Do you support a public LGBT Subforum?

[Drolefille]

Doesn't have to be a DIR. We can figure out what color it is after. I just want an LGBT subforum, period.

I'm saying I don't want it to be Green/Blue/Purple, but just a General Discussion. Not a DIR at all.

So I don't support it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm saying I don't want it to be Green/Blue/Purple, but just a General Discussion. Not a DIR at all.

So I don't support it.

What do you see as the downsides of a Green DIR?

 

[Thruve]

What do you see as the downsides of a Green DIR?

Maybe Favoritism? Though I do support it, it's simply just a sexual orientation, Unless there's plans to correlate homosexuality with religion. I wouldn't imagine much discussion to happen in that DIR to begin with.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe Favoritism? Though I do support it, it's simply just a sexual orientation, Unless there's plans to correlate homosexuality with religion. I wouldn't imagine much discussion to happen in that DIR to begin with.

Trans issues are not a sexual orientation. Though, the confusion is easy to understand and it's one of the reasons some of the GLBT community want to separate the T because it is not an issue of sexuality.

 

[Thruve]

Trans issues are not a sexual orientation. Though, the confusion is easy to understand and it's one of the reasons some of the GLBT community want to separate the T because it is not an issue of sexuality.

True, yea.

 

[Thruve]

If there's any transsexuals here, and your willing to be open, I have many questions I'd like to ask to have a better understanding.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If there's any transsexuals here, and your willing to be open, I have many questions I'd like to ask to have a better understanding.

Oh, goodie, I've been waiting for an excuse to revamp this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/social-world/163431-ask-transgender-transsexual-person.html

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If there's any transsexuals here, and your willing to be open, I have many questions I'd like to ask to have a better understanding.

Ask them to your heart's content.

 

[Thruve]

Ask them to your heart's content.

He gave me a thread that answered almost all of the questions I had, and some more xD I have a few more I'll ask on the thread, just to keep this one on topic.

 

[Drolefille]

What do you see as the downsides of a Green DIR?

I think the use of a DIR for this is complicated - is it only for GSMs (something I find preferable to LGBT for inclusiveness sake), or are allies equal participants? "LGBT" isn't an ideology or a religion, which makes having a DIR a very blurry line. I wouldn't want to see DIRs based on Race or Gender status.

I think the Rainbow Room is a good thing because of its relative privacy for those who are talking about some very personal things and not always topics for which there's a lot of public acceptance. The presence of the Rainbow Room allows GSM to have a semi-private place. But it is still a private discussion room rather than a DIR.

If the DIR level of moderation is necessary for this topic then it's a trolling problem anyway. If the Green moderation is all inclusive than it isn't necessary.


So that's a bit rambly, to summarize:

• There's a Rainbow Room already, so there's a GSM DIRish area of the forum.
• I agree with having a public area of the forum to discuss GSM topics.
• I don't think that DIRs should be based on static traits of people - race, gender, age, etc. (I'll note the Feminism and Men's Issue's DIRs are not this, they're ideological.)
• There isn't a unified LGBT ideology.
• Moderation in a discussion forum should address trolling anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

• There's a Rainbow Room already, so there's a GSM DIRish area of the forum.

I will grant that the difference may sometimes be hard to figure, but I do not agree.

There are two important differences between the Rainbow Room and this hypothetical Green DIR.

1. A Green DIR may be freely contributed to by anyone as long as a certain care to avoid debate is applied. The Rainbow Room can only be contributed to by those who make a point of applying to it.

2. Even more significant is that the Rainbow Room can only be seen by those who are subscribers, and therefore is not very useful to raise consciousness among casual forum users.

 

[Drolefille]

I will grant that the difference may sometimes be hard to figure, but I do not agree.

There are two important differences between the Rainbow Room and this hypothetical Green DIR.

1. A Green DIR may be freely contributed to by anyone as long as a certain care to avoid debate is applied. The Rainbow Room can only be contributed to by those who make a point of applying to it.

