How do you define “exgay”?
More to the point, what characteristics describe ALL exgays?
Multiple answers are permitted.
Definition: An exgay is someone who:
(pick one or more of the following)
- Supports legislation to reduce or withhold legal rights and privileges from gays
- Supports discrimination by businesses in hiring and customer service
- Supports discrimination against same-sex-attracted persons by public agencies
- Subscribes to a conservative Christian ideology
- Supports the exclusion of same-sex-attracted persons from the media
- Supports the exclusion of same-sex-attracted persons from childcare and teaching professions
- Supports the removal of adoptive or biological children from their gay parents
- Opposes most sexual activity
- Is ashamed to be same-gender-attracted
- Is ashamed to engage in same-gender genital activity
- Lives a double life/Is “closeted”
- Adopts the “exgay” or “former homosexual” identity or label. Persons who do not adopt the identity or label are not exgay.
Next question: Having defined “exgay,” now indicate which of the above choices describe someone who is antigay. Must someone be antigay in order to be exgay?
Number one describes most anti-gay groups. These people are always more visible and vocal when advancements or near advancements in equality/rights are made public. That’s when most start screaming that the world will end if a gay person has any protection from having his or her head kicked in for being gay. By these actions, these people are encouraging and condoning violence and in some cases, murder. The Westboro Baptist Church for instance celebrates death and murder and in this celebration, condones such. Most of the phoney christian hate groups engage in similar antics but are masters at the use of code words and phrases such as “family/moral values”, “pro-family” and the latest rhetoric “unwanted same sex attractions”. All of which are designed and do work in most cases, to drum up fear of, and contempt for, gay people. They have been very clever in this, I must commend them on this ingenuity. # 9 describes most ex-gays: Ashamed, due mostly to religious rhetoric, of their own body’s physiology and seek to suppress it. All other items on the list are “icing on the cake” so to speak.
I think you have left something out of the list Mike. With due respect, there should be something about having been gay, and lived and moved in gay venues for some length of time as an independent adult. By this, in order to be ‘ex’ one must first have been whatever they left behind. Ooooops, almost no exgays meet this criteria.
I really don’t have a problem with ex-gays that feel like gay people should have full rights as heteros but just didn’t enjoy being gay and want to change their sexual orientation. I wouldn’t have a problem with a group that supported such people, as long as they also supported other facets of gay civil rights. I wouldn’t have a problem because America is a free country (for a little while here yet) and I don’t judge them if they don’t judge me.
Or I wouldn’t if they existed.
We need be careful not to behave here as exgay groups routinely do about gay men and women.We also need to distinguish between:exgay groups,anti-gay groups that support exgay groups,anti-gay therapists,exgay leaders (or touts) andexgay individuals.It goes without saying, I hope, that individuals are varied in their outlook and politics but in general believe thatbeing gay is inferior to being straight,are religious conservatives (but not always Christian, although the vast majority are) andbelieve that they have a good chance of becoming straight or, at a minimum, not “being” gay (whatever that is, to them).I think it is also important to recognise that the majority of individuals who go through exgay groups do so for a brief time (1-2 years) as part of their coming out. They need to personally attempt, and realise the nonsense that is exgay, before they can accept themself; and having done so they move on. For a period they may seem to buy into the exgay theology, at least in public.(Perhaps c.k., if you’re reading this thread, you might have a few words on this last paragraph?)Exgay organisations (let alone the anti-gay ones) etc are less varied in their views and almost without exception are an intersection of the entire list that Mike A. gave.
I forget who it was, but somebody defined ex-gay very well here a while back.
An ex-gay is someone who is gay as a gay man [or woman] in gaytown on gayday, but calls themselves “a heterosexual who struggles.”
Urgh, that was me :)Fans of Blackadder will recognise where the use of over-blown simile comes from.
Rather than pick from the above options, I want to formulate a real working definition:
Ex-gay:
1. A person whose sexual orientation was previously focused solely on persons of the same sex and whose sexual orientation is now focused solely on persons of the opposite sex.
2. A person whose sexual orientation was previously focused solely on persons of the same sex but who now is seeking to change their orientation to become focused solely or significantly on at least one person of the opposite sex.
3. A person who has identified to themselves that they are “gay” (as an identity and not a sexual orientation) and who have chosen to no longer identify themselves as being “gay”. This person may or not have any change in the focus of their sexual orientation.
Definition 1 is a true ex-gay and not much more common than unicorns.
Definition 2 is most of the people who go through ex-gay programs. This definition may also be used by some non-political ex-gay groups.
Definition 3 is the definition currently used by political ex-gay groups.
I swear if I had enough money to launch an ad campaign I’d round up a bunch of ex-ex-gays and do an exact mimic of the 1998 Exodus campaign.
