I've been personally looking into various writings by those on Side-B, both out of personal interest and for private projects I am working on. Your post is recent and you have replied to basically every comment, so I figured I'd reach out as well.
Jed prompted a query about the phrase "pedophile Christian." I bring this up for two reasons. One is that you did not answer his question. Second is that I am one of those Christians who experiences an attraction to children, specifically little girls, and would like to clear up misconceptions and make a query of my own.
Firstly is that, although it is used in that manner colloquially and by exploitative news outlets, "pedophile" in the proper medical sense refers to someone with a sexual preference for children. Much in the same way "homosexual" has been used to refer to those who act sexually with the same sex, but properly used refers only to the disposition to such things.
Secondly is that the willingness of people like me to publicly admit to having such attractions is not relevant to anything. You know the consequences of admitting to something like that. I'm hardly being a coward using a pseudonym here, and neither is anyone else with these attractions.
Thirdly, the way you spoke about this to Jed is demeaning. You put "orientation" in scare quotes when describing pedophilia, implicitly gatekeeping the term to exclude those like me. Then you say, "On the other hand, a great many normal, lovely people have unchosen same-sex desires." Implying me and those like me are necessarily neither normal or lovely, which is incredibly unfair. Last time I checked, I didn't choose pedophilic desires any more than those with same-sex desires chose their proclivities.
As to my own query...
Would it, by your own standards, consider it appropriate for me to refer to myself as a "girl-lover Christian?" And not a "pedophile Christian;" I balk at being referred to as "a pedophile" the same as a gay Christian would chafe at being called "a homosexual." And "pedophile" would not accurately specify the sex of those I'm attracted to. Beyond that, my own preferences and proclivities are irrelevant, as I'm asking you to apply your proposed principles to my situation.
For some clarification, phrases like "girl-lover," "boy-lover," and "child-lover" are what people with pedophilia often use to refer to themselves, much like how those with adult same-sex desires often call themselves lesbian, gay, or bisexual. These in my experience are more popular outside of an activist context than "minor-attracted," let alone "pedophile."
So, I reiterate, would it appropriate for me to refer to myself as a "girl-lover Christian" by the standards you and those in Side-B propose for "gay Christians?"
I applaud you for writing here! I apologize for misusing the word "pedophile" as if it only referred to those who have acted on that desire; I did not intend to be demeaning, and I actually spent the following day researching the science around pedophilia through the interviews of Dr. James Cantor (for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzr7G9WPZ8w). I do not think you should be demeaned, and I think it is courageous of you to write, rather than cowardly to use a pseudonym
I was trying to get at a disanalogy between homosexuality and pedophilia, but I think it may be important also to highlight the analogy. Both are unchosen orientations (I now see).
""On the other hand, a great many normal, lovely people have unchosen same-sex desires." Implying me and those like me are necessarily neither normal or lovely, which is incredibly unfair. Last time I checked, I didn't choose pedophilic desires any more than those with same-sex desires chose their proclivities."
I completely grant this point now - thank you for bringing it up.
On your query:
In the Side B discussion, the argument is often, "You wouldn't want someone to say that he is a 'pedophile Christian,' so you shouldn't admit someone saying he is a 'gay Christian.'" My point would be that you may use whatever words are accurate to describe yourself accurately. I don't believe you are "finding your identity in" this description of yourself. You can put to death desires that you also accurately name.
Thank you for commenting here - yours is a perspective that is rarely heard. I apologize for using demeaning language, and hope you'll accept that apology. God bless!
Thanks for your speedy reply. I'm not too fussed about what you said, but I felt it important to point out. Meaning I accept the apology, haha. And I've got my answer now, so thanks for that as well.
Query to understand better - would you find "Pedophile Christian" an equally legitimate term because some Christians could have such an orientation?
And related - in another comment here you mention "LGBTQ Christians." How do you warrant lumping transgenderism in here (as it is not a sexual orientation)?
