in that kind of behavior as identifying as gay OR having SSA.

Anecdotal:  my brother-in-law has told me there are those in his practice who have labeled themselves as gay based on an experience like that in their teens. These are men who are attracted to women as well, but see themselves as programmed to be gay because they were aroused by and engaged in homosexual behaviour. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you find that post from kllindley and give California Boy the link? It’s hard for me to do with an iPod Touch. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71870-“why-not-say-you’re-gay”-choosing-a-self-identifier/?do=findComment&comment=1209906575

 

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anecdotal:  my brother-in-law has told me there are those in his practice who have labeled themselves as gay based on an experience like that in their teens. These are men who are attracted to women as well, but see themselves as programmed to be gay because they were aroused by and engaged in homosexual behaviour. 

Seems an odd thing to do.  Suspicious me wonders where they got the notion that tweener/teen experimentation has anything to do with one's identity.  We are not defined by what we once did, unless we choose to let what we did define us, seems to me.

[Calm]

Another article adding to the conversation:

https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-think-twice-before-you-talk-about-the-lgbt-community-81711

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, but we are talking here about how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints defines it. You don’t get to casually redefine it for the Church on your own authority. 

How do you separate the COJCOLDS from its the practices of its founder and its leading prophets for multiple generations?  Its one in the same.  The common 2019 definition is different than it used to be, and from what I see, there is also some room for interpretation even within the 2019 understanding. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Seems an odd thing to do.  Suspicious me wonders where they got the notion that tweener/teen experimentation has anything to do with one's identity.  We are not defined by what we once did, unless we choose to let what we did define us, seems to me.

I think there is a subset of people, especially teens, who see things in absolutes, black and white, as well as those who have a hard time seeing themselves forgiven or moving on from a past experience. 

And a label “born that way” may contribute to seeing experimentation as meaning more than it does, especially if bisexuality or sexual fluidity isn’t as prominent or even present in their world view. 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

To be clear, klindley’s larger numbers are not about orientation, but experience of attraction to the same sex which may be limited to one person even (the research shows women can be more attracted to individuals than gender, for example; thus some women may be attracted to another woman because she is kind or competent, enjoys the same things they do, or other nonsexual attributes).

This sounds like something quite different from sexual attraction. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is a subset of people, especially teens, who see things in absolutes, black and white, as well as those who have a hard time seeing themselves forgiven or moving on from a past experience. 

And a label “born that way” may contribute to seeing experimentation as meaning more than it does, especially if bisexuality or sexual fluidity isn’t as prominent or even present in their world view. 

Fair enough.  Fie on anybody, however, who uses a minor's inexperience and unsophistication to induce them to apply labels to themselves which are inapt.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How do you separate the COJCOLDS from its the practices of its founder and its leading prophets for multiple generations?  Its one in the same.  The common 2019 definition is different than it used to be, and from what I see, there is also some room for interpretation even within the 2019 understanding. 

Other than the fact that plural marriage was instituted early on and has now been discontinued (though the doctrine pertaining to it is still present in the Church) I don't know what you have in mind when you talk about separating the Church from "the practices of its founder and its leading prophets for multiple generations." I suspect you are reaching to find a discrepancy that doesn't really exist.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Fair enough.  Fie on anybody, however, who uses a minor's inexperience and unsophistication to induce them to apply labels to themselves which are inapt.

Alas, I believe there are many predators afoot who would do just this sort of thing. 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Another article adding to the conversation:

https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-think-twice-before-you-talk-about-the-lgbt-community-81711

Interesting article.  And yeah I identify with a part of what the research is showing.  I am not someone who goes clubbing much.  I don't hang out at bars.  Never done a circuit party.  Never been in a pride parade.  Am I a part of the LGBT community?  Sure.  It is like a jigsaw puzzle.  Each person is different.  Each person brings something to the bigger picture.  But you still have to figure out if you want to fit in or if you just want to be a piece on the edge.  

There was a time where the gay community was there for me when my family wasn't.  I will always be greatful for those who invited me to Thanksgiving dinner when my family wouldn't.  Who included me in outings and celebrations and even celibrated my birthday with me when my family wouldn't.  They put their arms around me when no one else would.  