“We’re living proof that ex-gay therapies are a failure”.
Well, the initial list is mostly socio/political
but I would also add these facts about the ‘ex gays’ I’ve been encountering.
1. They ALL parrot the ‘distant father/dominant mother/molested as a child/struggling with homosexuality’ rote list of what made them gay.
Or some variation of all of those.
2. Most have become ad hoc ministers with a commercial interest in promoting books, CDs or some other media to instruct others how to take their path.
3. They ALL reject the DSM striking homosexuality from the list of mental/emotional disorders. Professionals in the mental health industry rarely hold anyone with a problem morally responsible for it and prescribe religious discipline to cure it.
4. The reject the threat and coercion and isolation motive of the heterosexual majority as the reason they struggled with being gay to begin with.
5. Many engaged in extremely negative social behavior evident in heterosexuals with the same regularity. However, heterosexuality isn’t blamed for those problems, although there is far more social support for being heterosexual.
6. Denial of the inherency and powerful connection to one’s sexual identity-whether gay or not.
The ex gays refuse to acknowlege that public disclosure of one’s homosexuality is depending on trust, honesty and safety.
Heterosexuals continue to make claims impossible to make when acceptance isn’t the norm for gay people. Especially since the deepest insight is dependent on what straight society doesn’t allow.
For gay people to speak for themselves and be believed.
Ex gays, not necessarily straight people who support conversion, seem immature in one aspect or another.
A person in emotional crisis or exhaustion is more easily manipulated. This is something else not admitted to by ex gays.
And this exhaustion is certainly more prevalent or acute in gay people most often.
Doesn’t HRC have enough money to do this?
There are probably gay artists and photographers who would donate services. All the ACTU work was done by volunteers. This would make a great poster to put up near LWO events. Or Fundagelical churches.
You could probably fill a stadium with gays who tried to go straight and failed. A picture of this crowd would really make the point. Great idea Scott.
Re: “Doesn’t HRC have enough money to do this?”
DaleA, you’ve hit on one of my pet peeves, which goes double — no triple! Quadruple! — for GLAAD. The “AD” of GLAAD supposedly stands for “anti-defamation”, but their most visible activities consist of putting out press releases which count the number gay characters on television and holding posh media award banquets to hand out awards to their Hollywood friends. An activity I refer to as “GLAADhanding.”
Is there a more worthless organization than GLAAD? Scott’s idea should be a natural for them.
Guys, if you want something done you can either
a) do it yourself
b) bitch cuz someone else isn’t doing it
🙂
GLAAD’s mission is not to confront the ex-gay ministries or put up billboards near LWO conferences, as much as we may like it to be. Nor is it to picket military bases, lobby Congress, conduct studies on gay rams, run advertising campaigns, support gay candidates, or start gay/straight alliances – no matter how useful all of those things may be.
All GLAAD does (yes, ALL they do) is to confront negative images and encourage positive images of gay people in the popular media. That includes television, movies, newspapers, music, and (I think) comic books. Occasionally (as was the case with Matthew Sheppard) they will offer OTHER GROUPS help with how to approach the media. But that’s it. If you don’t want to support those things, don’t send money.
But please don’t fault an organization for doing exactly what they say that they do and not veering off to do someone else’s idea of what would be a great idea.
Frankly, I’m glad they stick to their agenda. You may not like the idea of giving out awards, but I am amazed that they can somehow get the biggest players in hollywood together just to celebrate inclusive and positive images of gay people. But, then again, I remember when the only images of gay people you ever saw in the movies were horrifying. And when television gay pride coverage consisted of drag queens and leather daddys. And when the newspapers wouldn’t use the word “gay”. And I thank God for what they do.
I agree with you that I wish there was an organization where their purpose included this billboard idea. Maybe Soulforce could take up the idea. I’d be happy to help (otherwise I’ll have to include myself in those who bitch)
Thanks Timothy!
I’m a GLAAD-THEATER member. We attend local live performances and score them according to the realism, or inclusion or images that concern gays and lesbians and might be seen by a more diverse audience.
If it’s edifying, or detrimental or stereotypical.
We don’t complain directly to the creators of the production, but among the other members we can post (anonymously) comments regarding what we interpreted.
The score sheets are tallied according to the best production and not only it’s content, but outreach and uniqueness as well.
The GLAAD media committee does go more directly to producers and creators.
And on that note.
I saw an OUTSTANDING episode of Oprah today on the coming out process.
GLAAD should send a letter of thanks to Oprah and note this episode for the committee.
They will be hearing from me.
Her panel featured Robert Trachtenberg, editor of “When I Knew”, a book of several coming out experiences.
Actor singer Billy Porter and Carson Kressly of QE.
