Visible

Its Olympic season and the charismatic Adam Rippon has made his way into American households. Adam is a figure skater and the first openly gay athlete to represent the US in a winter Olympics. Of course it is a running joke that all male figure skaters are gay, but in the world of sports (including the apparently conservative field of figure skating), surprisingly no US winter athlete has yet come out while still competing. Athletes who have come out have done so after finishing their sports career. I’m not a follower of figure skating but I thought Adam’s opening Olympic performance in the team competition was very touching. The beautiful music coupled with his elegant skating was alluring.

It didn’t take much time on line to find criticism leveled his way. To paraphrase some comments: “Who cares about his sexuality?” “Yawn….another gay figure skater.” “He is a disgrace to this country.” A conservative blog even published an opinion piece criticizing Rippon and another openly gay American Olympian, Gus Kenworthy, for being politically outspoken.

Some of that criticism seems to be a consequence of the running feud between Rippon and the Vice President. Adam has not been shy in expressing his dislike for Mike Pence over the last week. Some (conservatives) don’t like it when an athlete or celebrity expresses his or her (typically liberal) political views. (Nevermind that our sitting president emerged from the cocoon of reality TV.)

That debate aside, what I’d like to consider is why it is still necessary and important for LGBT people to be out publicly. Even in 2018. Even the flamboyant figure skaters who leave casual observers little doubt that they are not heterosexual.

It is important to remember that homophobia is a wide array of attitudes and societal reactions to LGBT people that range from pernicious hate crimes to subtle phenomena that marginalize sexual minorities. The obvious verbal slurs, violence, or discrimination in employment or government services sometimes targeted against LGBT people are the blatant evidence that some in society have hardened prejudice against gay people. One hopes, though I am not sure this can always be quantified, that the incidence of these more egregious expressions of homophobia is less now than it has been in the past and that it will continue to decline into the future.

The more subtle manifestations of homophobia are perhaps more pervasive, and probably what most of us in the LGBT community struggle with most of the time. These are the ways in which individuals or society collectively puts down, excludes, and minimizes gay people without shoving them against a wall or refusing to sign their marriage license. We may not think about these forms of homophobia often, nor recognize that in order to protect ourselves we have internalized some of them too.

One of the most common expressions of subtle homophobia is invisibility. If LGBT people are quiet about their feelings, if they hide their partners, if they act straight then they don’t make others uncomfortable and they shield themselves from criticism or embarrassment. Invisibility is antithetical to self-empowerment, but it can be a tool of self preservation in situations of danger.

The invisibility of LGBT people preserves the monolithic heteronormative worldview. In an exclusively heterosexual world, only heterosexuality is portrayed in media. Romance in movies is straight. Love stories are straight. Marketing towards men and women reinforce heterosexual desires and relationships. Everything in society defaults to heterosexuality to the point that coming out is necessary because everyone is simply straight until the public is notified otherwise.

Invisibility is not healthy for young LGBT people. It is during the years when these youth first begin to understand that they are different, that observing examples of healthy, happy LGBT individuals is so critical. Young people need positive role models generally and non-heterosexual or non-cis-gender youth in particular need LGBT role models who can help them form a positive understanding of their sexuality. They need to know that there are older people like them in terms of sexuality and gender expression who come from every walk of life. They need to not just see, but hear, other LGBT people integrated in a normal way into broader society. The public visibility reinforces that they are not an aberration, or a mistake, but rather a normal and valuable human being.

Only in the last few years has a young LBGT person been able – through entertainment, sports, or otherwise – to see that other variations on human sexuality and relationships exist in broader society with any degree of regularity. I certainly saw very little to no expression of homosexuality or bisexuality on TV or in movies while growing up in the 1980s and 1990s. It has taken many brave people coming out over the years to reach a point where today gay and lesbian role models are gaining much greater visibility in sports, in science, in politics, and in business.

In a future hoped-for world, a gay flambuoyant figure skater like Adam Rippon might not feel much need to publicly state his sexual orientation. It may no longer be a brave step for a high school student to come out to her peers. But reaching that world that will require a shift in society. It is first necessary for the majority heterosexual population to remember that there are minority sexualities in their families, their workplaces, and their communities and that their representation in broader society is important. It is first necessary for media, sports, literature, and politics to create a comfortable space where people of all orientations and forms of gender expression can feel that they may freely be themselves.