Thanks for reading and commenting! On the first, "pedophile" is used for people who have committed a certain act, not for those who have a disposition whether or not they act on it. People who commit pedophilia have a particular sexual interest in children - presumably, without committing such acts, such a person has a disposition or orientation that way. However, basically no one admits to having this "orientation" until they are caught committing the crime - so it would be unlikely for anyone to label himself or be labelled a Christian pedophile, or minor-attracted Christian...
On the other hand, a great many normal, lovely people have unchosen same-sex desires. A space to talk about this fact without shame has been opened up, and I think that's a good thing.
On "LGBTQ Christians," I have tried to speak only about sexual orientation in this series, and "lesbian, gay, and bisexual" is a mouthful, so I would maybe use "LGB" as a short-hand. However, in that particular comment, I was speaking to someone who I thought would appreciate a willingness to use that language, even though I share your discomfort with conflating sexual orientation with transgenderism. I commented on that issue more directly in this section of a post: https://joelcarini.substack.com/i/104114434/the-theology-of-nature-and-side-b.
Thanks again for reading and commenting, Jed. I'm trying to offer a theologically conservative perspective sympathetic to "Side B," which I hope comes through.
I've wanted to comment for a while on this series because I think it's thoughtful, though I'll acknowledge my ideas aren't fully formed on everything you present, while I agree on some and disagree on others. I'm not an expert of any sort on this matter, but I'd still like to present some thoughts:
1. A distinction probably needs to be drawn between observing the observable vs. imitating the language and assumptions of a highly politicized anti-Christian movement. Yes, some arguments you address appear to reject the obvious reality of homosexual desire. But I'm still wary of adopting worldly language that carries certain poisonous assumptions.
The word "heterosexual" is, I think, more politicized than the word "homosexual" for this reason. The mere usage of the word "heterosexual" suggests a value judgment, equating it with homosexuality rather than identifying the ordinary state and the disordered state. If we look at a psychological disorder, let's suppose a relatively value-neutral one, like autism or OCD, we haven't adopted words to describe people who lack these disorders. Likewise, if we have a sexual orientation, should we also say that we have an orientation vis-a-vis OCD? I'm reluctant to adopt this entire way of thinking.
2. I agree that there are Biblical categories here, and then there are sociological/psychological categories, which are still relevant if we want to understand the world. The popular grouping of various sorts of homosexual desire has the potential to erase the diverse psychological reality. This is at least partly motivated by activist political and social concerns (i.e. banding together in a larger LGBT+ alliance and community). Though as you point out, Scripture also groups together multiple sorts of homosexual activity, so I'm torn as to how relevant this is to theology. But I think it's still important to acknowledge and to overcome certain misunderstandings and errors.
3. I want to highlight the peculiarities of obligate male homosexuality in particular, because I think it's too often conflated with all other sorts of homosexuality. To a greater degree than the others, it seems to have deep biological causes. Properly speaking, I think it meets the medical definition of a "syndrome", as it's highly correlated with not only obvious characteristics like feminine behavioral tendencies from an early age, but also seemingly unrelated characteristics like left-handedness and smaller stature, probably also a tendency towards a lisp (though this can often be corrected with speech therapy).
Another curious feature of this syndrome is that the majority of such men prefer to be "bottoms". This is seldom spoken of in the wider world, and I suppose I took for granted most of my life that the "top" was the preferred role -- that their homosexual desire was merely a matter of misplaced "targeting". But I think the preference for "bottoming", and also for more masculine men, suggests a very deep change in the brain's sexual wiring compared to most other sorts of unusual sexual behavior.
Further, it's an error to take the experience of obligate male homosexuality -- the most clearly and deeply biologically rooted sort of homosexual behavior and desire -- and apply it to all the others, regarding "sexual orientation" as unchangeable and condemning the very idea of conversion therapy.
