For about the past year, Exodus V.P. Randy Thomas has been slowly transitioning from using the term “ex-gay” to describe himself to the term “post-gay.” He has since taken over the Exodus Blog, and the term “ex-gay” is rarely found. Articles having to do with ex-gay issues are now tagged “post-gay,” and the term has replaced “ex-gay” to describe people who are trying to go from gay to straight – or, at least, less gay. In a recent post on the Exodus blog, Randy takes pride in having adopted a term for himself that is, according to the Huffington Post, “avant-garde.” That’s quite a change from “conservative,” a term used to describe ideology labeled “ex-gay.” But Randy’s “post-gay” and the Huffington Post’s “post-gay” are not the same.
Peter Ould has been using “post-gay” to define his sexual identity for much longer than Randy, and the term as used by them can be defined with the following:
I think the main problem with ex-gay is that it is an ontological statement. It presents, intentionally or not, the one who calls himself as ex-gay as one who’s sexual orientation has changed from gay to straight. He/she is claiming to have gone from one state of being (gay) to another (straight). And while that is the case for many who are ex-gay, for others it isn’t so clear. For some their sexual desires move more towards those of the opposite sex but not to a point where they are exclusively heterosexual in their attractions.
…
The alternative is “post-gay”. Post-gay isn’t an ontological statement, it’s a vectorial statement. For those uninitiated in the deeper arcane magicks of mathematics, a vector is simply a description of a direction and magnitude. It describes a movement, not a position (which is ontology). Post-gay then is less about being straight or gay and rather about a choice of a journey.
Perhaps a personal example to clarify. I’m post-gay because I chose to leave “gay” behind. I chose to no longer accept “gay” as an explanation of who I was and instead to begin a journey away from it. I chose to do so because I was convinced from the Scriptures that “gay” wasn’t a suitable way to describe myself, that it wasn’t a valid way for a Christian to establish identity.
The term “post-gay” isnt’ new. And it wasn’t created by Christians who were unsuccessful at changing their sexual orientation from gay to straight. It stems from Queer Theory. About.com’s “gay life” portal defines post-gay as:
Term used to describe same-gender-loving individuals that do not identify or associate with mainstream gay culture.
A brief Google search returns mostly results that use the term in this context. The only one that clearly stands out is a result that leads to the Exodus Blog.
Performance artist and gay activist Peterson Toscano has written about the adoption of “post-gay,” referencing Glen Retief, a professor at Susquehanna University:
What [“post-gay”] means is that sexual orientation is no longer seen as important to psychological self-definition, because the equality and legitimacy of same-sex and opposite-sex intimacies, physical and emotional, have become so taken for granted that sexual orientation is not even worth noticing anymore.
The key point is here is that until you let go of heterosexism (not just homophobia), you can try as hard as you like to be “post-gay” but you won’t succeed. Let’s say, for example, same-sex attraction is a temptation to sin, whereas an opposite-sex attraction is not a temptation to sin when it occurs in the context of heterosexual marriage. From this it follows there is no way same-sex desire can be equally valuable to a human being as opposite-sex desire. Let’s be real here: one can be channeled into God’s form of expression, while the other cannot; one may help you fulfil God’s will, the other will never do so, at least not in the same straightforward way.
To sum that up a bit, “post-gay” was coined to refer to an ideology that sees each sexual orientation – homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, and asexual – as being equally valid forms of human expression, and therefor not worth segregating with labels. But Randy, Peter, and Exodus couple the term with an ideology in which same-sex attraction is inferior to opposite-sex attraction, falling short of their Christian Biblical ideal – and in doing so they obliterate that inherent equality.
Rather than “vectoral,” the term “post-gay” is indeed “ontological,” because it describes a nature of being: a way of being in which sexual orientation no longer exists in the context of a hierarchy, as it does with Exodus. Ex-gays – or, at least, people who no longer wish to be considered same-sex attracted – might find “post-gay” appealing because it is used by people who consider “gay” a term that suffocates their human identity. People like Randy don’t want the term “gay” applied to them, and in fact loudly proclaim they are no longer “gay-identified,” but can’t go without using a label because openly identifying as “not gay anymore” (however you choose to express it in words) is too important to their “journey in Christ.”
