Comments on: PFOX says, "Me too!"

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:09:36 +0000

A person may question what another means by ex gay – if it is unclear to him/her. Though to swath a whole group with one definition from one’s own experience or imagination or bias is ……
Especially after is has been made clear that those ex gay people define it clearly.
I dunno … what do you call it… Hmmmm?

By: Eddy

Eddy — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:46:35 +0000

If a major premise has been refuted and its speaker doesn’t hear it, is it no less a line of bull? There may be a number of reasons why Jayhuck hasn’t responded to the posts by Evan, Ann and Mary; it’s possible he’s not subscribed to this post…thinks they are from me…is distracted by the post election commentaries…
I can live with that.
But I’m also resolute that we will not take this same detour again. I encourage the three of you to mark this thread. It’s easily found by typing either “PFOX” or “me too” in the search box. If he tries to pass this opinion off as fact again, simply and firmly refer him back to this thread, reminding him (and other readers) that his premise has been refuted. If he wishes to discuss the validity of the refutation or to present actual facts that support his opinion, please be willing to listen. But I see no reason why we should have to go through all of this again simply because he’s not acknowledging the discussion. I also see no reason why that new topic, whatever it may be, should suffer from the lengthy detour that would likely ensue.
I realize, of course, that there are other issues beyond square one; I’m not speaking to those. But I do believe that we can say that square one (after what seems like years of discussion) has been achieved. He may not agree with that; I suspect that he won’t. That’s okay. He’ll simply need to speak it as a personal opinion (not necessarily shared by the whole world) that isn’t shared by a number of bloggers and that he hasn’t been able to support. He’ll need to be wary of using this opinion as a launching point for any other opinion or observation.
Let’s try very hard to avoid personal attacks. It’s one thing to confront the validity of a person’s words; it’s entirely another to presume their motives for saying those words. May God grant us the wisdom and grace to know the difference.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:44:57 +0000

Evan,
Yeah, afterwords I was thinking, perhaps youmeant something different. What a social klutz on my part. I apologize for not giving more consideration before responding. I get ya’ now.
In fact, referring to someone as say the n word, or the f word, or gay when they do not identify as such – is sort of like an ad hominom attack. A person KNOWS this when they are continued to be referred to by others as something with which they do not identify.
But if a man wants to insist he is something (probably because he secretly desires to act on his interests) then he may call himself whatever word he chooses. To insist that others are like him in this manner , is socially crude- as in unrefined, lacking skill, poor discrimination in lauguage arts and language skills, a bore – see as a noun definition here:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source – Share This
bore2? ?/b?r, bo?r/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bawr, bohr] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, bored, bor?ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to weary by dullness, tedious repetition, unwelcome attentions, etc.: The long speech bored me.
–noun 2. a dull, tiresome, or uncongenial person.
3. a cause of ennui or petty annoyance: repetitious tasks that are a bore to do.
——————————————————————————–
Origin:
1760–70; of uncert. orig
And uncongenial here for those who do not know the word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uncongenial
This describes the person who insists that others are like him. After all that resourcing and research for the word and origin of gay, the world definitions for gay and such….
And he still thinks he is the definitive descriptor of ex gay people.

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:42:47 +0000

Mary,
I used that homophobia-homosexual arousal argument in my reply to Jayhuck to remind him what happens when someone feels they don’t have any control on their own sexuality when it doesn’t fit their identity. It leads to anger and sometimes aggressiveness. In this case, of gays vs. ex-gays, If someone defines your sexual identity based on their own sexuality and what they feel they “really are” (gay, lesbian), they are leaving you without any control over how you should be seen by others. They say, like Jayhuck, ex-gays are really gays. This can be more serious than the case of homophobic straight identified people, because in that experiment they still had the power to identify and be recognised as straight. This is a step further than that, someone else hijacks your identity based on theirs.
What Jayhuck refuses to admit is that “gay” was not a statement of fact — someone is born a homosexual and is exclusively or primarily attracted to his/her own sex in an unchangeable and stable way — when it first got into widespread usage. It was what Eddy argued here, a label that signaled how someone is disposed to act sexually with other people. Gay was a banner which helped same-sex acting people to identify with their sexuality, whether or not they were only attracted to their own sex. Some of them may have been attracted to the opposite sex too, but identified as gay for whatever reason they had. I think most people have a certain range of sexual feelings and they can choose to some degree how they act and identify.
I know one guy who is still a virgin and who says that he is not attracted to women. Well, I have to admit I did the stupid thing and told him: Why not try have sex with a nice smaller female you can feel ok with? 🙂 He refused but he doesn’t identify as gay either. Calling him gay would be really intrusive and wouldn’t do justice to what the guy is about. You might call him a saint, actually.
I also know another guy who is married, has two kids and has great sex with his wife, but he also admits he is SSA-ed. How should he be called? Gay, bisexual, gay discordant for his orientation, spousosexual? He identifies as straight, he acts straight and he seems to be ok with that.

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:35:01 +0000

Mary,
I totally agree with you. I was referring to people who hate gays because they actually hate their own same-sex attractions and arousal. It could be the case with some ex-gays, I’m sure not with all of them. You stated your case very clearly on this blog: you once identified as part of that world, you moved away from it and do not hold people who identify as gay any grudge for that. You want to be recognised as someone who is no longer part of gay sexuality and culture. I think your claim is legitimate.