Identity is a strange thing.
Ultimately, we are all… humans, right? Like, we are all people. And then, after that, identity breaks itself down into a billion different sub-components (of varied importance): preferences, month of birth, gender, religion, hair color, whether or not we like cilantro. You know, stuff.
I think cilantro tastes like topsoil. Stop judging me.
Photo attribution: here
Most of these sub-components are not who we are. In the sentence “Josh is human,” you cannot replace the identifier “human” with something like “Josh is allergic to cats” and have it serve as a nominative equivalent. “Allergic to cats” describes Josh. “Human” identifies Josh.
When I posted my coming out post last month (oh, wait, you hadn’t heard? Spoiler alert: I’m gay), one of the things that most surprised me was something I hadn’t anticipated at all. And it has to do with that little parenthetical. My self-description as a gay man–and I mean specifically as a “gay” man, using that word itself–had more impact than I ever would have imagined. Somehow, that little word tore through a lot of divides that I hadn’t realized existed, and caused a reaction that I never would have imagined. I sincerely believe that that word is, at least in part, why my post went viral at all. It crossed barriers. It spoke to the masses. Nobody was confused by what I was saying like they might have been had I exclusively used a different word or phrase to describe my sexual orientation.
Granted, I used other words too. I do in all of my writings on this subject and I have for many years, even from back when I was closeted and wrote (even on this very blog) anonymously. I have very specific and pre-mediated reasons for doing this, but it basically just boils down to this. I hate forced semantical divides for synonyms. I think they are a total waste of time, and that they confuse rather than clarify.
When it comes to describing sexual orientation, there are many people who feel it is very important to eschew labels. People don’t want to be boxed in by one phrase or word. People don’t want to be defined or identified by terms used to describe parts of them.
I feel the same way.
There are several synonyms for the concept of “a person sexually attracted to his or her same gender.” The three I generally use in my writings are “gay,” “homosexual” and “same-sex attracted”. I see a lot of people who really resist being boxed into a label like one of those words, so their response is to try to avoid using the terms altogether, and to ask others to respectfully avoid “this” or “that” synonym to describe their condition.
Where others avoid being labeled by saying something like “Don’t call me this or that or the other–those labels don’t really fit me”–thus leaving no room for an accurate description of the state of being sexually attracted to people of the same gender–I go precisely in the opposite direction. I say, “call me this, that and the other, because while they all describe me, none of them define me.”
Did that make sense?
So, I take those synonyms: gay, homosexual and same sex attracted (each of which having the exact same primary definition–someone sexually attracted to his or her own gender) and I ruthlessly rip away people’s ability to infer what they want to from any one potential label by using them all. A lot.
Those words all accurately and precisely describe a quality about me as a person. But none of them define my identity.
And as a writer, my instinct is to use the least cumbersome, simplest word to communicate an idea to the highest number of people. This is a common trait among writers–it’s what makes writing good. And by far, the least cumbersome of these words is “gay.” So that’s the one I tend to use in things like titles or bios where I have limited space to convey an idea.
What can I say? I’m a language minimalist. (Lolly laughed hard when she read that sentence, and I don’t get it. Why is she laughing???)
Some people who have read my coming out post seem to “get” where I was coming from in doing this.
One lawyer who says he has been actively engaged in trying to explain and grapple and help with this issue for over a decade put it this way: “Perhaps not everyone can or even should speak about their experiences as Josh and Lolly have done, or using the vocabulary Josh has used. I have been and remain concerned about the effects of self-labeling, and wish we had a different vocabulary to describe human attractions altogether. Every story of faith is important, and all will, thankfully, be different. But Josh pushed beyond the labels, and while he accepts the labels and uses them to effectively describe himself and his feelings in ways others can clearly understand, he has refused to be constrained by either the labels or the attractions.”
But others get very, very, very hung up on one particular word of the three synonyms. And that word is “gay.” I haven’t been able to entirely figure out why this word is so bothersome to some people. I think it has to do with Mormon culture, and its concept of what “gay” implies culturally. But the thing that’s ironic, is that the piece of advice these individuals, without fail, give me regarding this word is “Come on, man. Don’t label yourself.”
Here’s the irony: I haven’t labeled myself. I have described myself with a predicate adjective. However, you have labeled me if you think that word is something that can be used to define me as a human being. Which is totally your choice, and I don’t mind if you do that. But don’t assume that because your mind automatically goes to “nominative equivalent” mine has done the same thing. Because it hasn’t. I might say “I am six feet tall” but that doesn’t mean that I am saying I am literally six feet stacked on one another, nor that I am “six feet tall” as a person, and that’s what defines my identity. It is an adjectival description of a part of my identity. And it’s not the only descriptor that could be used to explain this feature of my persondom. “A little above average height” also describes it. As does “Lying because I’m actually 5′ 11″.”