Interesting article. To be fair, I have acknowledged that the term “post-gay” was coined before I use it to indicate a different perspective, but then if we concentrated on that line of argument we could have a debate about the etymology of “gay”. The fact that one word might be used to indicate two different things doesn’t necessitate the elimination of one of those meanings, it simply demonstrates that language is fluid and words can adapt their meanings over time. Anybody vaguely familiar with the 17th Century Church of England Book of Common Prayer would know that.
There’s a very challenging piece just been published in the past 24 hours that might add some more substance to the debate. I’ve not had time to write about it yet on my own blog.
I know it sounds snarky, but Randy’s use of “post-gay” really means “self-hating gay”.
This sounds like it could describe Side-B Christians, or perhaps the ideology of “CollegeJay.” Neither associate with the “ex-gay” or “post-gay journey” movements. But neither feel it is morally ok to have sex with people of the same sex.
People who are ssa or have ssa but hold heterosexuality to be the ideal do not like being labeled “gay” but also do not want to be dishonest. Most people in the post-gay movement, which include many in my generation, identify as such because they are not connected to the “gay ghetto” culture made standard in the 70’s and 80’s. (As time went on and the closet became smaller, less appealing, and less necessary, people who weren’t of the visible campy establishment began to come out and many disliked the established definition of “gay” as a term that defined some sort of cookie-cut personality filled with rainbows and identity politics.) Since ex-gays who use “post-gay” to define themselves never truly move beyond being same-sex attracted and are always defined by their struggle with this particular sin, they of course don’t want the label of “gay.” That would make it seem like they gave up the fight, so to speak. But they never truly exit the grip of same sex attraction. That is why they must always use “post-gay” coupled with “journey.” It’s a “post-gay journey.” One that is a never-ending struggle with being attracted to the same sex.
Think:
IS THIS JOURNEY REALLY NECESSARY?
The whole Christian fundamentalist movement in the US, of which Randy is a part, seem to enjoy redefining words. The word “post-gay” had an accepted, largely academic, meaning. These tactics of redefinition probably serve several purposes.
1. put your opponents (original corners of the term) a bit off balance, this serves both political ends but it is probably just “fun”. There is a sadistic streak in these people. They are like trolls on internet discussion groups. If they can say something that upsets people it is fun.
2. force the original coiners of terms (esp. if they are academics or have higher status than the fundamentalists in some way, not hard by the way to find those of higher status than most fundamentalists) to engage the fundamentalists thereby making people like Randy seem more important than they really are. (Would we be talking about Randy if he hadn’t appropriated the word “post-gay.” I also suspect post-gay will be discarded by Randy once it stops getting any press.)
3. help create a whole world of “counter-discourse” in which one can move. “Broken”, “Journey”, etc. The Christian fundamentalist movement does this all the time. This makes it hard to engage them in real dialogue because you have to use there own ill-defined terms, or to use a lot of energy showing why those terms are not good ones. (The term “ex-gay” itself a part of this counter-discourse.)
So if Randy Thomas/Exodus adopt “post-gay” in favor or “ex-gay,” does that mean PFOX must become PFOP?
This constant effort on the part of Exodus and ex-gays in general to take words that are fairly easy to understand and give them a different (often opposite meaning) and then use their new terminology in a very “in crowd” sort of way seems cultish.
No regular English speaker would understand them, which I guess is one of their goals. Their claims of sexual orientation change is dishonest, their claims about gay people are dishonest and their very language is dishonest. At least they are consistent on some level.
I prefer calling “ex-gays” “FORMER FAGS” for two reasons:
1. the ex-gay movement insists they are being discriminated against by both the straight and gay community, and they want to be portrayed as martyrs. Post gay sounds too friendly. How are they ever going to be denied housing, lose their jobs, be beaten to death on the streets, be shunned by their families if they use such a term as “post-gay?” Sounds more like a disease than a condition.