When a LGBT person is vocal publicly about his or her sexuality, it is not an invitation for a conservative straight person reading Red State to ridicule them or feel they’re the victim of some inconvenience. That some antagonists of equality become so annoyed by our mere visibility in public spaces only reinforces their own insecurity or pettiness. When LGBT people become visible in the public sphere and not just out in their private lives, it breaks down the false narratives that only make room for heterosexuality in human society. Coming out can be a lifeline for the young gay person who is silent and nervous, wondering if there is anyone out there who is like him. Coming out is ultimately a process of personal liberation but it has benefits for others too, especially those still in the safety of invisibility. The triumph of self-belief is to be visible in a world that would often rather we remain invisible.

Why we leave

This weekend was general conference weekend for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While I would still agree with many thoughts expressed in recent conference sessions on topics such as service and forgiveness, I no longer believe many of the foundational doctrines of the church. In an effort to promote faith in the church and retain membership, sometimes leaders and members tend to simplify the reasons some decide to separate from Mormonism. This is an open letter to give some collective voice to why some Saints leave the fold.

Dear leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Most of us do not leave the Church because we are offended or because leaving is easy.

We leave because we have diligently read the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures and found anachronisms; miracles that are difficult to believe; and conflicts with western hemisphere archaeology, modern anthropology, and DNA studies of Native American populations.

We leave because we value reason and find over time that our deeper inquiry into Mormon history and doctrine culminates in an irreconcilable conflict between the Mormon worldview and what we learn of the universe from rational inquiry.

We leave because we find that the typical church narrative about Joseph Smith is inaccurate and incomplete. We struggle upon learning that there are multiple accounts of the First Vision, that Joseph took over 30 wives when some were still teenagers or married to other men, and that the Book of Mormon “translation” was closer to methods used in 19^th century treasure-seeking than one might expect in an inspired scholarly translation.

We leave because we are women, or men who believe that women can do anything a man can do, and yet find that in the church women have few substantive leadership roles; that they can never preside over a man in the modern church; and that there are numerous inequalities between how men and women are treated in the faith.

We leave because we are LGBT and after long and intense struggles to reconcile our internal truths with Mormon doctrine, we find that the Church has no fulfilling or empowering place for us in its doctrine. We remember the years of harmful rhetoric, condescension or misinformation at the hands of the church and ultimately conclude that a much healthier existence is waiting for us outside the church’s narrow understanding of sexuality and family.

We leave because we have long hoped for a church that more fully embraces a diversity of political viewpoints, but find instead that the institution has been more focused on using its social and political capital to obstruct civil justice for all Americans as it did with Proposition 8 in California.

We leave because despite our respect for many wonderful people in the faith, we are not comfortable with recent church priorities such as its obsession with modesty and pornography, the negative rhetoric about LGBT families, its efforts to excommunicate those who openly challenge church doctrine or practice, and its investment in billion dollar real estate enterprises. We cannot understand the lack of transparency in church finances or instances when church leaders have misled others. We ask why we hear more from Mormon leadership about tithing or temple attendance than about great societal problems such as poverty, economic and political corruption, or environmental destruction.

We leave because despite the great challenges this brings to us or our families, we find greater peace of conscience outside the religion. We respect your choice to stay, but we hope that in bolstering your own faith, you will not misunderstand or trivialize our motives for leaving.

Let's talk about the data

I’d be one of the first to admit that I enjoy reading the stories of LGBT people. When I first came out over two years ago, I devoured information on-line. Videos, blogs, essays – it was all so fascinating because I was finally seriously exploring a part of me that I had ignored and been ashamed of for so long. I read materials from across the spectrum of the gay Mormon experience, from those who intended to live a life consistent with conservative religious beliefs to those in open same-sex relationships who had left Mormonism behind. And although I now have a much better sense of where I fall personally on that spectrum, I still read a diversity of viewpoints. My personal friendships and acquaintances with gay people span this entire range too.

I appreciate these stories for their authenticity and their insight into how others think about and respond to some very challenging situations. I’ve learned a lot and seen different perspectives as I have tried to solidify my own feelings about my sexuality. In my encounters with these diverse stories, I can only give each writer or storyteller the benefit of the doubt. The gay Mormon dilemma is a very tough one – in a single individual there is a unique juxtaposition of two complex ways of interpreting human purpose and experience. Homosexuality and Mormonism often deeply clash. There are few easy synergies between how these two worldviews interpret experiences or prioritize values. I personally have been on two very different sides of the divide and I can empathize.

