Thread by @sometimesalight

One observation & then I'm done for day:
Over the last few years conservatives in multiple denoms have pushed against Side B Xians (vowed celibate Xians who experience same-sex attraction) for using the linguistic marker of "gay" & sometimes even "same-sex attracted."

As best I can tell, some conservatives think these terms necessarily imply a person is claiming & embracing same-sex desire or same-sex sexual expression. Still, others object to the terms on the grounds of "testimony"--seeing them as a Q of indentification or affiliation.

Setting aside theological Qs for a minute, we need to think about linguistics. Because ISTM that both of these concerns fail to understand the broader cultural language.

Perhaps at one time, using a signifier like "gay" or "same-sex attracted" meant what conservatives take it to mean. But over the last decade or so, the conversation has rapidly developed, and meanings have narrowed as more terms have been added to it.

For good or bad, young people today can parse 100 different features of biological sex, gender identity, sexuality, & sexual practice. They speak of differences btwn sexual attraction & romantic attraction. In their world, you can be simultaneously gay & asexual.

IOW, a person who is same-sex attracted AND celibate is a completely rational proposition for them. In fact, using both these signifiers might be among the best ways to communicate traditional sexual ethic in coming years b/c it uses known language & categories

So my question is this: Whose linguistic categories are we prioritizing in these conversations? Who do we have in mind when we raise concerns about "testimony"?

My instinct tells me that conservatives are talking amongst ourselves. While we may have parsed theological categories, we haven't done sufficient linguistic/missiological field work.

Again, I'm not talking about redefining traditional Xian sexual ethics. I'm simply saying...