I may not go clubing or hang out at bars.  And I am not saying that the LGBT community is perfect.  But I will always be a part of the LGBT community.  And I will and have been there for others that had no family and their friends all left them. .

We talk about our biological family which can be a crap shoot.  And we talk about our choosen family.  

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, changed said:

I'm just curious - what TBM's on here believe "choice" should involve when it comes to choosing a partner.  If you have chidlren who are nearing the age to be married, what advice is given?

*Only marry a return missionary?

*Only marry someone active in the church whose family is also active?

*Only mary someone with the same political views?

How about racial makeup?  How many CoJCoLDS marriages are inter-racial I wonder?

Health issues?  

Age differences?

Economic differences?

and... physically attracted to, how important is that within a marriage?  

 

"It is not a choice" ... it is a choice - everyone is has free will, and can make a choice.  What does it matter if someone was born that way or chose to live that way?  It is a choice - all marriages are hopefully a choice... or should arranged marriages be reinstated?  

We just had this discussion in our family the other night.  Marriage is one of  the Come Follow me topics for this week.

Marry a returned missionary? No, I have known too many returned missionaries. 😃 

Both me and my wife are returned missionaries and I think it has helped us, but definitely not a requirement

We just encourage marriage to someone who is willing to make and keep temple covenants.  

Our marriage would be considered an interracial marriage (although I think race is a made up concept).  My children have told us they are confused by what race they are (our response: we hope they always feel that way, race is way overrated)

Health issues? we all lose our health eventually

Economic differences?  hopefully they will share what resources they have. 

Political views?  they should be able to listen to those with different political views 

We teach our children  we all will lose our attractiveness eventually (at least in the worldly sense). So you should get used to the idea that you will be married to someone unattractive.

 

 

 

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would you admit that in the LGBT community you are the small minority who likes the SSA reference?

No. Maybe if you restrict the LGBT community to those who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender.  Again, that total portion is less then 4% while 2-5 times that number are not exclusively heterosexual but do not identify as LGBT.  16 out of 20 is not the minority, let alone a small minority.  

But even if we are just talking about the "LGBT community," more people there are bisexual than gay/lesbian.  Believe it or not, bisexual erasure is a battle that is being fought in that community because of the over use of the label "gay" to encompass the spectrum of non-heterosexual.  

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This sounds like something quite different from sexual attraction. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I would suggest reading Jeff Robinson's presentation I linked to and than watching the Lisa Diamond video on Sexual Fluidity while looking at how orientation and attraction are being used.  You probably have already read or watched them, but paying close attention to that one concept may help understanding why I choose to write it that way.

Or maybe klindley can verbalize it.  I didn't get much sleep past couple of nights and am not clear about your confusion.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Other than the fact that plural marriage was instituted early on and has now been discontinued (though the doctrine pertaining to it is still present in the Church) I don't know what you have in mind when you talk about separating the Church from "the practices of its founder and its leading prophets for multiple generations." I suspect you are reaching to find a discrepancy that doesn't really exist.

I’m merely pointing out that how the church defines chastity has changed significantly over time.  Of course I expect orthodox believers to consider the evolution to be inspired by God.  What I don't expect is to see is a denial that any changes occurred.  

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Really?  Please tell us more.  Just what has the LGBT community said about you?  Call this a CFR.

 Because I have never seen anyone at least on this board not abide by your wish and referred to you as gay.  I have never seen anyone on this board who said you should not be married to a woman.  I have never seen anyone on this board be nothing but respectful for the choices you have made.  And I have never seen anything from the LGBT community that has ever said anything about the choices you have made.  Individuals? probably.  But to make the statement you made, it has to be the LGBT community, not just some guy some where giving his opinion.

I didn't say anything about people here. 

And you want to get picky about the whole community? I'll concede as soon as you provide a reference for your claims about how the LGBT community feels about the term same-sex attraction.  Not just your opinion or your claim about everyone you know, or any person or group sharing their opinion.  Please provide documentation that the Community feels that way. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Really?  Please tell me what baggage the LGBT community has with the label gay?

My point was simply that "gay" isn't a value neutral term. It used to be a derogatory label...until it wasn't...except, of course, when it sometimes still is - depending on who is saying it or how it's being used. 

