The sin of Gossip

(My apologies, I have to postpone the discussion of fascism for a bit, ironically)

Last night, I had the interesting experience of being banned from a website that welcomes and encourages Alan Chambers and Dr. Throckmorton to promote and defend their theories about the lives of GLBTQ people.

What was I doing posting to Exodus International's website? Nope, wasn't there. I wasn't on AFA's site, or Focus on the Family's site, or any thing like that. No, I was on a site that presents itself as being supportive of GLBTQ people, obstensibly by revealing the lies and frauds of professional oppressors like Mr. Chambers and Dr. Throckmorton, but concurrently, welcomes them to promote and advance their theories about us.

That seems like building a fox-friendly henhouse, to me.

The cause of the uproar - well, Pam Ferguson posted an essay "What I’ve Learned from Ex-Gay Therapy/Ministry: Part One" and I commented on its contents. Since dialogue between myself and Pam has been abruptly sundered over at XGW - I'm going to exercise a little free speech and analyse her account in depth here.

___________________________________________________

An analysis of "What I've Learned from Ex-Gay Therapy/Ministry: Part One"


Considering how much information, and misinformation floods the internet and society in general every day, it remains necessary to employ a reasonable amount of critical thought and examination to the information presented for us. Words have meanings, after all, and elements of written communication, like context, structure, word choice, communicate significantly to the ultimate message of any written text. And though the formal essay may be dying a largely unremarked upon demise, the core expectations of written communication still appear in mainstream media.

One of those core expectations of a expository work is that the initial paragraph will express the primary theme of the work itself. For example, my starting paragraph directly above, introduced the theme of the importance of analysis. So, what is the theme defining paragraph in Pam Ferguson's "What I've Learned - - -"?

After an introduction that explains the author's intentions - including "to share personal narratives", part one begins thusly:

Part One
If you’re reading this post, you’re on a computer. Your computer is loaded with an operating system. Most of the things that happen on your computer happen because of default settings. Default is the way computers are set up so that every amoeba and their pet parasite are able to browse the Internet.

This paragraph, which occurs where the theme of an essay normally occurs, sets up the metaphor of computer operating systems. Setting aside the inaccurate characterization of computer operating systems, it also introduces the concept of destructive code into a metaphor which is provided to be a basis for looking at intimate human relationships.

The author's next paragraph solidifies the comparison. It opens with the statement "In the world of ex-gay, heterosexuality is the default." When we unpack this, what do we find? Well, 'the world of ex-gay' is the world the author comes from. Though she later tries to distance herself from it, for whatever purpose, on her website she writes:

In fact, I support any individual's self-determination to pursue change in their same sex attractions. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; if it had been up to me, I'd still be married to a "struggler" right now.

Setting aside the inherent selfishness of this statement, this is 'the world of ex-gay' in a nutshell. The author's world view is the world of ex-gay, and any negative opinions about GLBTQ people, are presented in the context of being her personal narrative. And in the author's world, heterosexuality is the default. And that invites the reader to wonder - who are the "amoebas and pet parasites" supposed to be? The author doesn't tell us. But, "the world of ex-gay" is rife with attempts to define GLBTQ in terms of disease:

Cameron's "studies" falsely concluded that gay people were disproportionately responsible for child molestation, for the majority of serial killings, and for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Gay people, according to Cameron's research, were obsessed with consuming human excrement, allowing them to spread deadly diseases simply by shaking hands with unsuspecting strangers or using public restrooms. "Of all the vices," Cameron concluded in a pamphlet called Medical Aspects of Homosexuality, "only homosexuality constitutes a conspiracy against society."

There is a lot of ugliness packed into that opening sentence, and the rest of the paragraph isn't any better. Though the author tries to have it both ways, the heart of her world is ugly and arrogant:

Furthermore, if gayness is a variation and straight is a default, then it can, and very likely should be, changed back to the default setting. This, as I perceive it, is the heart of ex-gay ministry and the aim of ex-gay therapy. This is also where my personal thinking diverges quite a bit from the typical party-line of the ex-gay camp. However, this series of posts is an explanation of what I learned from being involved with ex-gay therapy/ministry. It’s not necessarily a series detailing my personal beliefs.

