Sean Kinsell comments today on persnicketiness over the identification of people as “gay” or “homosexual.”
Both gay and antigay people can become very touchy when they disapprove of the adjective being used. In court, antigay lawyers called gay attorney John Rawls “homosexual.” Rawls protested. Naturally, the religious right goes nuts, warning that one gay lawyer’s sensitivity to being called “homosexual” means no gay activist on the planet can be trusted to support free speech. The American Family Association is quoted, accurately defining homosexual as someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex.
Blogger Dan Gonzales of www.modern.prosaic.nu wrote an e-mail to XGW about the AFA’s accurate definition of “homosexual,” saying:
This has interesting implications, since most honest ex-gays freely admit to having continued same sex attractions. By this definition that would make them homosexuals.
Essentially, I agree — to be precise, AFA’s definition would mean ex-gays are still “homosexual” or “bisexual” (adjectives).
It seems to be customary in polite society that people and groups can be called only by terms the people being called approve. This is something that is done to show sensitivity and respect for the dignity of people. Thus when the term Black replaced Negro, it was done in deference to the wishes of those so called.
This reminds me very much of the long drawn out resistence of evangelical Christians to the use of the term ‘Negro’. They prefered to use a term that is no longer used in polite society. It took decades, in fact this struggle is still going on, to get evangelicals to respect the wishes and dignity of Black people.
In any event, I even go along with the wishes of some Fundamentalists to be called instead Evangelicals. I recognize this and use the term, even though I can not see any particular difference between the two.
‘Homosexual’ has clinical and psychological overtones. It is not simply a parallel to ‘heterosexual.’ I have rarely, if ever, heard Christians who are in some way opposed to the ‘practice of homosexuality’ (see again how the ‘practice of heterosexuality’ is not a term in vogue) use the terms ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian.’ To do so would be to accept the assumptions that go along with those terms (i.e. being gay is something you are, not do; it is an identity, not a sin).
I don’t mind being labeled a homosexual (or characterized as ‘homosexual’ as if it were an adjective), but I do find Dalea’s comments on target. Coming out of the conservative Evangelical culture, I am very cautious about using the term ‘Fundamentalist’ because even though, as a term of historical origin, it may be appropriate, most Evangelicals do not like the connotations.
All I would ask is for the same respect.
So this is going to turn into a discussion of “gay” versus “homosexual?” I don’t know how common knowledge this is, but Joe Nicolosi likes to use the identifier “non-gay homosexual” to refer to his clients who are attracted to the same sex but refuse identify as “gay” or live “the gay lifestyle.”
I think there is a difference between someone requesting respect, and intentional deception or obfuscation.
Lawyer John Rawls sought respect, and for that matter so do Courage participants who want no part of the ex-gay label.
When he didn’t receive respect in the form that he sought, Rawls lost his temper. His reaction is worth analyzing on its own merits, and Sean Kinsell does that. So does the Gone South blog.
But the relative significance of the outburst depends on whether we trust the news sources: WorldNetDaily and the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
The Times-Picayune reporter, Phillip Rucker, seems to have been looking for scandal instead of news. His story leads off by mentioning a “civil debate on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in Louisiana” but then says nothing about the actual debate. Apparently the details of the debate were too boring, so the reporter and his editor hyped the scuffle instead. The reporter’s other story that day mentions the judge’s final decision and a vow by Rawls to appeal. But that story, too, ignores the debate that led to the decision.
In attempting to pick a fight with Rawls, AFA’s lawyers lost track of their allies’ ideologies — if, in fact, it’s possible to do so, since (as Dan G notes) they seem to change whenever it’s convenient.
So Joseph Nicolosi really is marketing the “non-gay homosexual” label, even as Exodus’ current ad campaign is running away from homosexuality. It seems that ex-gay leaders cannot even agree among themselves on a definition for homosexuality.
I understand how purposely irritating it is when religious conservatives insist on using the word “homosexual” instead of “gay” — especially anti-gay groups like AFA and FOTF. However, I just consider it disrespectful and rude. I don’t know what basis there would be to throw a fit about it.
I think there is a distinction between “gay” and “homosexual”. “Gay” is usually someone who affirms their homosexuality. Whereas “homosexual” also encompasses those who do no affirm or struggle with accepting their homosexuality. When I first struggled with acknowledging my sexuality, I felt very uncomfortable calling myself “gay” because I didn’t know what that title meant. Rather, I identified myself as someone “struggling with my sexuality” or as “someone with SSA – same-sex attractions”.
As already mentioned, “non-gay homosexuals” or “ex-gays” can technically be “homosexual”, but just not accept the identity. This is why most ex-gays don’t identify themselves as “ex-homosexual” or even “straight”.
What’s interesting is the generational dispute of the term “queer”. I have mixed feelings about it. I don’t like to be identified as being weird, but I understand it is not usually intended to be negative. Rather, it’s the communities’ attempt to transform a negative term into something empowering (“I’m queer – so what?”) I doubt ex-gays will start calling themselves ex-queers (ex-empowered?).
Thanks again for the link, Mike. Because the homosexuality angle, as it always does when it’s there, is getting all the attention, I’d just like to emphasize something: I don’t think the most basic issue with the exchange between Johnson and Rawls had much to do with homosexuality. As any Miss Manners fan knows, people nowadays are always inventing their own little random rules of etiquette and flipping out on people for not following them. Minority designations are a particular minefield, true. But gays don’t have a monopoly on excessive sensitivity–you can have hours of dreary, unenlightening debate over what to call the different varieties of Hispanics or Asians, too. And nothing in daily life is safe. There are people on the Atkins diet who feel affronted if their hosts don’t reel off, without prodding, the carbohydrate content of their dinner party menu.
So while I focused on the use of the words because that was the question that I’d specifically been asked, and I do think it’s a mildly interesting topic, I don’t think there’s much of generalizable interest here except more evidence that letting your temper get the better of you makes you look like an idiot.
All i would add to this discussion is that anyone who gets so bent out of shape over a simple adjective (and arguably accurate) label needs to brush up on their “tolerance” skills.
I hate gay people!!!!!!
Well Shanika’s statement pretty much says it all. To the ex-gay activists who read this site regularly (and I know you all do), Shanika is your base.
Shanika is exactly who you inspire with your rhetoric.
Every time you go in front of a legislature to testify against the rights of gay person, you embolden Shanika.
Every time you broadbrush the entire gay community with your personal experiences, you enable Shanika.
Every time you take out an ad campaign, you’re aiming it at Shanika (not me).
I’m a man and I’m attracted to men. I like to describe myself as a bit of a homo (it’s slightly tongue in cheek) because the word “gay” is a turn-off. It connotes all that programmed silliness and groupthink that so many guys have bought lock stock and hankie. “Gay” is now a universe of conformity.
There are a lot of men who are not gay, yet like men.
I like society with its hetero default system. It’s far from perfect, and I despise gay-bashing, but male-female is still the norm among mammals.
If you don’t know me don’t presume to ask me about my sexuality. People think it’s ok to do this now (as in, are you gay or straight?). The mystery of the individual is not respected. Not everything needs to be stated. If you don’t get it you are not as enlightened as you think.
GO HOMOS!