Lesbian Gay Bisexual AND TRANSGENDER

Nevyn

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That’s quite interesting.

I would have thought this illustrated how far the lgb community has become accepted within society. Now the aberrant behaviour is seen as just that, just as it would be in society as whole.

I disagree, society as a whole will now tolerate those who are gay but straight acting, I don't see that as acceptance.

Boston

Thaedydal wrote: »

Actually the most prolific male posters in the S&S forum aren't heterosexuals

They don't post anymore though

Rev Hellfire

Thaedydal wrote: »

I disagree, society as a whole will now tolerate those who are gay but straight acting, I don't see that as acceptance.

Is your point is basically people who act conventionally are accepted, but those who don't aren't ?

If thats the case then its no longer really a gay/straight issue.
Or perhaps you see "straight acting" as some else and if so what.

Tricity Bendix

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Is your point is basically people who act conventionally are accepted, but those who don't aren't ?

If thats the case then its no longer really a gay/straight issue.
Or perhaps you see "straight acting" as some else and if so what.

I agree with this.

The pressure to conform with societal norms is felt by all groups. If it has become the case that a "straight acting" homosexual is accepted for who he is then sexuality is no longer an issue. If the flaming queen gets hassled its because of his behaviour, not because of who he sleeps with.

Boston

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I agree with this.

The pressure to conform with societal norms is felt by all groups. If it has become the case that a "straight acting" homosexual is accepted for who he is then sexuality is no longer an issue. If the flaming queen gets hassled its because of his behaviour, not because of who he sleeps with.

And what of the effeminate gay guy? Does he have it coming also?

Rev Hellfire

Boston wrote: »

And what of the effeminate gay guy? Does he have it coming also?

The point is the effeminate guy gets hassled because they're effeminate, not because they're gay. Or do you think it would be different for a effeminate straight guy ?

Nevyn

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The point is the effeminate guy gets hassled because they're effeminate, not because they're gay. Or do you think it would be different for a effeminate straight guy ?

I think it is, I have seen people's reactions change to an effeminate guy when they see he is with his wife.

Being gay is still consider by the majority to be an aberration and they dislike being made aware of it, or as some but it having it shoved in their face :rolleyes:

Rev Hellfire

Thaedydal wrote: »

Being gay is still consider by the majority to be an aberration

By the majority? I would have thought it would be more accepted by now, but I'm willing to accept I might be wrong.

Boston

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The point is the effeminate guy gets hassled because they're effeminate, not because they're gay. Or do you think it would be different for a effeminate straight guy ?

It's moronic regardless of sexuality.

Nevyn

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

By the majority? I would have thought it would be more accepted by now, but I'm willing to accept I might be wrong.

if that were the case there would not be a need for forums like this, or gay bars or gay sites and there would be full and proper marriage for people.

Rev Hellfire

Boston wrote: »

It's moronic regardless of sexuality.

Noone's arguing about that.

azezil

Boston wrote: »

It's moronic regardless of sexuality.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but does that mean you believe 'men should behave like men' and 'women should behave like women'?

And who sets these so called standards to which men and women should conform?

Goodshape

This is an interesting topic.

Have to say - I do find it annoying that, whether they are a majority or not (hard to tell), the effeminate gays seem to dominate 'gay culture'.

Good luck to those who want to be "sexually free", "gender free", break down taboo's or whatever... if you want me to sign a petition, I'd be happy to... but to be perfectly honest, I'm also quite happy to show the world that being gay doesn't really define my character or personality.

Do we really need men in thongs and public displays of sexuality to be openly accepted and embraced before "it's ok to be gay now"?

Can't help but think it would make things a bit easier if we pushed a little against that stereotype, not towards it. And I feel a little guilty for saying so :-/

azezil

While one may not feel completely comfortable with those who go against the perceived norms of society, man - masculine woman - feminine etc. and feel that perhaps if gays "behaved normally" we'd be accepted more easily (which is probably true) that isn't really what LGBT groups are aiming for, they aim for equality for ALL people no matter how they choose to live their lives. (as long as they're not exploiting or hurting anyone in the process)

Social norms only exist as long as they go unchallenged, that doesn't make them right.