For example, it appears to be far more common (if not quite universally true) that lesbianism is rooted not in some syndromic and inborn disorder in brain wiring, but in a trauma-induced aversion to men. Jackie Hill Perry, who wrote, "Gay Girl, Good God", seems to fit this category, and I think both sides misuse testimonies like hers. It's an error to imply EITHER that obligate male homosexuality can be overcome in the same manner as trauma-induced lesbianism, OR that trauma-induced lesbianism is nearly as difficult to overcome as obligate male homosexuality. But most arguments on both sides have a tendency to take this form.
Thanks for these thoughts! On the first point, I want to distinguish particular words from assumptions. It is possible to use words that hail from a certain ideological space separate from or contrary to assumptions: "Celibate, gay Christian" is a primary example. I think it is more important what we say about the world than which vocabulary we use. Also, for people lacking autism, etc., there's the word "neurotypical." I don't think our vocabulary has to directly signal what's normal v. abnormal; a sentence will do. "The normal course of things is for humans to develop a heterosexual sexual orientation. Though a minority develop a homosexual orientation." OCD and other psychological issues can definitely be quite in-built, so there's no reason to deny a disposition toward those.
I agree on 2, though there are times to group things together and times to distinguish. Now that I write about this, I feel the need for a category "LGB" for instance, because I'm trying to generalize across, but then sometimes you have to make distinctions between male and female homosexuality, for example.
On 3, I tried to raise some of these distinctions, but without going into causality, though those kinds of anecdotes sound familiar. It was interesting to learn though that lesbians exhibit a more male-typical pattern of exclusive attraction, so I don't think sexual fluidity should be overplayed. In general, you're raising empirical and scientific information about sexuality, with attention to differences, and that's exactly what I'm saying should be done in place of pretending that the Bible gives us all the answers on empirical reality. In spite of the diversity though, I think "sexual orientation" is a category for the directedness of sexual desires prior to our will, something the current Side Y/X positions downplay.
"Conversion therapy," I recognize, is often used as a slur for any counseling to resist same-sex attraction. However, orientation change I think is important to distinguish from Christian sanctification. Scripture does not promise change to our biologically-rooted psychology, the diminution of certain temptations, etc. Whether orientation-change is possible is a scientific question rather separate from Christian theology, though the evidence is slim, and the history of those kinds of Christian ministries reveals little orientation change but some real sanctification in the lives of people in whom homosexual orientation persists. I would advocate dropping the largely false hope of orientation change, acceptance of relatively persistent sexual orientation, and sanctification and growth in light of this acceptance.
"In general, you're raising empirical and scientific information about sexuality, with attention to differences, and that's exactly what I'm saying should be done in place of pretending that the Bible gives us all the answers on empirical reality."
Insofar as that's the crux of the matter, you have my full support and agreement in this project. My only addition to that statement would be that mainstream society ALSO mostly fails to discuss and understand homosexuality objectively -- not only in terms of dismissing the Christian worldview, but even to incorporate good empirical research into its ways of thinking.
I am sorry I elicited that sigh, TJ. I know it must seem that I keep putting words in your mouth, since your position, with Christian Smith, is critical realist instead of full-on social constructionist (anti-realist).
I guess I would stand by my pragmatic concern first, that it is a more effective case to Christians who lean Side Y to argue that sexual orientation is real, than that is socially constructed. I suppose that goes for those of us who view "social constructed"/"real" as a bit of a dichotomy.
Later on in the post, I tried to indicate why I think "socially constructed" is confusing. It seems to refer to several different things, the historical development of terms, the role of society in producing knowledge, social influence upon people's psychology and biology, etc. It seems confusing to call all of these social construction, implying that the social development of our categories amounts to the reductively linguistic nature of certain realities.
At the end of the day, we might prefer different terminology, but my preferences are shared by a lot of the more conservative Christian types who will be raising a significant percentage of the next generation of Christian kids. So I'm hoping that the Side B message can get to them and give the next generation of LGBTQ Christians a better experience!
Greetings.
I've been personally looking into various writings by those on Side-B, both out of personal interest and for private projects I am working on. Your post is recent and you have replied to basically every comment, so I figured I'd reach out as well.