What really stands out here is a contrast. The author, in what is presented as a personal narrative, very clearly states the position of 'the ex-gay world' over the course of several sentences - but does not delineate for herself a separate position of her own, except to say her belief 'diverges quite a bit' and employ a convenient but empty 'not necessarily'. Now the word diverge connotes being on a common path, and moving from it to some degree. How much the author has moved, she doesn't say here, but on her blog she says
"I support any individual's self-determination to pursue change in their same sex attractions" which is just remarkably similar to "gayness is a variation and straight is a default, then it can, and very likely should be, changed back to the default setting". Frankly, I'm not seeing much divergence there at all. And "not necessarily" is just a way of saying 'maybe I agree, mayby I don't, I'm not saying' - it is an expression of deliberate ambiguity.

What we are left with when every concept is unpacked and examined, is the author wants us to know that in her world "homosexuality should be changed into heterosexuality". What follows is rather confusing. On one hand, according to the author, " the terms used among ex-gay folk are often used innocently" but at the same time, are "loaded and biased toward negative thinking" and used to "describe gays (with a) negative connotation". It would be nice to know how one can innocently use terms one knows are negative, loaded and biased. Maybe it is kinda like the argument "stealing isn't stealing if you really, really want something". The author then goes on to explain, at great length, how negatively the world she comes from views GLBTQ people:

“Gay lifestyle” in ex-gay speak is equal to: infidelity, promiscuous behavior, feminate men, butch women, parades, promiscuous behavior, Internet hook-ups, dance club/electronica music, promiscuous behavior, fashion, artistic expression, promiscuous behavior, etc…I could go on and on. Suffice it to say, gay lifestyle = promiscuous behavior.

Now, there are a couple of possibilities. The author could be repeating these allegations, in preparation for refuting or rejecting them. But that doesn't happen here. She closes part 1 without ever rejecting these pejorative declarations about the lives of millions of people. The author could be repeating these claims in preparation to substantiate them with facts and evidence. But that doesn't happen either. She simply drops the P bomb on our lives.

Personally, I think this gratuitous repetition of degrading assumptions about the lives of GLBTQ people is extraordinarily rude. The act is harsh, even if the words themselves are not. And presented as is, with neither refutation or substantiation, it is just nasty gossip, which the Bible says is sin.

The author then proceeds with the assumption 'gay lifestyle = promiscuous behavior' and explains, "that the “gay lifestyle” has not ONE thing on the “heterosexual lifestyle”. " It is an odd sentence construction, one that appears to mean that yes, gays are promiscuous but so are heterosexuals, but, unpacked, the word for word implication is a bit more judgemental than that - same-sex relationships have nothing that mixed-sex relationship are not better at. Coincidentally, GLBTQ relationships are better at at least one thing, ours are not plagued by cuckoldry:

According to a 2005 U.S. Census Bureau report, there are 27,940,000 fathers nationwide with a child under 18. That means over a million guys out there are
taking care of some other man’s kid.

With all the variety of mixed gender relationships, the divorce rate of just over 50% in the U.S., the incidence of spousal abuse, dead-beat dads, and wives lying to their husbands about who really is the father of their children, according to Pam Ferguson, GLBTQ relationship are still worse.

Now the really sad thing is that Pam states in closing:

I certainly would not want to be judged as a person (heterosexual) based on the activities of most other heterosexuals who are in my particular circumstance. The results would be devastating for me. I thank God every day (because I see the gay analog) that I am viewed as an individual and not in relation to the orientation of heterosexuality when it comes to being a divorced individual in our culture.

But as analysis of her prior paragraphs reveals, she has judged, and condemned, any GLBTQ person based on her world's, the ex-gay world's, assumptions about the activities of homosexuals. What she does not want done to her, she does to us.