Equal rights responsibilities and one drinking fountain for all I say

Squaw Crow

i don't think that anyone should adopt to a stereotype. However i do believe some gay men are more 'effeminate' than others. I think that gender and sexual identities are things which are extremely personal to people and therefore should have a personal expression. I think a lot of the conforming stereotype thing comes from a rejection of identity for so long. Also being seen to be, i hate to use this expression, 'visibly gay', makes it easier to find others of the same orientation.

Boston

azezil wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but does that mean you believe 'men should behave like men' and 'women should behave like women'?

And who sets these so called standards to which men and women should conform?

I mean it's moronic to think less of someone because they're effeminate regardless of sexual orientation.

Nevyn

Or more butch/macho/blokey

Nevyn

azezil wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but does that mean you believe 'men should behave like men' and 'women should behave like women'?

And who sets these so called standards to which men and women should conform?

They were re enforced after ww2, rosie was told to get out of those engineering overalls, hand over the rivets as the men were home from war and she was to get gussied up and start acting like a lady or she'd never forfill her primary role in life, which was to get hitched and have kids.

Freiheit

Amazing how pink was originaly designated a boys colour and blue for girls....and has been inverted as Thaedydal said well since the 20's or 30's I think...shows how some aspects of gender and gender expression are mere social constructs....I often wonder what the babies themselves would choose if they had a choice. Interesting too the evolution of the pants as female attire.

Nevyn

AGain WW2 the nazis made homosexuals wear pink triangles and then there was yards and yards of pink silk and nylon left over from parachutes which were then utlised to relaunch paris fashion week after the war ended so Pink became a female colour and it's been that way from then.

livlondon

Yea yea, I just registered but I needed to say something.

This has gone seriously off topic, I can't believe somebody just mentioned the Nazis (I don't care the context). This thread should be over.

As an 'honest ta God' transgendered woman (yup hormones, legal name change, breasts, living 24/7, working in correct gender, partner). The rest of the planet see's it as LGBT. I'm a lesbian transgendered woman and if I wasn't I wouldn't fall under the LGB banner now would I? Serious discussion is aways taken elsewhere regardless of sexuality, gender, photography or 'feline health tips' so that's not really an excuse. And as for lurkers, they're everywhere petrol heads, fantasists etc... and there's nothing wrong with a bit of light 'T' talk.

Just put it in, it should have been there ages ago anyway. Why is this even a discussion. 'T' is at the end of LGBT because it is intended to emphasize a diversity of "sexuality and gender identity‐based cultures." The LGB community is diverse and liberal and has accepted people like me (and my kind) with open arms, without them I don't know where I would be. That is why we are grouped in with them, because they are accepting. If the floodgates open for our Intersexed and Asexual sisters and brothers then so be it, we have plenty of room for more and the water is lovely and warm.

I'd rather that then being TGT (Top Gear & Transgendered), please don't put us in with them.

Boston

Do you not see the irony in taking about liberalism while opposing our freedom to have an open discussion. "It should have been there ages ago" is not a valid reason for adding it now. Frankly, there are lots of things in your posts I could do without reading on this forum, not least the attitude that discussion should be curtailed.

Why are you a true "transgendered" woman, are those who are pre-op somehow fake? Words cannot discribe how disgusted I was when one member of the transgender community attacked another member last time this topic came up, simply because he wasn't a so called "real" trans.

You mention intersexed people and asexuals. Transgendered includes intersexed in as much as these things can be defined. Asexuals aren't catered for by this forum. It isn't a "people on the fringes of acceptable social norms" forum.

Nevyn

The thing is, that acceptance seems to be no longer there for a lot of people.
Those who have come out and of age after homosexuality became illegal don't see why they should be lumped in wiht those who are transgendered.

In the race to be accepted at any cost they are rejecting people who they may have more in common with then they think.