2. they view the LGBT community with such disdain that calling themselves “gay” acknowledges thats gays exist and that being gay is something because you have to be something in order to no longer be it in the future. But if they call themselves “Former Faggots” it would end that cycle (at least in their minds).
If they want to feel persecuted, if they want to make claims that they are discriminated against, the least they can do is not give themselves cute-sy names for themselves.
Post-Gay LOL it sounds so ….. gay!
My Gods, is there any word that conservative Evangelical activists won’t co-opt and carry on like they’ve got the patent on it?!?!
I think Randy should use the more accurate term “post-sexuality,” since he seems to have none, and wants all of his followers to do the same. In fact, he’s veering toward “post-gender” and “post-human.”
I think it’s strange that for all his emphasis on not being constrained by sexual labels or conforming to sexual inclinations, Randy never tells heterosexuals that they should identify as “Christians on a post-straight journey.”
Apparently it’s ok to identify yourself by your sexual orientation as long as that orientation is the “correct” one.
The reason for that is that Randy knows perfectly well that there’s no need for a post-straight journey. What he hasn’t, for some reason, yet grasped is that there’s no need for a post-gay journey either.
This post was picked up on Queerty.com. Guess who was quick to respond with a length comments post??? Yep, Randy Thomas.
Now I thought I remember Randy describing Queerty as a pornography site in the past. I wonder how much time our post gay (but more appropriately labeled ex-gay/anti-gay) Randy spend perusing the Queerty’s Morning Goods and Gratuititous Skin posts after depositing his comment.
Also, if he does want to call himself post-gay, why isn’t he referring to himself as post-gay identified?
This is Randy’s quote from Queerty:
Lordy, he writes like a 14-year old girl in a Jonas Brothers forum. “:::grin:::” ?? lordy!
And although some might object to use of the term “twink,” I have to say that by the term’s definitions, Randy fits the bill. He will never be able to “pass” as a straight man.
Brother can you paradigm? That’s gooblygook. Meaningless.
And at 40something, there is no way Randy can be a twink. Queerty had an old picture.
Perhaps the ontologically silliest part of this ontological pretence — for anyone who didn’t scrape through their GCSE mathematical magicks — is the false notion that a vector is “simply a description of a direction and magnitude”.
Well…urgh, no. Poor old Euclid must be turning in his grave.
Implicit to any vector is position A and position B. The distance from A to B is that ‘magnitude’. The spatial position of B to A is that ‘direction’. Even presented in differential form… you’re left with an A and a B. I’m not even going to try and contort non-Euclidean mathematics into a catch-all statement about sexuality…
(Thankfully neither Peter O nor Randy T work for NASA or we would have had a rocket remaining static at Cape Canaveral and a bunch of people nevertheless congratulating themselves on a successful moon landing!)
To borrow gordo… it’s just gobbledygook. Intended to sound intellectual but eventually bereft of substance and indicating a mere desire to avoid the obvious: there is indeed an A and a B and the poor souls who hate being at A and want to be at B are still, alas, at A.
Ex-gay newspeak for post-gay: still needing gay and straight, ultimately, and still desperately hoping to go from the former to the latter. Distance and direction.
Speaking of which… the two of us spent an entire night in a pub on the weekend after a wedding, chatting to all and sundry. Despite ontologically being an openly gay couple in a pub full of strangers… the word “gay” didn’t get a mention all night. At least, not that we said or heard. Such occasions are commonplace.
I guess that makes us, and them, post-gay. The real type of post-gay, I mean.
That aside, we’re both (still) at A and not at B. Euclidean or otherwise.
grantdale thanks for that explanation. What I know about “vector” has to do with graphic imaging programs, like Adobe Illustrator, which works in vectors. In theory, an image created with vectors can be as big as imagineable – rather than having fixed pixels, equations determining the relative location of points are used. Maybe Peter means it in that sense – that the space between A and B might be different but flexible. So his space between A and B is smaller than Randy’s space, because Randy is not married and Peter is and has kids.
But the point you make about A and B existing as defined points in space (somewhere in space, but in space nonetheless) illustrates the flaw behind the ex-gay attempted usurpation of “post-gay.”