Stories have power. They have a profound ability to link us to others. We empathize with experiences similar to our own and we identify with the shared emotions. In my own quest to understand my sexuality, certain writings, though in the voice of others, tell parts of my story too. For instance, I’ve connected with Carol Lynn Pearson’s tender and heartbreaking accounts of the dissolution of her marriage to a gay husband. I’ve been reminded of my own past struggles when I read accounts by other gay Mormons who long believed that if they could just be righteous enough, God would free them from their attractions. Sorrow, confusion, loneliness, the liberation of self-acceptance – yes, I have felt that too!

Despite its great value, anecdote only takes us so far in the quest to understand the LGBT experience. As a scientist, I find that a very important issue is seldom addressed in discussions of homosexuality, especially in conversations that emerge from Mormonism. That missing piece is the guiding hand of science and empirical research. Many of the questions that society asks about homosexuality have, or can be, addressed by science. These include the origins of homosexuality, the sociological implications of same-sex relationships, and questions about the physical and psychological health of gay people.

Thankfully, some data are out there. Like any scientific endeavor, the answers are not yet complete. However, enough research is available to steer us in the right direction if we are open to incorporating it into our worldviews. That information can help us seriously re-evaluate prejudices and misunderstandings of the past. As examples, I’d like to very briefly tackle two questions.

One idea that is promulgated by some is that homosexuality is changeable or curable. This concept could arise, for example, from the belief that sexuality is a mental choice or that heterosexuality is the only “real” form of sexual expression. Often anecdotal accounts of individuals who have purportedly changed their sexuality are used in support of this notion. What has the research uncovered about this question?

A useful place to begin is a statement by the American Psychological Association in 2008 that noted, “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality…several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. … To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective”.

Recent studies do suggest that some LGB people can have fluid sexual identities. For example, in an investigation of long-term adult sexuality, Moch and Eibach (2011) found that for females, homosexuality and bisexuality appeared to be quite fluid. However, they also found that male homosexuality was nearly as stable as male heterosexuality. While some individuals may have changeable identities, this may not mean that the underlying attractions have diminished or disappeared. Additionally, while there are some published studies that claim to show evidence for a change in sexuality, the most celebrated of these – by Spitzer in 2003 – had serious methodological flaws and was retracted by its author recently. For a lot of people, being LGB is a permanent part of being human.

A second example is illustrated by a statement made in the Ensign magazine in 1974 by a Latter-day Saint doctor (not a general authority of the Church) in a Q&A feature: “Homosexuals and lesbians seldom are happy people. Theirs is a relationship that is unnatural, one not bound by fidelity, trust, or loyalty, and one totally lacking in the meaningful family relationships that marriage offers.”

Many assertions were packed into those two sentences. Some of them are testable with research. First, on whether homosexuality is “natural”, the APA statement referenced above concludes that it is a normal expression of human sexuality. Neill (2009) provided an extensive list of many animal species in which myriad same-sex behaviors have been documented. In other animal species, those behaviors include sexual play, diverse sexual acts and pair bonding. Same-sex behavior in animals may have several adaptive functions including the formation and maintenance of social groups, dissipation of group tension, practice for heterosexual activities later in life, and protection of partners in pair bonds (Bailey and Zuk 2009, Neill 2009).

On the stability of human homosexual relationships, Peplau et al. as far back as 1996 reported that “many lesbians and gay men establish lifelong partnerships”. They showed data from another study that looked at the success of gay versus heterosexual relationships. For couples that had been together for 10 or more years, separation rates (over an 18 month period) were equivalent for married couples (4%) versus gay and lesbian couples (4% and 6% respectively). For couples that had been together 2 years or less, separation rates were higher for gay and lesbian couples (16% and 22% respectively) than for married couples (4%), but about the same as for non-married heterosexual couples (17%). These latter statistics suggest that nothing is inherently worse about same-sex relationships, but rather they lend support to the notion that institutional sanction of relationships (marriage) is important for relationship stability. What an interesting finding as society currently discusses the merits of gay marriage!

How about happiness for LGBT individuals? It is well-known that gay and lesbian youth have much higher rates of suicide than their heterosexual counterparts. Is this because their sexuality is inherently flawed or is it due to homophobia or lack of acceptance? In a study of gay youth, Detrie and Lease (2007) discuss how social connections and perceived support are key for self esteem. Perceived support is also important for relationship success in gay adults, just as it is for heterosexual couples (Blair and Holmberg 2008). Perhaps rates of suicide in gay youth will decrease dramatically if they have markedly greater support from family, friends and society generally.