Aard

IMO, the "T" should have been there from the start, as it's part of the established acronym "LGBT".

But really, where does it end? LGB. LGBT. LGBTQ. LGBTQI. LGBTQIA. Not to mention the order of the initials...

Probably the change that will please the most people ruffle as few feathers would just be plain-ol' "LGBT".

Boston

The original name wasn't LGB, it was GLB from memory. The forum was set up when boards was tiny compared to now, for people dealing with sexuality orientated issues. That was it's purpose, as such it's logical that gender issues weren't included. The forum was never intended to mimic the established way of thing. Which btw, wasn't the established way at all at all when the forum was first created.

Anyway, this debate is irrelevant, since the way forward has been agreed a long time ago. The right people need to make the right arguments in the right manor to the administrators.

Annasopra

Aard wrote: »

IMO, the "T" should have been there from the start, as it's part of the established acronym "LGBT".

But really, where does it end? LGB. LGBT. LGBTQ. LGBTQI. LGBTQIA. Not to mention the order of the initials...

Probably the change that will please the most people ruffle as few feathers would just be plain-ol' "LGBT".

when this forum was established LGB was actually a much wider used term. The forum was initially called Gay & Lesbian Issues and then it was felt that 'issues' was not appropriate

livlondon

Boston: Do you not see the irony in taking about liberalism while opposing our freedom to have an open discussion. "It should have been there ages ago" is not a valid reason for adding it now. Frankly, there are lots of things in your posts I could do without reading on this forum, not least the attitude that discussion should be curtailed.

Open discussion? I think that's a great idea, who wouldn't? but all I read is that the discussion was curtailed the last time due to bitter fighting, silly name calling and some quite personal and rude remarks regarding 'what' people are (assumptions which are just awful) and all I'm reading in this thread is now off topic, wouldn't you agree. I actually said that "This thread should be over" and the context was regarding the use of Nazi's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law ). It's all about context, please don't quote me out of context, please don't say I'm 'curtailing' discussion when I'm not.

Boston: Why are you a true "transgendered" woman, are those who are pre-op somehow fake? Words cannot discribe [sic] how disgusted I was when one member of the transgender community attacked another member last time this topic came up, simply because he wasn't a so called "real" trans.

You appear to be doing the same thing as what you described others and that statement stinks slightly of troll. Your assuming I'm post-op, why I don't know. You really shouldn't assume anything nor use that in a fictional argument against by TS brothers and sisters. If an individual say they are something (Transsexual, trans queer, transvestite, crossdresser etc..), who am I to say otherwise, I have to accept them. Perhaps I'd be better positioned to argument my point if I were a wheelchair bound post-op Transgender person, would that make me more of a transgendered person rather than being the able-bodied pre-op that I'am today, would that make my point greater?

Nobody is saying that there was a mistake made 'back in the day' when the forum was created but we have the ability to 'evolve' it. If everything "was the same as it ever was," where would we be? There's a "boards.ie > Tech > Consumer Electronics > Apple Media Devices" forum now, we didn't have iPods and iPhones back when boards.ie started. Not only should forums be created but they should 'evolve' (like the dropping of the 'issues' word from the original forum. The phrase LGBT has been in use (well it didn't quite get to these fair shores for a bit longer) since even before boards.ie in the early 90's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT ). Of course there will always be those that don't agree with the 'T' being there and that the issues are not the same, but we (the 'T' people) need support and to be part of a community that is accepting and liberal and know what oppression tastes like (and we do). We are too small in numbers to be by ourselves and there are more support in numbers, but the right numbers, the numbers from LGB are the ones I want in my corner. Help a sista and a brother out. We need to have something that those in our community that are only discovering what they might be have a place to read and a place to be welcomed rather than having to become a member of a closed group in some other forum feeling like they aren't part of the lovely 'Boards.ie' family.

God, that Apple reference is crap, sorry

I love you Boston, honestly, and I know you and everybody here want the best possible solution for everybody.

Annasopra

Boston wrote: »

That was it's purpose, as such it's logical that gender issues weren't included.
.