Think of it this way. Let’s say some guy who was into girls, perhaps one of the guys who has said to me “Come on, man. Don’t label yourself,” was on the dating scene, and he met a girl that he really liked. And let’s say he was trying to get to know her because he was interested in asking her out. And let’s say that for some reason, she asked him “Hey, are you gay?” What would his response be?
He would, without hesitation, say “No, no, no, I’m straight. I’m completely straight.”
Did he just label himself–did he define himself as a person? Or did he just describe his sexual orientation?
The latter is my contention.
If he is not supposed to use the word “straight” (the dictionary antonym to “gay”) to describe his sexual orientation because someone else might then think he has labeled himself, then how on earth was he supposed to communicate to the girl that he is interested sexually in girls? Can you imagine if he were to say to her “no, I’m actually OSA.” She would look at him like he was insane, and then he’d say “Oh, that means opposite-sex-attracted…” and by that point she would be totally baffled and looking for a reason to get away from the creepy guy. His original self-description was perfect–a perfectly accurate description of his sexual orientation. He is straight. Meaning, that is a component of his personhood: he is attracted to women.
The only thing I could think of that he could reasonably say is “No, I’m attracted to girls.” But even that indicates that the word “gay” is an obvious indicator of “being attracted to boys.” Both as descriptors.
"Hey, why don't I take you out some time? Oh, and in case there was any confusion, I'm definitely OSA."
Similarly, as gay men (or women) how are we supposed to be able to tell people that we are attracted to guys (or girls, respectively)? There are words for that concept. And I think it’s okay to use them–all of them. I believe that using all of them is what eschews the labels. It breaks through cultural biases and mis-conceptions. It helps people think in a more nuanced way about a subject that is very complex without inhibiting the common lexicon and confusing people who genuinely want to understand. It increases understanding. Not decreases. It amplifies the message and makes it more accessible and less confusing.
That being said, I think it’s important for people to be able to describe their sexual orientation in whatever way they feel comfortable. I am careful with my gay clients to understand how each one of them is comfortable describing the state of their sexual orientation, and I use the terms that resonate with them. This is a matter of “to each his own,” of course.
But I would ask the same courtesy. I do describe myself as a gay man. And as a homosexual man. And as a same-sex-attracted man. In doing so, I am communicating the exact same idea: I am sexually attracted to other men, and not to women. Each of those term’s primary definition is: “somebody who is sexually attracted to his or her same gender.” I personally don’t view this as problematic, and, indeed, I think of it as a solution to the semantical mess we find ourselves in sometimes.
I hope that people won’t describe me as something I’m not (petulant, inflammatory, uneducated, grandstanding, whatever) because I choose to use all three of those dictionary-validated terms (well, except for SSA–that’s not in any dictionary) to describe my sexual orientation. But if you do, that’s absolutely your prerogative. Because that’s how language works.
I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this subject. How do you describe your sexual orientation, and why? (And remember the basic respectful truth as we discuss: “to each his or her own.”)
Personally, I absolutely hate when people who are same-gender attracted get lumped in under the identifier, “people who suffer from same-gender attraction.” I dislike that description because it’s not something to suffer through and because the term “same-gender attraction” is unnecessarily long-winded and convoluted. You say gay and everyone knows what you mean, but same-gender attraction is not very conducive to anything in the public eye. With that in mind, I agree with you that all the identifiers you’ve used to describe yourself each contain a facet of truth that effectively describes you. As for me, I’ll likely always identify myself (and perhaps even define myself) as gay, regardless of the connotation. I feel like it’s less pretentious and easier to explain that I’m not a glitter-wearing flag-waver than it is to explain what I mean by same-gender attraction.
Great post. The grammar granny in me loves your parts of speech, even if I don’t understand them completely.
I believe every person ought to be able to identify or describe themselves as they wish. Words are powerful things and can make people think certain things. Neurolinguistic programming is founded on this concept.
“Don’t think of your left foot” tells the listener to think about his or her left foot
“If” expresses doubt and “when” is more faith base.
I never called myself “gay” until my bishop insisted that I stop being deceptive and be honest about myself.
To him my description of being attracted to men was not good enough. Until I was comfortable saying that word in reference to myself, he was not content. To me this was much like my Christian friends telling me I could not call myself a Christian because I was a Mormon.
I just bought a sewing machine. Some would say that was Gay. I like to do artsy fartsy things. Some would call that gay. My ex wasn’t at all crafty or artsy. When she saw my place and complained it was a “man-cave”. I took that as a compliment.
