Trump decrees "There are only two Genders"

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, it turns out that there are programs used by various web search engines that look at the language used in a web site. We get user questions because the search engines look not only at our knowledge on a question topic, but also about secondary issues such as whether we use foul language or offer insults. Excessive language violations or excessive insulting responses will lower our score and will redirect traffic to other sites. That is, our site suffers if we are seen as a bunch of rowdy and rude people. Suffers in a way that would cut into Jon's revenues.

Therefore, although I replied to Isaac's comment as a site member, for a brief moment I had to act as a moderator and warn folks that we were straying into an area that could cost the forum. I once used that euphemism in the past and you asked me how many hats I had. At the time, the answer was "not very many" - and it is still true. But I wear the hat of an ordinary member as well as that of a moderator.

 

[ColinEssex]

. . . . but also about secondary issues such as whether we use foul language or offer insults. Excessive language violations or excessive insulting responses will lower our score and will redirect traffic to other sites.

Well I know at least one person here who uses foul language and personal insults. In fact I was toying with reporting them. I wonder if their foul mouth has lost the site trade.
Col

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Doc, I'm a moderator on another site and one of our forums is for members only and isn't searchable (in spite of this Admin prohibits political discussions because they got too personal).

Could this forum be members only?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@AngelSpeaks - We do have a couple of forums that control who can post. There is a VIP forum for which you have to be declared a VIP, and a moderator forum that requires you to be a moderator. We also have forums that are moderated in that you can post but until a moderator approves, the post isn't visible. However, the Watercooler is supposed to be a place for all members that has minimal censoring, though it still has to stay in line with the general non-abuse policy. The more direct issue at this moment is that Jon doesn't want to censor the forums. I cannot speak to the future since I'm (a) only a moderator and (b) a USA citizen who has different views about censorship than some non-USA citizens might have. Jon IS aware of this issue and is considering options. Beyond that, I cannot say.

@ColinEssex - I understand your concern. I would counsel patience in reporting anyone at the moment. Jon and I have discussed this in an offline venue and I understand that SOME policy changes COULD be required, though I am uncertain as to any details. My best advice is to wait until that all settles before doing anything drastic.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Doc. I mean these forums are for members only to see and post. Members must be signed in to see and post. It gives members more privacy. In fact in my other forum, members seeking answers for a client situation will post there so clients can't see the posts.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Doc. I mean these forums are for members only to see and post. Members must be signed in to see and post. It gives members more privacy. In fact in my other forum, members seeking answers for a client situation will post there so clients can't see the posts.

No, guests can also see these forums. Sometimes when I come in via cell phone but don't sign in, I can still browse around in the tech and "chatty" forums. Can't touch the VIP or Moderator forums - don't even get the chance because they don't show up in the forum list. But we are highly public. In the past it has lured folks to join our forums after lurking for a while.

 

[Isaac]

it doesn't work

Says who? Nobody who went through that process successfully , just about, is going to testify, it's too embarassing for them.
So you really have absolutely no idea who might have had homosexual leanings in their early years and yanked themselves out of it.

 

[Isaac]

You appear to be describing Homosexuality as a curable disease, which by all measures I have been made aware if it is not.
That leads to a very dark place.

Edit: The doc man beat me to it.

I'm just challenging Doc's reasoning for saying it's not, which by the way, as you referred to history, is quite 'new' in and of itself, and may not be entirely right.

I'm challenging the basic reasons that, well Isaac it must be normal because
1) it's hard to change
2) there's a biological basis for it
3) "I like me the way I am"
4) "I don't really want to change it"

I've already discussed thoroughly in 2 previous posts why all of those reasonings fail, especially when compared to other curable diseases which are also
1) hard to change
2) have a biological basis
3) a majority of people with the problem don't care or want to change
4) changing is a messy process that often pains people in the process

I won't re-state what I've already said, as I reviewed it just now and it's pretty thorough.

Once again, we agree to disagree and that's OK.

 

[Isaac]

If you consider the behavior of various mammals, their proclivity for finding places to "poke" appears unlimited, and certain NOT limited by the gender of the entity being approached

that is perhaps the only good point that I have no answer for. You're right, they do.

that said, nobody would consider gay animals to be 'normal', in the sense that if too many were like that, animals would cease to exist, which obviously hasn't happened. [sigh] - I take that back, I am sure if you google it that someone has already said gay animals are normal.
I guess this gets too into the semantic uselessness of debating the word 'normal', which wasn't really my intent and gets us nowhere so disregard that aspect of it.

 

[Minty]

I think the challenge is the use of the words curable and disease.
It's all perspective and subjective.

I also think you are conflating the ability and necessity to reproduce, against someone's (somethings) innate behaviour.
One does not exclude the other, and never has done.

Remember that Homosexuality was extremely common in Ancient Roman culture, and not seen as abnormal.
This was before Christians and Muslims even existed.

Only since the arrival of certain religions/rulers/governments/dictators when they decided they didn't like it has it been seen as not normal.

 

[Isaac]

It is indeed interesting, if it is true that ancient Romans considered it normal. I would hazard a guess, however, that it being considered abnormal has also existed in some/certain cultures practically since the beginning of humans. I suppose the back and forth renders the recent change to "normal" even less significant, given it's gone back and forth in various societies at various times.

I agree that it's highly subjective and perspective-driven. I personally think the rush to declare it normal in most recent times and declare all gay conversion therapy bad was based on a limited amount of information available, I have personally known people who had gay leanings when they were young and ended up happily married to the opposite sex, and I have known like 5 people who were happily married to the opposite sex and turned gay only after extreme repeated explicit exposure to that scene due to a drug addiction. And we ALL know that prisons are ripe for gay activity despite not all the willing participants having been gay going in - that happened due to a severe deprivation of sex and exposure to the opportunity and basically those aspects alone.

So I am not saying that anyone and everyone can easily change it, but I also disagree with the most modern/liberal position on it. I think both are incorrect and incomplete. IMHO, plenty of people have strong sexual urges of various types and many of them successfully constrain them or wean themselves off of that desire, often due to religious beliefs or legal constraints.

 

[Isaac]

@Minty
I would argue that the 'extreme acceptance/embrace' of gay pride and homosexuality have led us to very dark places:

In cities you now have festivals where grown men strip to the nude and dance and gyrate in front of audiences where children are present.
If you don't think that's a dark place, you've been powerfully conditioned ...

That fact, leads me to believe that our corporate sense of urgency to 'accept' gays has gone to ridiculous places which are obviously wrong, and ought to make you rethink the whole thing a bit. In going that far, there is an undermining that makes me question the whole thing as inflated , blustering, frenetic desperation to prove we are OK with something.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Says who?

Your comment was in response to my statement, "It doesn't work" - referencing "conversion therapy."

The link below leads to a scholarly paper describing the result of a study over the period from 2000 to 2020 in the U.K. regarding many questions about conversion therapy including reasons why people agreed to it, what result they experienced, and consequences or aftermath. It is NOT a short read, but Isaac, it WILL give you some decent evidence in answer to your question. And once you read this, you will understand why I say that "gay conversion therapy" does not work and even can be harmful.

Conversion therapy: an evidence assessment and qualitative study

www.gov.uk

In this study, look at section 1.2, list item 3, and all of section 6, particularly 6.4 detailing whether conversion therapy is harmful. Your question "Says who?" is fair. You want proof. I will return the fairness by answering with one specific research report. This is NOT the only possible report, but this one is extensive and contains both statistics and case studies, plus conversion participant testimony. You want proof? Start reading. Take your time. But ALSO in fairness, when you have read enough to see why I said what I said, let me know if this helped in your understanding.