Now, the theory that has been offered that in subsequent parts, the author will refute the ugly and vicious gossip she has just repeated. She wrote to me "It’s just Part 1. Geez." But her last paragraph doesn't promise or even hint at any challenge to all this ugly gossip she's spewed up onto our lives, as if we hadn't heard it all so many, many, many times before. Instead

My next article will detail some of the specific and bizarre happenings that took place within my own husband’s attempts to become completely free of same sex attractions.

Presenting the appearance that the ugly assumptions about our lives will simply stand unexamined.

Now, there is a key element here - she hasn't told her story, her experiences, her actions. She has not said how anything has effected her, and in part two, she plans to tell someone else's story - her ex-husband's. With no 'this happen to me' or 'I felt thus and such' - we readers are left to conclude that what she has provided - ugly and nasty gossip - really is her story, despite the very obvious ambiguities of 'not necessarily' and 'diverged'.

Gossiping is rude, indirectly and gratuitously calling millions of people promiscuous, is hardly civil. But the arrogance of this last bit really goes too far:
Keep in mind, everything I say in these narratives is colored with a Christian world view. If you are not a Christian, you will likely want to take issue with a few things.

Let's unpack this. The author's position is represents the Christian world view. If you take issue, then you must not be a Christian, for only non-Christians will likely take issue with her narrative. She has just defined the 'ex-gay world' as synonymous with Christianity. That's offensive to me both as a Christian and as a gay man.

The reality here is that she has not talked about her story at all. At best, she spelled out some ugly beliefs that she has, but doesn't want to publically take credit for - beliefs about other people's lives. Now, in one of the agitated responses to my posts at XGW, a Frank wrote "FOJ: Get over it already. This is HER story, not YOURS." But the reality is, it is not her story. She hasn't shared a word about her feelings, sacrifices, experiences. She has shared ugly gossip about GLBTQ people - me, my partner, our friends, coworders, people we church with, and millions of other people. The fraud "homosexuality should be changed into heterosexuality" is not being used to deny the Pam Ferguson's of the world their civil rights, it is being used to deprive GLBTQ people, including me, of our rights.

When we apply just a reasonable amount of analysis to the text, it becomes quite clear, Pam is not talking about herself. It isn't a narrative of her experiences at all. There isn't a "I felt" or "I did" or "I experienced" in it. It really isn't her story; she's heterosexual, and all of the ugly ideas about homosexuality, the insistence that we should change - is not about her. It is about her husband who has left her.

_______________________________________________________

Yesterday, I wrote about the question "is it ethical, is it humane, is it Christian, to support someone in an attempt to mutilate themselves psychologically? " - I had posted it first in abreviated form on XGW, but it was deleted rather than answered.

David Roberts on XGW wrote of me:

The user “Friend of Jonathan” has been banned after posting twice to this thread
after being asked not to. One can only assume at this point that it was his or her goal to be. I apologize for the circus. If you understand what that was all about you are better than I.

"Only Assume" is such a limitting phrase. How odd that some people can "only assume" negatives.

I have to commend him for not even conceiving of the possibility of cross-posting. As we all know, no two people on the internet have ever posted to the same place at the same time, and so it just was not at all possible that I could have posted without first seeing his totalitarian demand that I just shut up about something that directly impact my life. His confidence in my (non-existant) omniscience is flattering though misguided. What is really remarkable though is that he took steps, aggressive steps, about a dialogue he admits he did not understand.

And I have to wonder about that. After all, this is a place where GLBTQ people are regularly treated to regurgitated versions of 'homosexuality is sin' within comments threads, and a place that professional oppressors are quite at home posting about their assumptions about our lives. I figure, it is probably a good thing not to be welcome at a place that welcomes those who oppress me and shields them from criticism.


If you feel that Pam has sinned against you, or someone you care about with her gossip, by all means, write to her on her blog and let her know that you don't appreciate being gossipped about.