She also interviewed a mother and daughter. The daughter first told her mother she liked girls at ten, but was found out to be gay at 17 when her mother caught her with a girlfriend.
The daughter stated that her mother went off on her.
It sounded like the mother acted out in intense anger, threats and betrayed her commitment as a parent.
The best part about Oprah’s interview of this family, was being direct with the mother.
She told the woman that it doesn’t get better than being told by your child that they are gay at ten. She just didn’t WANT to know.
This is essentially true. The mother weepily talked as if she’d been unprepared for this. She said that she’d been ‘blindsided.’
But I ask anyone, since WHEN won’t the possibility EVER come up in any given family. Who is immune from that?!
Indeed, every last damn heterosexual parent can take it for granted it’s MORE than likely.
And preparation is EASY. This isn’t HARD. This isn’t a tragedy. This isn’t even RARE!
So why all the weepy eyes?!
Her daughter was gorgeous and successful, her girlfriend was very pretty too.
And here this woman was behaving as if her daughter had cancer or had been badly disabled in an accident.
That’s when I KNEW, it was all about MOM, not the daughter. How selfish!
There was information about the younger ages that gays and lesbians come out and testimonials from various gay teens regarding that experience.
I have the Trachtenberg book.
I’ve read how young so many people were when they knew. The gap between knowing and telling it is vast.
A lifetime for some people.
This shows that homosexuality is as inborn as heterosexuality.
That it can’t be helped any more than heterosexuality.
And but for the constant and unrelenting conditioning that there is something wrong with it, no one has to respond to it with anger, tears, abandonment or violence.
This really IS all about heterossexual conceit.
There is no difference between a gay person and a non gay person worth how parents and anyone else has to react.
If you’re told to react that way (badly) towards gay people, you will.
The fact remains that it’s unnecessary. It doesn’t change the beauty, talent, family cohesion, health or potential for good a gay kid has in them for a parent or anyone else to accept their homosexuality.
However, NOT TO accept…puts all that at risk. And there is no reason for that either.
I wouldn’t assign any of the 12 to myself but I would still qualify as “ex-gay”. I was raised in an anti-religious home in a thoroughly secular country (Britain). I was an atheist myself until I was 37. I came out when I was 18 (in 1983) and never had to “struggle with my sexuality” or felt ashamed of being gay. My sister was an openly gay mother long before I came out. In my early 20s I got involved with gay politics and attended the very first meeting of the fiercely pro-gay activist group Outrage. I supported gay marriage long before mainstream gay organisations supported it – back in the day when all politically correct gays refused to “mimic heterosexuals”. I attended my first gay marriage (actually just a commitment ceremony) 3 years ago. The groom and groom both wore traditional wedding outfits for their very public ceremony.
Would I attend a same-sex civil partnership ceremony (marriage-lite) now that they are legal in the UK (or soon will be)? No. In the last couple of years I’ve had a number of spiritual experiences that have convinced me there is something greater to be gained from abandoning homosexuality. Jesus has me by the nuts now (the only slight overlap with your list of 12 – although I have not joined an evangelical Christian community/church). I’m not bullshitting myself or anyone else that I am straight, so celibacy does seem to be the only option right now.
Your ex-gay profile probably fits a lot of people in American evangelical communities but there are other “ex-gays” who didn’t grow up in Jesusland.
1630r,So #4 does, in fact, apply to you. And #12. I don’t know why you wouldn’t assign them to yourself — those boots fit don’t they?Recognising not everyone grows up in Jesusland (although some chose to emigrate there)… I had only three in a general profile, and you ping all of them:being gay is inferior to being straight,
are religious conservatives (but not always Christian, although the vast majority are) and
believe that they have a good chance of becoming straight or, at a minimum, not “being” gay (whatever that is, to them).I’d be happy to hear what it is you think is “something greater to be gained from abandoning homosexuality”.
1630r, I’m glad to hear from an exgay with a mind of his/her own and some degree of tolerance. Thanks for commenting. I hope to hear more from you.
grantdale,
“being gay is inferior to being straight” is not on the list. Nobody is intrinsically inferior to anyone as far as I know.
Regarding #4 (Subscribes to a conservative Christian ideology) – I have a real problem accepting the terms “conservative” or “liberal” can be applied to “Truth”. Yes, it is a Christian thing – and a “hang up” I would have laughed at a mere 12 months ago. By the way, in my country people think you “subscribe to a conservative Christian ideology” if you go to church once a year or say “I believe in God”.
Regarding #12 – I don’t actually adopt the “exgay” or “former homosexual” identity or label. But exgay can be a useful shorthand for “still attracted to the same-sex but celibate”. It’s no big deal – it’s just a another (imperfect) label.