Josh, I love that you use the words you use to reach people. I refuse to let others define me. My used to refer to my attractions to men as “your special problem”. That bothered me because my attractions were not a problem to me. They were a problem to her though and how she referred to them told me that we were wrong for each other.
Really, folks ought to just chill out. Follow the addage from the scriptures, “By their fruits ye shall know them”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not calling you fruity. What I am saying though is thanks for being out there and telling the world that Men like me are OK. Gay, Straight, SSA, OSA, Bisexual, Artsy Fartsy, Mormon, Christian, label me however you like, I can use the same words to describe myself. I love it! It sounds more like using my agency than being told I must use them in order to be honest with myself and the world.
Thanks for helping me get more clear on this with myself.
BTW, I am not sure my ex was labelling me a Caveman or if it was just a description. I have never Identified as such. LOL.
I don’t think I’ve ever even said the word gay except in relation to my blog…
Josh, you did a great job explaining your use of the word “gay.” I like how you used a lot of other words, too, such as “predicate adjective,” “nominative equivalent” and “OSA.” (Technically, that last one’s an acronym, but still….) I don’t use the words “gay” or “lesbian” when describing myself now, even though I did earlier in life. I can’t do much about the words other people use to describe me, and I’ve heard all sorts of them: pervert, sicko, dyke, lesbian, latent homosexual, bisexual, big fat liar, blah blah blah. Over the years I’ve learned that the only definitions that really count are how the Lord defines me and how I define myself.
Oh, I think there was a typo in the third-to-last paragraph. Anyway, I never referred to myself as gay, I think, because I did not identify with the culture that surrounded the visible gay community. While I was definitely no macho man, I wasn’t particularly effeminate, either. I was never accused of being gay in high school because I never really fit that mold. It didn’t change the fact that all my crushes were on boys. Thinking back, I was surprisingly comfortable in my own skin, and loved my life. Maybe I’m just an oddball, but I was a closeted gay teen boy who never contemplated suicide, fell into depression, or felt “womanly” at all. I was extremely happy, enjoyed attending church dances and dating my friends who happened to be girls.
In contrast to your preference for simplicity, my deconstructionist tendencies are perhaps stronger than any other so I have an affinity for complexity. ;) Which is why, I suppose, I’ll always prefer academic writing—hence, my boringness.
In parsing through all this I believe it’s critical to understand two things: 1) words never have meaning in and of themselves; words are lingual symbols/sounds we use to communicate ideas; and 2) identity is purely subjective.
People can use the same word and intend to communicate two very different. This is where Latter-day Saints get into this battle with other Christians about whether or not that identifier rightly describes us. While we insist it does; they (or most of the vocal ones) insist it doesn’t. Why? Because we use the same word to describe two very different ideas. When Latter-day Saints use the term Christian (and, I would venture, most folks in lay usage) we mean, generally, a believer in the divinity of Christ who accepts Christ as their Lord and Savior. So, in the eyes of Latter-day Saints, there are many who may not accept the doctrines of Mormonism but who are sincere believers in and followers of Jesus Christ who we genuinely accept to be Christian.
But when others use this term, that’s not always what they mean. They mean someone who accepts the creedal iterations of orthodox theology. So, in order to avoid confusion, there needs to be clarifiers. Before Roger Keller—a former Presbyterian minister turned Latter-day Saint–joined the Church, he penned the book, Reformed Christians and Mormon Christians, Let’s Talk. I’ve heard others use the terms Nicene Christians and Latter-day Saint Christians as clarifiers.
Coming back to the “gay” question, if I’m trying to communicate an idea I need to be less concerned about the words used than whether or not my audience is going to understand the ideas I’m trying to communicate. In a 6,000-word blog post (or however many words it was) you were able to effectively get your meaning, your ideas across. Other people could have used your same word, your same predicate adjective, and meant something very different. Depending on the context, I don’t really care of folks use the term gay. It doesn’t seem to matter very much. In other contexts, I think it matters a great deal, because different ideas are being presented. I don’t identify as gay. At all. But, if people use that term to describe me, I don’t get all up in arms about it. It just doesn’t hold any weight with me either way.
I have often wondered why it is said “He’s gay”, but not “He is a gay” when generally it is said “She’s a lesbian” and not “She’s lesbian.” I wonder what difference that little word makes when it comes to an expression of identity. Likewise, what is the difference between saying “I’m LDS” or “I’m a Mormon”.
Any thoughts, or is it all just language?
Interesting. . . . I’d never thought of that. Probably just a quirk of the language, but I have to say it makes me think.
Wishing I had something to add besides, “Great post, great discussion.” I love the explanation here of description vs. definition. I think a lot of people would feel much more comfortable talking about homosexuality if 1) they talked about it more and 2) if they gave themselves permission not to walk on eggshells every time they did.