These are two broad examples of how research can inform our discussions of homosexuality. In applying science to the complexity of human experience, it is critical to remember just that – that individuals are complex and that collectively, human populations are variable and diverse. Therefore, means and medians do not always apply to every individual. You and I might find ourselves on the tail of a statistical distribution.

However, this variation does not undermine the value of science. First, empirical research is valuable because it helps reveal dominant trends in the human experience. For instance, if unbiased data show that a majority of mixed orientation marriages soon end in divorce after a gay spouse comes out, that is key information that can guide public policy and inform religious discourse about homosexuality. A young gay Mormon contemplating heterosexual marriage will be in a much better position to make informed choices if he or she knows something about the success rates of these marriages and the factors and compromises that tend to make them more likely to succeed.

In the formation of public policies that involve homosexuality, I believe that empirical research and protection of individual rights should always take precedence. On questions of gay adoption of children, same-sex marriage and non-discrimination ordinances, arguments backed by solid data should be given the most weight. Anecdote, belief and faith have their place in discourse, but I believe they should be subservient to science in the public sphere.

What about questions for which little or no data are available? How about highly inconclusive information? Questions about the root causes of homosexuality are one such matter where scientific consensus has not been reached. Some data suggests that genetics could play a role in the formation of sexual orientation (e.g., the incidence of dual homosexuality is statistically higher in gay identical twins; Kendler et al. 2000). There is likewise other evidence for a prenatal effect on homosexual development in men, possibly due to changes in maternal immune responses during later pregnancies (Bogaert 2006). But the jury is still out.

In cases like these, the path forward is clear – we need additional data and additional research. However, falling back on old assumptions or substituting unsubstantiated belief structures for empirical evidence isn’t usually productive. Anecdotes, even if numerous or compelling, are not a substitute for careful research.

One of the beauties of science is that it is both a collection of facts and a method of inquiry. As a method, it has a self correcting, almost revelatory nature. As new facts are uncovered, new techniques for discovery or analysis become available, and new hypotheses advanced, human understanding can move forward. Science has much to offer our discussions about homosexuality. As in other fields, findings are subject to the scrutiny of skepticism and the democracy of scientific discussion.

I have been motivated to help (in my own tiny way) bring science into discussions about homosexuality. Towards this end, on my personal blog, I have started a collection of links and citations that will help point interested readers to some sources of research about topics pertinent to homosexuality. In the coming months, I hope to expand content. I encourage all who have questions about homosexuality to visit those links and other quality sources of information. For my part, I plan to keep learning as I go. Our personal stories of what it is like to be gay, or have a gay relative, spouse or friend, touch our hearts. Empirical research more often speaks to our minds. Moving forward in conversations about homosexuality, I believe that we must embrace both. I am confident that in doing so, individuals, churches and communities will increasingly move in the direction of compassion, celebration and full equality for all LGBT people.

References

- Bailey and Zuk. 2009. Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:439-46.
- Blair and Holmberg 2008. Perceived social network support and well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social Personal Relationships 25:769-91.
- Bogaert. 2006. Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103:10771-4.
- Detrie and Lease 2007. The relation of social support, connectedness, and collective self-esteem to the psychological well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Homosexuality 53:173-99.
- Kendler et al. 2000. Sexual orientation in a US National Sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry 157:1843-6.
- Mock and Eibach. 2011. Stability and change in sexual orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 41:641-8.
- Neill. 2009. The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relationships in Human Societies. McFarland & Co, Inc. 470 pp.
- Peplau et al. 1996. Gay and lesbian relationships. Reprinted in Kimmel and Plante 2004. Sexualities.
- Spitzer. 2003. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior 32:403-17.

Pants and pink boxers

Mormon civil wars are not common, but there are some rumblings from time to time over history or doctrine that can enflame passions. The events of the last week – centered on pants – have generated a little more than the usual excitement. What happened? About a week ago, several LDS women organized a Facebook event inviting women to wear pants to Sunday services as a statement about gender inequalities in LDS culture. Supportive men were invited to participate by wearing purple shirts or ties to church.