2. Even more significant is that the Rainbow Room can only be seen by those who are subscribers, and therefore is not very useful to raise consciousness among casual forum users.

I said DIRish for a reason. I feel that a Discussion group would be appropriate - "membership" isn't required and it is still prohibited to debate there, correct?

A Green DIR wouldn't eliminate the need/want for the Rainbow Room as it's a much more private sort of space. A discussion would fill the gap.

My concern about DIR membership based on identity rather than ideology still stands. As do the rest of my points, you can't just address one in isolation.

 

[LuisDantas]

I said DIRish for a reason. I feel that a Discussion group would be appropriate - "membership" isn't required and it is still prohibited to debate there, correct?

That is indeed true, to the best of my knowledge. Just as much as it is true of the Green DIRs.

A Green DIR wouldn't eliminate the need/want for the Rainbow Room as it's a much more private sort of space. A discussion would fill the gap.

Agreed.

My concern about DIR membership based on identity rather than ideology still stands. As do the rest of my points, you can't just address one in isolation.

Maybe I am not understanding you well enough. A green DIR is supposed to be open for anyone who wants to respectfully participate on it. No identification with the host group is necessary.

 

[Drolefille]

Maybe I am not understanding you well enough. A green DIR is supposed to be open for anyone who wants to respectfully participate on it. No identification with the host group is necessary.

Correct, but then why does it need to be a DIR. The concept of the DIRs is that people who identify with the host group are in fact the hosts. They could in fact change the color of the DIR by vote, so there will be an identified group. It seems bizarre to me to define that group based on their identity not their ideology. Would we create a racially based DIR? A Blond(e) group? All the other DIRs that I can see are ideologically based, and so I don't like that change.

Why does this need to be a DIR and not a subcategory of Social/General Discussion/etc? If the purpose is to discuss GSM issues, then that would make far more sense to me than creating a DIR. If the issue is to have a safe(r) space to talk about GSM matters, that's the Rainbow room. Which I would think needs to remain "private" for that reason.

There's also a sense of ghettoization of the GSM topics, most of the time they fit right alongside everything else: politics, relationships, social world, family, etc. But I acknowledge they don't always. I think a DIR would be more likely to encourage that ghettoization than a discussion group.

I don't want Green or Blue or Purple, if it's going to exist I want it to be black.

 

[DreadFish]

I like Drolle's idea of making it a sub-section of the discussion forums such as the Social World or Sexuality forums.

The Rainbow Room makes for a good private place to discuss, so there' not a good reason to make an exclusive section in the public forums; that would be a bit redundant.

Do we actually consider the pink political sub-forums and the men's issues subform to be DIRs?

 

[Aquitaine]

We have the Rainbow Room but that's private and not very active. There is also really nowhere for transgender/transsexual topics to go and that leaves me feeling very left out and confused as to where to put those topics and so they end up all over the place. So a general subforum for LGBT topics seems like the best fix for this.

What say you?

Yeah, I don't see why not. To be honest, I'm surprised to hear there currently isn't one.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't think that DIRs should be based on static traits of people - race, gender, age, etc. (I'll note the Feminism and Men's Issue's DIRs are not this, they're ideological.)

The Men's Issues subforum is not about ideology and has no connections to any political movement. It is there to discuss men's issues, not to spread MRA propaganda.

 

[Drolefille]

The Men's Issues subforum is not about ideology and has no connections to any political movement. It is there to discuss men's issues, not to spread MRA propaganda.

I was giving it the benefit of the doubt to be a non-extremist MRA ideology sort of area. Regardless, it isn't a "Men" DIR and I'd probably also argue for that to be a Discussion group instead had I been around at the time, or had a vested interest in that specific area.

As I have a specific interest in the GSM area and the discussion is occurring now, it's more important to me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How many more votes will this need?

 

[Estro Felino]

I thought that there was already one
Isnt't there any? what a pity!!
my answer is yes yes yes yes yes and again yes