Jed prompted a query about the phrase "pedophile Christian." I bring this up for two reasons. One is that you did not answer his question. Second is that I am one of those Christians who experiences an attraction to children, specifically little girls, and would like to clear up misconceptions and make a query of my own.
Firstly is that, although it is used in that manner colloquially and by exploitative news outlets, "pedophile" in the proper medical sense refers to someone with a sexual preference for children. Much in the same way "homosexual" has been used to refer to those who act sexually with the same sex, but properly used refers only to the disposition to such things.
Secondly is that the willingness of people like me to publicly admit to having such attractions is not relevant to anything. You know the consequences of admitting to something like that. I'm hardly being a coward using a pseudonym here, and neither is anyone else with these attractions.
Thirdly, the way you spoke about this to Jed is demeaning. You put "orientation" in scare quotes when describing pedophilia, implicitly gatekeeping the term to exclude those like me. Then you say, "On the other hand, a great many normal, lovely people have unchosen same-sex desires." Implying me and those like me are necessarily neither normal or lovely, which is incredibly unfair. Last time I checked, I didn't choose pedophilic desires any more than those with same-sex desires chose their proclivities.
As to my own query...
Would it, by your own standards, consider it appropriate for me to refer to myself as a "girl-lover Christian?" And not a "pedophile Christian;" I balk at being referred to as "a pedophile" the same as a gay Christian would chafe at being called "a homosexual." And "pedophile" would not accurately specify the sex of those I'm attracted to. Beyond that, my own preferences and proclivities are irrelevant, as I'm asking you to apply your proposed principles to my situation.
For some clarification, phrases like "girl-lover," "boy-lover," and "child-lover" are what people with pedophilia often use to refer to themselves, much like how those with adult same-sex desires often call themselves lesbian, gay, or bisexual. These in my experience are more popular outside of an activist context than "minor-attracted," let alone "pedophile."
So, I reiterate, would it appropriate for me to refer to myself as a "girl-lover Christian" by the standards you and those in Side-B propose for "gay Christians?"
I applaud you for writing here! I apologize for misusing the word "pedophile" as if it only referred to those who have acted on that desire; I did not intend to be demeaning, and I actually spent the following day researching the science around pedophilia through the interviews of Dr. James Cantor (for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzr7G9WPZ8w). I do not think you should be demeaned, and I think it is courageous of you to write, rather than cowardly to use a pseudonym
I was trying to get at a disanalogy between homosexuality and pedophilia, but I think it may be important also to highlight the analogy. Both are unchosen orientations (I now see).
""On the other hand, a great many normal, lovely people have unchosen same-sex desires." Implying me and those like me are necessarily neither normal or lovely, which is incredibly unfair. Last time I checked, I didn't choose pedophilic desires any more than those with same-sex desires chose their proclivities."
I completely grant this point now - thank you for bringing it up.
On your query:
In the Side B discussion, the argument is often, "You wouldn't want someone to say that he is a 'pedophile Christian,' so you shouldn't admit someone saying he is a 'gay Christian.'" My point would be that you may use whatever words are accurate to describe yourself accurately. I don't believe you are "finding your identity in" this description of yourself. You can put to death desires that you also accurately name.
Thank you for commenting here - yours is a perspective that is rarely heard. I apologize for using demeaning language, and hope you'll accept that apology. God bless!
Thanks for your speedy reply. I'm not too fussed about what you said, but I felt it important to point out. Meaning I accept the apology, haha. And I've got my answer now, so thanks for that as well.
God bless you too.
Query to understand better - would you find "Pedophile Christian" an equally legitimate term because some Christians could have such an orientation?
And related - in another comment here you mention "LGBTQ Christians." How do you warrant lumping transgenderism in here (as it is not a sexual orientation)?