By about midweek, roughly 1500 people had joined the event – a sizeable number, but clearly one that represents only a very small percentage of church membership. Within short order, it appeared, opposition and disapproval bombarded the original Facebook site. Comments included statements that the event was silly or juvenile, or that women didn’t need to try to be like men, or that the type of clothing a sister wore to church didn’t matter in the eyes of Jesus. Some of these comments had received thousands of “likes”. In fact, I recall seeing the “like” count tick up quite rapidly as the page was automatically updated every few seconds. Clearly, a backlash was in the making.

Valid debate aside, things also got stranger and uglier. In a spirit of shocking vulgarity, one of the comments left by an antagonist on the original page advocated lethal violence against all “minority activists”. Then, about mid week, the original Facebook page that advertised the event disappeared. Some speculate that the page was bombarded with so many complaints that it was taken down. If so, this was an ironic outcome since the pants advocacy was really fundamentally about having a greater voice in Mormonism. Later, I learned from an on-line discussion (though this would be impossible for someone like me to verify) that a bishopric in Colorado held an emergency meeting in which it was determined that a list of women wearing pants should be assembled so that “worthiness interviews” could be conducted. Such a tactic, if true, sounds closer to totalitarian intimidation than anything Christian leadership should be involved in. Apparently pants had become a real pain in the ass for some in conservative Mormonism.

Now briefly on the matter of pants, the LDS Church currently has no set rules on what women can and cannot wear to church, except that members should make an effort to be respectful and reverent. Those are the official rules. Sometimes however, because of strong social expectations that tend to permeate Mormonism, something as innocuous as pants versus dresses can become a big issue for some Latter-day Saints. The doctrine and the culture can get mixed up in the minds of members such that things like taking the sacrament (communion) with the proper hand (righties only), and the color of men’s shirts when they officiate in priesthood functions (white is respectful), and the kinds of language approved for prayer ('thee' and 'thine' are in; 'your' and 'yours' are out) take on a life of their own. Those cultural practices become quasi-doctrine and if a member strays from them, they might get a visual or vocal pat-down from someone in their local congregation.

With these details behind us, why the orthodox backlash? I can only speculate, but at least I can use history and collective personal experiences to guide those speculations. First, Latter-day Saint culture is very uncomfortable with dissent and criticism. This derives from some key doctrine: Mormons are taught that the Church is perfect and that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth. There is also a belief that the LDS Prophet, though human, teaches infallible doctrine, at least in settings like general conference. The cultural manifestation of this belief is that a fair amount of adulation goes on. Ordinary church members praise local leaders such as bishops and stake presidents, and local leaders revere the Apostles, and the Apostles bear public testimony of the Prophet and so forth. The corollary to this bottom-up reverence is that Mormon authority flows downward. Apostles are called by the Prophet, so they should be respected; stake presidents are appointed by general authorities, so they should be followed; other local leaders are called under the inspiration received by stake presidents, so they should be sustained; and so forth. This is all well and good if all of these men are really God’s servants and really teach nothing but truth.

Criticism doesn’t sit well with any of this. To criticize Church leadership at any level is to directly challenge their authority to act or speak in the name of God. More subtly, to fail to conform to specific Mormon practices (some rooted in official doctrine, others rooted more in culture as we’ve discussed above), shows a lack of faith in the divine calling of Church leaders or a lazy or disrespectful attitude. Constructive criticism or dissent has little role in this more orthodox version of Mormonism because God’s church is already reflective of God’s will and if changes were to be needed, they would happen through revelation through appointed leadership channels.

A second reason for the conservative backlash of the last week may stem from the very rigid views that orthodox Mormonism has about gender roles. This gets beyond pants and more to the heart of why some women organized the Sunday event in the first place. Gender is a really big topic in Mormonism touching everything from polygamy to working versus stay-at-home moms to homosexuality. In the case of pants, some of the backlash may have been a rejection of the notion that women do not already have all of the rights, privileges, and opportunities that they could ever need within Mormonism. True, I suspect that many women are perfectly happy in the roles and opportunities that are currently provided for them in the culture and doctrine of the church. But some are not. Some women may want greater leadership opportunities (currently women can only lead other women or children, never men). Some women may want greater validation if they choose to have a career and be a mother. Some women may want priesthood authority, just as the men have. A very enlightening perspective on some of the inequalities that women can face in Mormonism was put together on this website. Among the listed items are the lack of examples of women in scripture, the paucity of voices of women in church leadership meetings and general conference, and the vulnerable position that women in settings like confession and church discipline that are presided over only by men.

