How Many of You Want a "LGBTI and Allies Only" Subforum?

[Kirran]

If with Allies, it would still be a place for LGBT+ issues and topics (sexuality, but also identity, politics, rights, discrimination, family, spirituality) to be discussed in a sympathetic atmosphere.

 

[The Mormonator]

Yes or Yes? Those are the only options?

 

[Kirran]

Yes or Yes? Those are the only options?

The idea of the poll was to see how many people there are who'd want to use such a sub forum. There's no point seeing how many people wouldn't, because it's the demand that matters.

The site doesn't allow polls of one option.

 

[Augustus]

Yes or Yes? Those are the only options?

Put it this way, if you were doing market research for a tampon manufacturer you wouldn't be interested in how many men are not going to use your product...

 

[The Mormonator]

Then why make it a "poll" if there is only one option. Ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes or Yes? Those are the only options?

Ok, I'll do your homework for you.

Here's a thread in the General Debates Forum for people to debate whether or not there should be an LGBT Only subforum: LGBTI DIR request.

Now, as repeatedly stated in this thread:

This thread, on the other hand, is not for debating whether or not there should be an LGBT Only subforum. This thread is to help us find out how many people want such a subforum.

Now, if you think about it, I'm sure you'll see that there's no point in asking how many people don't want an LGBT Only subforum in a thread whose purpose is to ask how many people do want an LGBT subforum.

 

[Sunstone]

Put it this way, if you were doing market research for a tampon manufacturer you wouldn't be interested in how many men are not going to use your product...

Good analogy!

 

[The Mormonator]

Ok, I'll do your homework for you.

Here's a thread in the General Debates Forum for people to debate whether or not there should be an LGBT Only subforum: LGBTI DIR request.

Now, as repeatedly stated in this thread:

This thread, on the other hand, is not for debating whether or not there should be an LGBT Only subforum. This thread is to help us find out how many people want such a subforum.

Now, if you think about it, I'm sure you'll see that there's no point in asking how many people don't want an LGBT Only subforum in a thread whose purpose is to ask how many people do want an LGBT subforum.

Ok, I'll make it easier for you. If it's not a poll, then why set it up as a poll......with only one way to answer?

 

[Sunstone]

Ok, I'll make it easier for you. If it's not a poll, then why set it up as a poll......with only one way to answer?

OK. In return, I'll make it even easier for you: The poll is a means for us to get a count of how many people are interested in an LGBT+ Only Subforum.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, I'll make it easier for you. If it's not a poll, then why set it up as a poll......with only one way to answer?

Food analogies make everything clearer & tastier.

It's like taking a lunch order.
I'm going to Chela's to buy tacos.
Who wants one?
See.....I only need to hear from those who vote <yes>.
(Their tacos are wonderful, btw.)
Forums are like tacos.

 

[Apex]

For those wondering why only those who would use the forum have been asked to weigh in, you can view this thread showing what happened the last time a controversial DIR was suggested:
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/mens-issues-masculism-dir.150449/

You basically had a bunch of people bash the idea of having a Men's rights DIR when their opinion should not have even mattered because they wouldn't have been using the forum in the first place. It led to a giant CF of a thread.

 

[McBell]

I personally don't think an LGBT subforum should be a DIR, anyway. I think it should just be for general topics about the subject.

Seems to me Digital_Monk is proof otherwise....

 

[McBell]

I thought this was a "religious" forum. Leggy Butts have their own sites out there, don't they?

This is a religious education forum.
Is it your thought that LGBTI are not religious?

Seems like the OP is not the only thing you should read.....

 

[McBell]

Then why make it a "poll" if there is only one option. Ridiculous if you ask me.

Interesting.
But it begs the question:

Who asked you?​

 

[MysticSang'ha]

How many of you good folks want a "LGBTI and Allies Only" Subforum?

LGBTI stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Intersexed. The actual name of the subforum will not be finalized unless and until it is decided to create it.

The purpose of this poll is to get an idea of how many people are for such a subforum -- not how many people are against it. That's because we don't expect people who are against it to actually be forced to use it. Thus there is only one way to vote, and that is to vote to show you would like such a subforum.

Please do not use this thread to bash or criticize the idea of a LGBTI subforum. If such a subforum is created, people who are not interested in it, nor want to use it, will not be forced to.

Please use this thread to make suggestions about the specifics of the subforum. e.g. what name should it have? Should it be LGBTI and Allies Only or LGBTI Only? etc.

This poll will remain open for 10 days.

I voted Yes. Keep the Rainbow Room for the closeted. But open a DIR for us queer folks so we can have discussions without derailment.

Derailment isn't against the rules. It's a debate tactic and is used in the open forums often and generously. But it isn't effective for communities who often face religious and cultural rhetoric and legislation that is marginalizing. We find ourselves having to stop what we are talking about to address why we are human beings just like they are and deserve the same rights and freedoms like they enjoy.

That's fine in debates. I sometimes really really really don't want to debate about why bisexuals aren't lying and delusional demon-children. I sometimes want to share with fellow non-heterosexual folks about an article or a bit of research and actually stay on topic.

(Saying this tongue-in-cheek)...I predict if this forum is created, though, that there will be the reactionaries who will want a Straight Pride forum for heterosexual people. This forum would be requested for people who want to talk about how hard it is being a straight person these days, and how hard and unfair life is not being able to say f***ot anymore.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Far better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Like others have said, some people might not want to out themselves publically just yet - those who aren't worried about being open and are willing to help correct ignorance on the subject the rest of us may have should be able to do so.

I'm all for trying to "breathe new life" into what we already have than neglecting it. I'd love to see the Rainbow room live on, but it's pretty much just collecting dust and cobwebs.