Jed,
Thanks for reading and commenting! On the first, "pedophile" is used for people who have committed a certain act, not for those who have a disposition whether or not they act on it. People who commit pedophilia have a particular sexual interest in children - presumably, without committing such acts, such a person has a disposition or orientation that way. However, basically no one admits to having this "orientation" until they are caught committing the crime - so it would be unlikely for anyone to label himself or be labelled a Christian pedophile, or minor-attracted Christian...
On the other hand, a great many normal, lovely people have unchosen same-sex desires. A space to talk about this fact without shame has been opened up, and I think that's a good thing.
On "LGBTQ Christians," I have tried to speak only about sexual orientation in this series, and "lesbian, gay, and bisexual" is a mouthful, so I would maybe use "LGB" as a short-hand. However, in that particular comment, I was speaking to someone who I thought would appreciate a willingness to use that language, even though I share your discomfort with conflating sexual orientation with transgenderism. I commented on that issue more directly in this section of a post: https://joelcarini.substack.com/i/104114434/the-theology-of-nature-and-side-b.
Thanks again for reading and commenting, Jed. I'm trying to offer a theologically conservative perspective sympathetic to "Side B," which I hope comes through.
Thanks for the response. Would love to press further but alas, time does not permit haha.
Praying God gives you wisdom to represent Christ well in this endeavour!
I've wanted to comment for a while on this series because I think it's thoughtful, though I'll acknowledge my ideas aren't fully formed on everything you present, while I agree on some and disagree on others. I'm not an expert of any sort on this matter, but I'd still like to present some thoughts:
1. A distinction probably needs to be drawn between observing the observable vs. imitating the language and assumptions of a highly politicized anti-Christian movement. Yes, some arguments you address appear to reject the obvious reality of homosexual desire. But I'm still wary of adopting worldly language that carries certain poisonous assumptions.
The word "heterosexual" is, I think, more politicized than the word "homosexual" for this reason. The mere usage of the word "heterosexual" suggests a value judgment, equating it with homosexuality rather than identifying the ordinary state and the disordered state. If we look at a psychological disorder, let's suppose a relatively value-neutral one, like autism or OCD, we haven't adopted words to describe people who lack these disorders. Likewise, if we have a sexual orientation, should we also say that we have an orientation vis-a-vis OCD? I'm reluctant to adopt this entire way of thinking.
2. I agree that there are Biblical categories here, and then there are sociological/psychological categories, which are still relevant if we want to understand the world. The popular grouping of various sorts of homosexual desire has the potential to erase the diverse psychological reality. This is at least partly motivated by activist political and social concerns (i.e. banding together in a larger LGBT+ alliance and community). Though as you point out, Scripture also groups together multiple sorts of homosexual activity, so I'm torn as to how relevant this is to theology. But I think it's still important to acknowledge and to overcome certain misunderstandings and errors.
3. I want to highlight the peculiarities of obligate male homosexuality in particular, because I think it's too often conflated with all other sorts of homosexuality. To a greater degree than the others, it seems to have deep biological causes. Properly speaking, I think it meets the medical definition of a "syndrome", as it's highly correlated with not only obvious characteristics like feminine behavioral tendencies from an early age, but also seemingly unrelated characteristics like left-handedness and smaller stature, probably also a tendency towards a lisp (though this can often be corrected with speech therapy).
Another curious feature of this syndrome is that the majority of such men prefer to be "bottoms". This is seldom spoken of in the wider world, and I suppose I took for granted most of my life that the "top" was the preferred role -- that their homosexual desire was merely a matter of misplaced "targeting". But I think the preference for "bottoming", and also for more masculine men, suggests a very deep change in the brain's sexual wiring compared to most other sorts of unusual sexual behavior.
Further, it's an error to take the experience of obligate male homosexuality -- the most clearly and deeply biologically rooted sort of homosexual behavior and desire -- and apply it to all the others, regarding "sexual orientation" as unchangeable and condemning the very idea of conversion therapy.