No probs Emily — and actually your Adobe Illustrator works using simple Cartesian mathematics if I remember correctly… but you’re on the right track: you’re talking about altering the magnitude (length of the line) without altering the direction if you wanted to re-size an image.
With that now behind you… (if you haven’t fallen asleep!)… re-read Peter O’s missive. He actually trying to claim there is no A nor no B in this case. ie there is no gay and no straight, and we can just discard them as undescriptive (ie having no ontological purpose).
Apparently one can have a vector going from, urm, a place-that-doesn’t-exist toward another place-that-doesn’t-exist. Try doing that sort of thing with Adobe Illustrator and let us know how you get on 🙂
It’s certainly a brave stance to take: rejecting 2,500 years of geometry while at the same time hijacking the terminology.
Personally — given we already understand what a vector is — I’d rather prefer he explain his “Cat On The Mat” theory of homosexuality; if he’s at all in the mood for elucidation.
ps: Can we invent another term, since everyone seems to be doing it?
How about “past-gay”. (c) and (r) to us, permission granted in perpetuity to XGW. Has rather a novel ring to it although it does rather sound like something a gastroenterologist should possibly take an interest in.
cheers!
@ Emily The real purpose of “post-gay” is to distract people from more important conversation, “Can gays become straight?” Exodus cannot honestly affirmatively, they know this, so they try to avoid the question, confuse the question, change the question, anything to hide their weak spot. I’m afraid XGW too often takes the bait. Every discussion on “post-gay” should include the fact that changing your orientation is impossible (at least in Spitzer words, very, very rare).
The crux here is that post-gay baits and switches the word “gay.” You come in thinking it means “someone attracted to the same gender” but Exodus teaches gay means “someone defining themselves by their attraction to the same gender.” Yet the majority do not define themselves by their orientation and those who do are both gay and straight. That switch is deceptive, and as long as it remains assumed, “post-gay” will also be deceptive. Not just incorrect of confusing, deceptive.
Similarly, is every white person who is not a supremicist ex-white? Is every fat person not obsessed with food ex-fat? If I move to Canada, will I be ex-American? These are equally ridiculous as ex-gay.
Ephilei, I think that you have hit the nail right on the head.
I’m sure that most people who go to an ex-gay ministry do so either because their sexual orientation is in conflict with their religious beliefs or because they just don’t like being different from the majority. They want to be straight, and by that they mean straight just like their dad, their mum, their brother, their sister or their friends.
The adverts for ex-gay ministries and the titles of ex-gay books seem to promise them precisely that. You only have to look at the language used on the web-site of Exodus International:
“Freedom is possible through Jesus Christ!”
“Exodus affirms reorientation of same sex attraction is possible.”
“What you are really asking is whether there is realistic hope for change for men and women who do not want their sexual orientation to be homosexual. And the answer to that is yes!”
The titles of ex-gay books seem to make similar promises:
Homosexual No More – Practical Strategies for Christians Overcoming Homosexuality (William Consiglio)
Coming Out of Homosexuality: New Freedom for Men & Women (Bob Davies)
You Don’t Have to Be Gay: Hope and Freedom for Males Struggling With Homosexuality or for Those Who Know of Someone Who Is (Jeff Konrad)
Leaving Homosexuality: A Practical Guide for Men and Women Looking for a Way Out (Alan Chambers)
It’s when you dig deeper that you find the language becoming more slippery and you realise that you’ve been bamboozled. The upshot is:
No, we didn’t really promise that you’d become heterosexual “like everyone else”. That’s not what we really meant, and we’re sorry if you misunderstood us. Freedom from homosexuality only means that you’ll learn to “overcome” the “problem” of same-sex attractions; it doesn’t mean that you won’t still have them. The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality; it’s holiness. We help you to stop embracing a gay identity. You may not become heterosexual, and we never promised that you would, but you’ll become post-gay. And so forth and so on.
Anything to avoid saying “We deliberately misled you. We have no means of turning you from a gay person into a straight person.”