Josh, this is great. I wish I could communicate all you said in a truly minimalistic way. :)
I laugh inside when people say they don’t believe in labels. In my head, I asked them, “Then why are you talking?”
So far, in this reply, before this word right here, I used 47 labels. It’s called language and if you don’t believe in labels, you don’t believe in using language.
Like Ty, I try and choose language that gives me the best chance of being understood by whomever is listening. For me, if that means I say that I’m gay, then I’m gay. Usually, I use other descriptors, but that is because the audience might be different.
In my work as a behavior support specialist for developmentally disabled adults, the acceptable words are always changing: mentally retarded, developmentally disabled, developmentally delayed, differently abled. One mother said that she thought it was really LAME to refer to dumb things people do as RETARDED. I raised my cane and said I thought it was also not appropriate, and demeaning to people like me, to refer to dumb things people do as “lame”. I didn’t mean it, but was making a point.
So, call me a lot of things. I equally hate when I tell people about myself that their first reaction is to warn me to not define myself by my attraction to men. Here is my response to them. All That I Am.
Personally, I try to explain it by saying ‘I experience same gender attraction’. I use the word experience because saying that ‘I have’ or ‘I am’ doesn’t seem to quite fit how I feel about it. Same gender attraction seems to encompass the emotional as well as sexual side of the attraction.
I tend to agree with experience. For me, my attractions are something very fluid and organic. They aren’t a static quality about me. When my wife asks me which restaurant I want to eat at I almost always choose something Chinese. But certainly not always. I would say that I like Chinese food, but I can’t think of a way to make that finish a sentence “I am _______.”
Josh, I really like your thinking. Great post.
I personally prefer gay. It’s shorter and everyone gets it. Same Gender Attraction sounds like a disease, especially when people say they’re ‘struggling with it’, and outside the Church people don’t even know what you’re talking about when you use terms like that.
Josh, I really like the distinction between “identifiers” and “descriptors.” This gets me thinking. For some time now I have pretty much said, “I’m not ‘gay.’ I’m not ‘SSA.’ I’m not ‘straight.’ I am a son of God. That’s who I am.” I have done this partially because of all of the cultural/societal “baggage” that, generally speaking, comes along with certain words. In my opinion, the word “gay” is a loaded word, and since, given the current climate of our society, a majority of people would most likely assume things about my behavior, my ideals/beliefs, and my political ideology that are not true about me by said association, I don’t like that word for me. I don’t like the word “straight” for the same reason (although the specifics are of course different). And, given the length of time I have spent in the “LDS SSA” community, I have grown tired of that identifier as well. Truth be told, I am (as are all of us) a complex individual. So, I’m me. I’m Dan. Someone else’s words don’t define me. Were someone to actually ASK me about my orientation (which would be a surprise in and of itself), I would probably start out by saying “I choose to be celibate,” and then (assuming I trust the person enough) explain the “bigger picture” of it all. My “sexuality” (and I don’t like that word either) is very complex.
Speaking of words themselves, I really like what Ty wrote, and have been pondering this myself. Words are merely symbols. They take on “life” only when a meaningis given to them (like all symbols). So, we can use the words “gay” or “straight” to describe someone, but what are we really talking about? Aside from the obvious “liking guys” or “liking girls” part, there are endless additional “meanings” that can be assigned to those words, just like the word “Christian” that is thrown around not infrequently and people talk past each other in conversation to extreme frustration because one person or group has a different meaning than the person they are communicating with.
Perhaps, Josh, I don’t share your gift of minimalist language. ;-)
Identity is just a conglomeration of descriptors. There is no identity that stands on its own. You are human precisely because you fit the description of a human. While a descriptor does not always constitute an identity, there is no identity without descriptors. Further, since often descriptors can be used in a variety of contexts as part of different identities, an identity and a descriptor are not always interchangeable. In our society, I would say that the term gay is used more often as an identity–not a descriptor. Being sexually attracted to men is part of the description of the gay identity, but it’s just one descriptor that defines the identity. I don’t think think the sexual atraction to male descriptor and the gay identity can be used interchangeably. That’s why I don’t use the term gay to describe me.
J
I agree. “Gay” as a social construct entails so much more than attracted to men.
At the same time, I understand that society has been designed by the adversary to use language which conveys a restricted worldview. When I communicate, I feel a responsibility to challenge that worldview, but at the same time, I have to be able to work from within that worldview.
When I hear people use the word gay, I don’t get my knickers in a knot. But I do often ask how they define the word. It’s usually something simple like “Do you mean he is attracted to guys or has sex with guys.” Most people haven’t even thought about the possibility of multiple meanings.
You don’t like cilantro!?!? *JUDGED*
Great post!