For example, it appears to be far more common (if not quite universally true) that lesbianism is rooted not in some syndromic and inborn disorder in brain wiring, but in a trauma-induced aversion to men. Jackie Hill Perry, who wrote, "Gay Girl, Good God", seems to fit this category, and I think both sides misuse testimonies like hers. It's an error to imply EITHER that obligate male homosexuality can be overcome in the same manner as trauma-induced lesbianism, OR that trauma-induced lesbianism is nearly as difficult to overcome as obligate male homosexuality. But most arguments on both sides have a tendency to take this form.
Thomas,
Thanks for these thoughts! On the first point, I want to distinguish particular words from assumptions. It is possible to use words that hail from a certain ideological space separate from or contrary to assumptions: "Celibate, gay Christian" is a primary example. I think it is more important what we say about the world than which vocabulary we use. Also, for people lacking autism, etc., there's the word "neurotypical." I don't think our vocabulary has to directly signal what's normal v. abnormal; a sentence will do. "The normal course of things is for humans to develop a heterosexual sexual orientation. Though a minority develop a homosexual orientation." OCD and other psychological issues can definitely be quite in-built, so there's no reason to deny a disposition toward those.
I agree on 2, though there are times to group things together and times to distinguish. Now that I write about this, I feel the need for a category "LGB" for instance, because I'm trying to generalize across, but then sometimes you have to make distinctions between male and female homosexuality, for example.
On 3, I tried to raise some of these distinctions, but without going into causality, though those kinds of anecdotes sound familiar. It was interesting to learn though that lesbians exhibit a more male-typical pattern of exclusive attraction, so I don't think sexual fluidity should be overplayed. In general, you're raising empirical and scientific information about sexuality, with attention to differences, and that's exactly what I'm saying should be done in place of pretending that the Bible gives us all the answers on empirical reality. In spite of the diversity though, I think "sexual orientation" is a category for the directedness of sexual desires prior to our will, something the current Side Y/X positions downplay.
"Conversion therapy," I recognize, is often used as a slur for any counseling to resist same-sex attraction. However, orientation change I think is important to distinguish from Christian sanctification. Scripture does not promise change to our biologically-rooted psychology, the diminution of certain temptations, etc. Whether orientation-change is possible is a scientific question rather separate from Christian theology, though the evidence is slim, and the history of those kinds of Christian ministries reveals little orientation change but some real sanctification in the lives of people in whom homosexual orientation persists. I would advocate dropping the largely false hope of orientation change, acceptance of relatively persistent sexual orientation, and sanctification and growth in light of this acceptance.
I appreciate the responses.
"In general, you're raising empirical and scientific information about sexuality, with attention to differences, and that's exactly what I'm saying should be done in place of pretending that the Bible gives us all the answers on empirical reality."
Insofar as that's the crux of the matter, you have my full support and agreement in this project. My only addition to that statement would be that mainstream society ALSO mostly fails to discuss and understand homosexuality objectively -- not only in terms of dismissing the Christian worldview, but even to incorporate good empirical research into its ways of thinking.
I am sorry I elicited that sigh, TJ. I know it must seem that I keep putting words in your mouth, since your position, with Christian Smith, is critical realist instead of full-on social constructionist (anti-realist).
I guess I would stand by my pragmatic concern first, that it is a more effective case to Christians who lean Side Y to argue that sexual orientation is real, than that is socially constructed. I suppose that goes for those of us who view "social constructed"/"real" as a bit of a dichotomy.
Later on in the post, I tried to indicate why I think "socially constructed" is confusing. It seems to refer to several different things, the historical development of terms, the role of society in producing knowledge, social influence upon people's psychology and biology, etc. It seems confusing to call all of these social construction, implying that the social development of our categories amounts to the reductively linguistic nature of certain realities.
At the end of the day, we might prefer different terminology, but my preferences are shared by a lot of the more conservative Christian types who will be raising a significant percentage of the next generation of Christian kids. So I'm hoping that the Side B message can get to them and give the next generation of LGBTQ Christians a better experience!