It may have been logical back then, however (apart from the rows) I fail to see the continuing logic behind it

Boston

Make an argument for it. To stop people asking for it isn't a valid argument. I really couldn't care less how many users register just to dictate how the forum should be run and call it's members trolls. The key point is that a separate forum was agreed to, the problem is that the people who wanted it couldn't get their act together and do anything but complain.

Goodshape

Make an argument against it, then.

"It wasn't needed when the forum was created" and "you haven't been here long enough to 'dictate' what we do with 'our' forum" are not valid arguments either.

Boston, you're the only one here who's comments I'm reading as borderline aggressive. Everyone else seems to be having a conversation. Make a case for your own point of view, one way or the other, and stop chastising people for doing the same.

Boston

Goodshape wrote: »

Make an argument against it, then.

"It wasn't needed when the forum was created" and "you haven't been here long enough to 'dictate' what we do with 'our' forum" are not valid arguments either.

It works fine the way it is. Changing something for the sake of it seems pointless.

Goodshape wrote: »

Boston, you're the only one here who's comments I'm reading as borderline aggressive. Everyone else seems to be having a conversation. Make a case for your own point of view, one way or the other, and stop chastising people for doing the same.

We've had

1) This conversation should be over.
2) This conversation shouldn't been happening, just do what I want.
3) If you disagree with me, you're a troll.

No one's explained to me why the separate forum idea has been abandoned.

Goodshape

Boston wrote: »

It works fine the way it is. Changing something for the sake of it seems pointless.

It's known that the forum is used by transgendered people, a few of them have come on here to say so and I don't think we can discount the lurkers and the passers-by who might benefit, even if they don't have a history of active contribution to the forum.

I don't see what's gained, or what precious values of the forum are protected, by excluding the T.

We've had

1) This conversation should be over.
2) This conversation shouldn't been happening, just do what I want.
3) If you disagree with me, you're a troll.

That's true, but calling people out on it each time it occurs, and ignoring any salient points they might have made, just fuels the fire and gets us all the way to nowhere really quickly.

No one's explained to me why the separate forum idea has been abandoned.

Because they can, and seemingly do, post here.


My only concern would be that we'll have another group (Q or I?) asking to be included in the title in future. If someone can think of a (good) word, phrase or acronym that would encompass the lot while still fitting in the menu - I'd probably put my vote (do we get votes? ) behind that. If we can't think of something, LGBT seems to keep most people happy, most of the time.

Rev Hellfire

livlondon wrote: »

we (the 'T' people) need support and to be part of a community that is accepting and liberal and know what oppression tastes like (and we do). We are too small in numbers to be by ourselves and there are more support in numbers, but the right numbers, the numbers from LGB are the ones I want in my corner.

From what I can see this seems to be the primary justification given for wanting to have the T included. And perhaps if as Thaedydal implied this is a forum for the disenfranchised, then they should be included.

Perhaps then the forum should be renamed to something more inclusive like “Alternative Lifestyles” since it’s not really just about lgb issues but more about non-heterosexual "conventional" lifestyles.

Boston

Goodshape wrote: »

It's known that the forum is used by transgendered people, a few of them have come on here to say so and I don't think we can discount the lurkers and the passers-by who might benefit, even if they don't have a history of active contribution to the forum.

I don't see what's gained, or what precious values of the forum are protected, by excluding the T.

Doesn't that highlight the fact that theres no need for the change? We don't have questioning in the forum title, but a huge number of threads related to that subject. Is it not possible that some people think they can't post here because questioning isn't in the title? Wouldn't they also be encouraged to post here? The arguement is weak since you can clearly see threads of that nature are allowed here by reading the charter and look at past posts.

Goodshape wrote: »

That's true, but calling people out on it each time it occurs, and ignoring any salient points they might have made, just fuels the fire and gets us all the way to nowhere really quickly.

As I said right at the start. The name would have been changed years ago or a forum created if it wasn't for this type of nonsense. It doesn't matter how salient you point, if you get on the wrong side of people, you won't have they're support. Just look at the tone of the first post. That was an attack, a demand.