The final reason I’ll venture for this orthodox backlash against pants (again, very speculative on my part) may be due to Mitt Romney. Huh? Here is the line of reasoning: Mormons have historically been a very misunderstood and persecuted group of people. The early Saints were driven from settlements in Illinois, Missouri and Ohio and eventually settled in the barren Salt Lake Valley where they had the benefit of physical distance from hostile citizens. Shortly after settling in Utah however, the persecution ramped up again. This time antagonism came from the government, but now in connection with polygamy. A more peaceful balance between Mormonism and the rest of the world really wasn’t achieved until the 20th century, but even today Mormon doctrine is still regarded as strange by many people and many still know little about the church. So in part Mormon identity has become connected to the concept of being besieged and persecuted because of the long tradition of hostility directed towards the faith. Then arrives Mitt Romney recently in American politics, and Latter-day Saints finally have an unprecedented opportunity for acceptance. But, dashing the hopes of many Latter-day Saints, he is defeated in the presidential election. So putting these loose pieces together, the hypothesis is something like this: revolutionary doctrine -> historical persecution -> defensiveness -> a strong ethos of inter-group loyalty -> sour grapes about Mitt Romney + (dissent = bad) -> not happy with women in pants.

…

Given that I have a little bit of a rebellious streak, it was natural that I wanted to participate in pants-to-Church Sunday, even though I have not really attended Church very much since coming out as gay. I wasn’t brave enough nor warm blooded enough to go without pants, nor did I have a purple tie or shirt, so a blue shirt and pink tie had to suffice.

Well, it turned out that the whole event was a non-event in the sacrament meeting that I visited yesterday. Without staring down the congregation too much, I could discern only one sister in pants, and perhaps a single purple tie out of the corner of my eye. In my moderately-sized fairly sleepy town with several Mormon congregations, there was no revolution in the making. Some of the most noteworthy things during the meeting were the return missionary giving a talk while seated (he started feeling light-headed early on) and the billowing cumulous cloud of curly hair atop the young man that came by to offer me the sacrament. Oh, and there were my pink boxers, hidden evidence that I’m not quite the Mormon I used to be.

There is a degree of solidarity among the different groups that seek a greater voice and flexibility in Mormonism, whether they are academics, feminists, or gays. And because they share concerns about Mormon rigidity over gender roles, discontented women in the Church and disaffected LGBT Mormons share a common bond. Both groups tend to suffer from the insensitivity that bleeds into LDS culture from time to time, whether that is done in outright antagonism or because of the less insidious, but no less problematic, matter of ignorance. Some LDS women and gays are discontent because they feel that Mormonism is antagonistic towards their individuality. They do not exactly fit into the ideal family or pre-approved gender expectations.

Yet the dynamics of struggle in the church also differ for disaffected women and gays. For women, biological sex and gender are something that cannot be hidden, so a woman can constantly be a potential victim of scrutiny by others. If her degree of femininity is “lacking”, or if her life choices are somewhat different from the expected norm, she may be immediately open to criticism, even (? especially) from other women. However, the roles of women as mothers and wives are revered in LDS doctrine and culture, so at least her fundamental value as a human being is reaffirmed throughout Mormonism. For some women who tend to gravitate towards less “traditional” paths, the price of that affirmation may seem to be conformity to other’s expectations.

Human sexuality on the other hand is generally a very private matter and is often not discernable in a public setting. While the invisibility of sexual orientation can be a refuge for LGBT people determined to stay in the closet, it has also meant that gay issues have long been neglected in the Church. Issues that are neglected tend to only progress very slowly. Insensitive or even hateful comments may come from fellow Saints who have no idea that their words are being heard by LGBT people right next to them. The silence of sexuality tends to turn inward into cancerous emotions that suggest things such as: God does not love you; you are unworthy because you cannot change these attractions; you need to hide who you are so that no one ever knows this vile secret you carry. When Church members associate homosexuality with words like ‘unnatural’ or ‘perverse’, even the sense of worth of a gay person’s life can be questioned.

I will never know the struggles that women have faced or continue to face in a world that doesn’t always recognize their equality. As a man I can choose a career or fatherhood or both with little criticism from broader society. But as a gay person, I did not choose the sexuality that I have. It comes with its own set of challenges and limitations. A woman’s sex is constantly visible, like her pants at Church, subject to discussion and debate or maybe a smile from another person that sees beyond notions of set roles and responsibilities. My sexuality is largely invisible, like my pink boxers, but it is as close to my true self as all my other core attributes. Women in pants and men in pink boxers. Can’t the Church celebrate all of us?