To those saying it should be a DIR...DIR still stands for "Discuss Individual Religion" doesn't it?

It does. But, in a general sense, we also have a liberals only, feminists only, capitalists only, and so on. I feel the GLBT community should have such a place. Not a DIR, persay (I've noticed it tends to be lost on new members anyways), but something with the same rules.

that LGBT should even have to have a place protected from insults and harassment.

We already have members calling us mentally ill, smelly, stinky, abnormal sinners who are bringing about a bunch of negativity and make it an implicit goal of attack the church and destroying family values.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We already have members calling us mentally ill, smelly, stinky, abnormal sinners who are bringing about a bunch of negativity and make it an implicit goal of attack the church and destroying family values.

You forgot that you're being accused of being unable to commit to serious relationships, or to feel love (as opposed to lust).

 

[BSM1]

I


We already have members calling us mentally ill, smelly, stinky, abnormal sinners who are bringing about a bunch of negativity and make it an implicit goal of attack the church and destroying family values.

I thought they were talking about me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here is my take after good thought over cookies and soda.

Point: There should be a subforum for GBLTI etc Sub-form (pros and cons)

Religious Forums is not just Religious in nature. There are also political forums and everything else under the kitchen sink. So, going by that, GBLTI doesnt need to be religious in nature for it to have its own sub-form.

Reasons?

1. Allows for open discussion between GBLTIetc individuals in a comfortable and open area.

This helps for a couple of reasons. One is political. There shouldnt a separate but equal or gay bathroom type of thing. If feminist can talk about feminist topics in the general debates, general discussion, politics, debates, and their own forum; I would assume GBLTI forum would act the same.

2. Allowing the GBLTI forum to be DIR would help with a couple of things.

Allies can still post questions just as any other person not GBLTI. Posting questions and maybe brief discusion on the questions asked may help questioners get an idea of what he or she wants to know. Or how to support their child who they found out is GBLTI or anything like that.

Being in a private forum would exclude readers from starting to feel comfortable to ask small questions to start in the open. Keep the private room, but the public room would help a lot too.

3. Keeping outsiders from bashing GBLTI individuals isnt to be overlooked. Really. You have well meaning outsiders who ask questions that have complete misconceptions. Given there is no DIR, their bias can exclude them from listening to others and turn it into a debate based on differing morals.

Instead, the DIR rule will enforce (hopefully) outsiders to concencrate on learning and asking questions rather than debating someones identity. People can be cruel even if they dont mean to be.

Maybe put a description under the sexuality section so that individuals who would like brief discussions over their questions in the GBLTI DIR can bring it there so they have more understanding of what they ask in a more than question and answer format.

I do see some drawbacks.

4. Staff that are not GBLTI may have some bias and find it hard to decern who is asking a legitimate sexual oriented question and what is actually against RF rules as being sexually provocative. Believe me, in these forums, I think straight people are talking about C/m in a sexual and provocative way only to find out if they used the word semen, the context would have been more respectful and more informative.

5. This goes for RF members too. Drawing the line between whats appropriate and whats not is hard in a sexual oriented DIR given the rules say its 18 and up to register but we talk about things that should be 21 and up. So, with that note, a little more emphasis on the Private Rooms would help if the Rainbow room will still exist and hopefully more noticable when people "sign up."

On that note. I didnt know what the Rainbow Room was for until I asked. Not many of us have good noodles since we are in different parts of the world. As such, maybe a description under the groups would help people identify which group they fall under. I was looking up under each group description under the forums to see what type of "theist" RF allows in the group section and what type of Christian is allowed (for those who dont practice mainstream christianity)

Same for GLBTI. Find some guiding lines defned by the people themselves.

6. Puts more extra work on the staff because of the above. I dont know what the staff actually does; but, cleaning out all the sexual convo and figuring out whose helping who given the DIR nature is by itself a headache for my even typing it.

More advice

7. If you decide not to make a GBLTI sub-section, maybe expand the description of the sexuality sub-forum or make the Rainbow Room public. If we can have "Men's Issues" sub-forum, Im sure GBLTI wouldnt be a problem. What about "Women's Issues?" We dont have that. Also, what if a transgender male (if Im getting my terminology/meanings right forgive me) wants to discuss "women problems" in the womans room (if there was one), would she be able to--if it were a DIR? Thats another reason for GBLTI.

There are rooms we dont really need (coming from a members perspective, of course)

1. Ethics and Morals under philosophy doesnt have any other sub-sections. Maybe take that out and stick with the Philosophy Forum.

2. Who has used the "Award Nominations" lately?
3. Food and Beaverages can go under The Living World as a sub-forum
4. The Garden talk and The Green World are pretty much the same thing. Snip one.
5. Under entertainment, we have games. Yet, we already have games/quizes/etc above under General Discsussion. Either or would do. Id keep it under General Discussion and snip the Entertainment. Im assuming the Entertainment has to do with t.v.,media, etc not games.
6. The Tutoring room under The Social World hasnt been used in ages and Why Home Town? That can be sniped
7. Consumer affairs under Material world can be sniped. That can be talked about in General discussions among other places
8. We rarely use The Interview Place. I personally wouldnt have it based on usage... but then..

Thats about it.

I hope this is taken into consideration at the least.

Thanks.

 

[Flankerl]

If with Allies, it would still be a place for LGBT+ issues and topics (sexuality, but also identity, politics, rights, discrimination, family, spirituality) to be discussed in a sympathetic atmosphere.

Well what about the LGBs who dislike being associated with the TIs, etc.?

This is not a small group as they draw a line between Sexuality and Identity politics.

If we can have "Men's Issues" sub-forum

Which is not a DIR. Not that they want it as a DIR.

What about "Women's Issues?" We dont have that.

There is a Feminism only DIR.