| |
The Transition Team is discussing this and I hope that some formal statements
will be forthcoming, where necessary and appropriate, in due time. Meanwhile I
hope everyone can discuss aspects of this calmly and rationally (which in my
view everyone has been doing great at so far!)
The following is just my personal thought processes at work, not official
position. Some of it I think is close to how I hope offical position comes out,
though.
In lugnet.people, Saskia van Doesburg wrote:
> A gaygroup isn't about sex, it's about understanding eachother and not having to
> explain everyting. Some people (no one in particular) seem to think
> homosexuality is about sex. It is not!
I totally agree. It's no more (or less) about sex than everything else in the
world is about it.
> I think it would be nice to have a GLBT-group. I would certainly participate.
> Just as an example: when I participate in chats and talk about my girlfriend,
> everyone (those that don't know) thinks I'm a guy. I'm not (I'm gay, hahaha).
> I'm tired of having to explain everytime. I know, I don't have to if I don't
> want to, but if people know, everyting is just so much easier.
That makes sense to me. But, would anyone be welcome to post in such a group?
I'm het and I think most people know it. But not *everyone* is well known. So if
someone posts there, is it implied they are gay? I have an interest in gay
issues (1) and gay culture (2), so it would seem to me that I ought to be
welcomed there, as would anyone else.
So unless this group is a ghetto, where you have to have bonafides to post, it
seems to me that you might well not have completely eliminated the
misidentification. Is that a valid observation? It's true that misidentification
would be less prevalent and would tend to run the other way so that's something
anyway.
I'd like to see that resolved or at least addressed but it's not a show stopper
to me, just an observation.
I guess I personally am in the camp that doesn't see why people would *want*
this group. Personally, it seems marginalising.
But I do not think that my view *matters*. If there is a self selected subgroup
of the hobby that wants a group under .people, and they want it for benign
reasons, I am tending to think that the request should be granted. It can always
fall into disuse if it doesn't work out. Adherence to the ToS would be expected
there, as anywhere.
As for the .org request, that seems even MORE clear cut. Any club or
organisation that is LEGO related, with very very limited exceptions (3) ought
to get a group somewhere in the .org hierarchy if they want one. They don't
*have* to want one if they don't want to want one, but if they *do* want one,
and they have legitimacy (one guy saying he is a club does not a club make) the
request ought to be (and I think would be) granted almost automatically as soon
as the need is identified.
As I said that's my thinking and my thinking only. I hope it is found helpful.
++Lar
1 - as a libertarian, as well as personally, I lost a very dear uncle to AIDS
very early in the epidemic.
2 - as someone who wants to improve their style sense, or at least someone whose
wife wants them to(4)
3 - we've been using the "Aryan Nation LEGO Fans" (5) as a reducio ad absurbium
example in discussions
4 - sorry for stereotyping gay people as being more stylish and "with it"
5 - because KKK was too confusing!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) I think Kevin has a very good point in his post: [quote] A group like this is useful for the same reason that LGBT concert bands, choirs, softball teams, gardening clubs, book clubs, square dancing groups, churches, RV'er and camping groups, (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
207 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