Nevyn

So the request should be made along the lines of "Excuse me can we be inclusded pretty please?"

I think that a lot of the threads get made of the back of people seeing that there is no T
and are shocked and confused by it and that colours the tone of the posts.

I could see the same thing happening if there was no B.

Goodshape

Boston wrote: »

Doesn't that highlight the fact that theres no need for the change?

Not really. For me it more highlights the omission in the forum title.

We don't have questioning in the forum title, but a huge number of threads related to that subject.

Well I assume they're questioning whether they are LGB or T, in all fairness.

Karl Hungus

Ok, I only lurk here from time to time, so forgive me if my opinion on this forum isn't worth as much, nor even welcome as an outsider, but I do feel the need to throw in my €0.02. Take that with a pinch of salt if you have to.

Boston wrote: »

The name would have been changed years ago or a forum created if it wasn't for this type of nonsense.

As much as I love ya Boston, and don't take this the wrong way, but I think there's an element of spite to that statement; that the unchanging name is in spite of certain people. Honestly, I think you need to take a step back from this and reconsider why exactly you oppose the inclusion of transgender in the title.

I'll be frank here, I think all of this stems from a hatred of a couple of transgender personalities that caused havoc on boards before. You all know who I'm talking about, and as much as I don't want to drag them into the debate, I think it's very relevant to what's going on in this thread. I know this forum and it's posters has suffered from extreme abusiveness and trolling from certain people (and hell, even a very tasteless April fools from myself that I deeply regret, which didn't exactly help matters), so I can sort of understand that you'd be afraid of attracting another abrasive and aggressive personality. But I can't help but feel that there's an almost anti-trans bias here, based upon how certain people conducted themselves on boards in the past, and how they made their 'demands'.

Having a search on forum requests for when it came up before, I see plenty of attitudes expressed that people would support the creation of a transgender forum if xxx was permanently banned. Another forum request was pretty much one giant stab at a certain poster, which was extremely petty.

You might see this thread as a demand, but I know what you mean by "This kind of nonsense" and I don't agree with you there. Yes, there was nonsense before, with a poster soapboxing and decrying everyone as hatemongers and hurling abuse everywhere, but that isn't what's happening here. I think your experience of one transgender poster has coloured your views here and you're seeing this as the same kind of demand. I see it as a justified expression of bafflement as to why T isn't included in the title, especially seeing as it's reflected in the charter. Hell, I have no idea why it isn't included in the forum name, if the charter says that transgender issues are on topic then I think it should be reflected in the title.

You can argue that trans issues don't really relate to LGB issues, but by that logic you should be demanding that it be removed from the charter and threads of that nature be moved to PI or somewhere else. As I see it now, the forum is stuck in a bit of a limbo with regards to transgender, it's supposedly included, but a few posters don't want that fact made public by the forum name being altered accordingly.

I think the argument that "If we change it to X, then we'll just have to change it to Y further down the line" doesn't ring true at all. Surely if that Q issue arises at all, it should be dealt with as a separate issue at that time, and shouldn't have any bearing on the inclusion of T. I don't really see any further name changes being proposed either, as Goodshape said, someone questioning their sexuality (or gender identity) is directly related to LGBT.

Honestly, it baffles me how this isn't a 'Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans' forum and I can only come to the conclusion that certain abusive and abrasive trans posters have left a bad taste for a lot of posters here, either that or some forum politics I'm not getting. People who come along and post "Huh? Why no T?" are very unaware of how past users acted, and don't know that they might be pushing some people's buttons by calling the forum name into question.

I could be wrong of course, like I said I only look in here the odd time, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

I'll just ask this. Boston, do you think your experience with past members of boards have negatively coloured your impression of transgender people?

MicraBoy

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Honestly, it baffles me how this isn't a 'Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans' forum and I can only come to the conclusion that certain abusive and abrasive trans posters have left a bad taste for a lot of posters here, either that or some forum politics I'm not getting. People who come along and post "Huh? Why no T?" are very unaware of how past users acted, and don't know that they might be pushing some people's buttons by calling the forum name into question.