 

Quote

What does acting gay look like?  You know this is quite a funny answer.  When I came out to my father, he told me I couldn't be gay because I don't act gay.  He was serious.  I couldn't help myself, I asked him the same question.  How does a person act who is gay?

You were talking about being gay, but not acting on it (i.e., "If you are gay, don't act on it").

So, if "being gay" means 'being attracted (physically / romantically / emotionally) to members of the same sex,' then "acting gay" would, in context, mean acting on that attraction. 

I didn't mean anything like 'acting in a way that might stereotypically be associated with gay men or women.' 

Admittedly, it isn't a formulation I have ever used - mainly because I've never thought of someone being some-adjective, but not acting on it. That just sounds a little strange to me. It's kind of like saying, 'It is okay to be Scottish, so long as you don't act on it.' It just doesn't compute.

 

Quote

I think that is the message the Church SHOULD be using.  Because right now there is a huge preception that you can not be gay and be a member of the Chruch by those outside the Church..  

I believe that perception is, in no small part, driven by those outside the church, including those in the mainstream LGBT community. Even though it isn't true.

 

Quote

I hope you are not suggesting that if someone identifies as being gay, they are not welcome.

I am quite confident I have never suggested anything even remotely similar to that. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I would suggest reading Jeff Robinson's presentation I linked to and than watching the Lisa Diamond video on Sexual Fluidity while looking at how orientation and attraction are being used.  You probably have already read or watched them, but paying close attention to that one concept may help understanding why I choose to write it that way.

Or maybe klindley can verbalize it.  I didn't get much sleep past couple of nights and am not clear about your confusion.

If he gave the presentation at the FairMormon conference, I think I was there to hear that live. But I’ll review it. 

My confusion is simply that what you have described seems to me like a platonic attraction one might have to a dear friend or relative. I don’t see any sexual element to it as you have described it here. 

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m merely pointing out that how the church defines chastity has changed significantly over time.  Of course I expect orthodox believers to consider the evolution to be inspired by God.  What I don't expect is to see is a denial that any changes occurred.  

I have already acknowledged that plural marriage was practiced but was then discontinued. You are being cryptic about what else you may have in mind, so I don’t know what to make of your allegation that the law of chastity “has changed significantly over time.” But never mind. I’m not that interested anyway. 

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If he gave the presentation at the FairMormon conference, I think I was there to hear that live. But I’ll review it. 

My confusion is simply that what you have described seems to me like a platonic attraction one might have to a dear friend or relative. I don’t see any sexual element to it as you have described it here. 

Got it.  When I say "experiencing same sex attraction" I mean experiencing sexual/physical attraction whether acted upon or only felt.

Lisa Diamond's categories are what I am using.

This is an article that discusses female sexual fluidity and has a few terms I haven't heard before, like heteroflexible.  It has a more gossipy tone ( sexcapades in the Hamptons kind of thing) to me than acedemic but the author cites a number of studies that are useful so posting it with that caution:

https://observer.com/2016/05/gay-until-labor-day-stretching-female-sexuality-in-the-hamptons/

Much better interview of Lisa Diamond if you want to stick to the less 'lifestyles of the rich and beautiful' material:

https://www.ttbook.org/interview/new-science-sexual-fluidity

She uses the term " heteroflexible" as well, it didn't register the first time I read this.

Quote

One thing we do know, is that, we have good nationally representative data on just the percentage of individuals who report any degree of same sex attraction, at all, and the most recent data on that suggests that about 14 percent of women and about 10 percent of men report some degree of same-sex attraction. And in both women and men, the vast majority of those individuals describe themselves as mostly, but not completely, heterosexual. So the largest group of individuals walking around with same sex attractions are individuals who you would never know had same-sex attractions. They identify as heterosexual. They think they're mainly heterosexual, but they're, like, hetero-flexible. So they're the majority of individuals with same-sex attractions, and yet, historically, they've been completely invisible. We only now are starting to see what a big group they are. And they're not just a big group in the U.S. You find the same thing if you look at Great Britain, France, the Netherlands. The hetero-flexibles are like this huge looming population.

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Calm