This isn't L&G&B forum politics, this is boards.ie politics. It is clear that in order to induce change on any board you require a certain amount of political capital. This comes about from being a regular comtributor to the forum in question and getting to know people virtually (and in reality).

The problem is that most of the trans-posters are just that. They are transiting through on their way somewhere else! There is a history as you rightly say of them seagulling in and crapping all over the place, but there is also a few who help out for trans issues but don't neccessarily get involved in the forum in general.

IMO most of the regular LGBers like myself are, at worst, neutral on the issue, but they are certainly not going to row in beyond a low post count noob with can't articulate the point without being agressive (that's past history clouding judgement as well as being offended by general rudeness).

I for one think that the term LGBT is such a norm now that the forum should be changed.

I think a seperate T forum is a silly idea, and is destined to end up like the Mustard forum or the Zombie Forum. Alright for a bit of gas but not sustainable in the long term.

I think that T is a miniority within a minority that has such close ties with LGB that putting it outside is unhelpful and will just lead to more fighting and queries down the line.

I think the forum already caters for T, and we should acknowledge that within the title. It is different than Q or C or A or blah because ultimately they are catered for in some capacity by the combination of LGBT. T is definitely not catered for in LGB.

Finally for god sake lets drop the anally retentive L&G&B and call it LGB&T. Its grammatically rubbish! Simple as.

But I'm not gonna fight this corner for a thread started like this one was...... Or may be I just have.

Freiheit

yes lgbt is near ubiquitous, I think it would be the 'right' thing for Boards to add T and possibly Q, whether they do is up to the 'government', but I think it would be 'right'. It would also finaly draw a line under this debate which will be repeated more often than the original Willie Wonkas Chocolate factory, because lgbt is ubiquitous, and the abscence of T will repeatedly cause conflict.

Boston

Thaedydal wrote: »

So the request should be made along the lines of "Excuse me can we be inclusded pretty please?"
I think that a lot of the threads get made of the back of people seeing that there is no T
and are shocked and confused by it and that colours the tone of the posts.
I could see the same thing happening if there was no B.

Yea, why not? You've yourself have pointed out to people that this is a private website where people are not entitled to anything. You'll notice that the word "******" is banned on boards. The user who got the word banned first posted on this forum, decrying the administration as homophobes and demanding that it be changed. I took the chap aside, told him that wasn't the right way to do things, and sent him off to the administrators. He made a polite and reasonable request, no one objected, the word was banned.
If someone came here and said "As a transsexual, I'd be more comfortable contributing if T was included" it would be difficult to argue against it. No one has done that. People who aren't gender variant has suggested it might be the case, while people who are have just made demands. For whatever reason there's an attitude that this doesn't need to be justified. That because in recent years Sexual orientation and Gender orientation have been closely linked under the one "LGBT" umbrella, that everyone should just get into step with that.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I'll be frank here, I think all of this stems from a hatred of a couple of transgender personalities that caused havoc on boards before. You all know who I'm talking about, and as much as I don't want to drag them into the debate, I think it's very relevant to what's going on in this thread. I know this forum and it's posters has suffered from extreme abusiveness and trolling from certain people (and hell, even a very tasteless April fools from myself that I deeply regret, which didn't exactly help matters), so I can sort of understand that you'd be afraid of attracting another abrasive and aggressive personality. But I can't help but feel that there's an almost anti-trans bias here, based upon how certain people conducted themselves on boards in the past, and how they made their 'demands'.

I wouldn't call it spite. The problem is that if you pander to people who scream and shout and hurl abuse, then you're saying that behaviour is OK. Theres one chap I can think of who doesn't post here anymore and it's not from anything I said. So do just ignore the poor behaviour and the driving away of other users?

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I'll just ask this. Boston, do you think your experience with past members of boards have negatively coloured your impression of transgender people?

Of people? No. I think the posters you make reference to where an embarrassment that others went to length to distance themselves from. Bottom line is that it was never anything I posted or you posted that stopped the name being changed or a forum being set up, it was what other transsexual users posted. At one stage everyone was in agreement, I even offered to moderate the transgender forum to show support. But it all fell apart. The only negative impression I have is of these threads.

Aard

I've created a poll. I'm sure there are people who have an opinion, but don't want to share it publicly.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055872123

ixoy

We could be heading for the longest forum name in a bit

Personally, I believe it doesn't really make sense to have transgendered topics shunted to a sub-forum. There mightn't be enough to sustain it and then the forum could become too barren, which might discourage people from posting on it rather than a more vibrant all-encompassing forum.

Out of curiosity - would the forum be better served as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered" label or something a bit neater like "LGBT Issues" (or something similar).

Nevyn

There are also T posters who constribute and most people don't know they are T.

Karl Hungus

Boston wrote: »

The problem is that if you pander to people who scream and shout and hurl abuse, then you're saying that behaviour is OK.

But surely that is long in the past now? I think refusing to abide by a name change, because someone was screaming and shouting 3 or 4 years ago is a bit ridiculous. I can't see how it could possibly be conceivable that you'd be saying abusive behavior is OK if that person has been long banned for said abuse.

Boston wrote: »

Theres one chap I can think of who doesn't post here anymore and it's not from anything I said. So do just ignore the poor behaviour and the driving away of other users?

Again, I don't think anyone's been ignoring anything, and disruptive and abusive posters have been banned. I don't see why they should factor into any decision to change the name of a forum if they're no longer allowed to participate here.

Boston wrote: »

Of people? No. I think the posters you make reference to where an embarrassment that others went to length to distance themselves from. Bottom line is that it was never anything I posted or you posted that stopped the name being changed or a forum being set up, it was what other transsexual users posted. At one stage everyone was in agreement, I even offered to moderate the transgender forum to show support. But it all fell apart. The only negative impression I have is of these threads.

I well remember those threads, and I know it was certain transgender posters that pretty much sabotaged any attempt to create a forum, but as above, is it not time to let go of that? It was years ago, and I don't see why what happened with a couple of posters should have any bearing on what decisions are made currently. The gist of what I'm saying is that was then, this is now.

Annasopra

I've submitted a request to have the name changed on the forums forum

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055872143

Boston

ixoy wrote: »

We could be heading for the longest forum name in a bit

Personally, I believe it doesn't really make sense to have transgendered topics shunted to a sub-forum. There mightn't be enough to sustain it and then the forum could become too barren, which might discourage people from posting on it rather than a more vibrant all-encompassing forum.

Out of curiosity - would the forum be better served as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered" label or something a bit neater like "LGBT Issues" (or something similar).

Dispite the claims to the contray, LGBT isn't an every day term outside of our little communities. We get a fair number of young questioning people posting who probably arn't familiar with the term. I'd say drop Lesbian before you use an acronym. But thats equally a bad idea.

An idea would be to include Trans rather then trangender,

I'd be very against calling it something like Queer Issues or any other name which obfuscates the purpose of the forum.

Karl Hungus

If length is genuinely an issue (which I don't think it is really), it could simply be 'Lesbian, Gay, Bi & Trans'?

Aard

ixoy wrote: »

Out of curiosity - would the forum be better served as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered" label or something a bit neater like "LGBT Issues" (or something similar).

I'd just leave it as LGBT. "Issues" to me implies that only threads about a problem that needs solving are welcome. While I'm not that interested in it, I do believe that certain light-hearted and frivolous topics should be allowed here.

Boston

Yes, issues is bad. Makes it sound like the forum is a gay version of PI.

Annasopra

Aard wrote: »

I'd just leave it as LGBT. "Issues" to me implies that only threads about a problem that needs solving are welcome. While I'm not that interested in it, I do believe that certain light-hearted and frivolous topics should be allowed here.

No it needs to include all four words. It shouldn't have an acronym