Profiles - Gender

ren wrote: Yea but then what about the people who don't want to be asked?

If you don't want anyone to ask... surely you wouldn't put anything in the first place...

ren wrote: Yea but then what about the people who don't want to be asked?

Other, and its none of your business lol!

A 13 page thread about a box I admittedly never paid much attention to... I guess we're all paying attention now, though I don't know that we've accomplished a whole lot :dry:

Hey, ren. If you ever come back from being on strike, can we change the site color scheme while we're at it? :whistle: :evil:

Senan wrote: A 13 page thread about a box I admittedly never paid much attention to... I guess we're all paying attention now, though I don't know that we've accomplished a whole lot :dry:

Hey, ren. If you ever come back from being on strike, can we change the site color scheme while we're at it? :whistle: :evil:

What color would you have it be?

Manu wrote: What color would you have it be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA

The last color change was contentious. lol. I remember a lot of people being unhappy with the change.

Connor L. wrote: The last color change was contentious. lol. I remember a lot of people being unhappy with the change.

Me too, although now I can't even remember what it used to be. :laugh:

I enjoy our color scheme

So as we have achieved nothing and I regret bringing this whole subject up in the first place... let's forget about this thread and go do something else (I'm going to).

Connor L. wrote: The last color change was contentious. lol. I remember a lot of people being unhappy with the change.

Yeah, I remember that too. I'm just stirring up trouble :laugh: I figure as long as we're going to be contentious, lets do it about something completely arbitrary in the big scheme of things.

Yea that one wasn't my doing. People always complain about the colours, but never the same ones.

Aino wrote: Even plain transphobia. I'm really disappointed that some peple call themselves Jedi and still fail to see why this issue matter so much to some of their brothers and sisters.

Just to address the transphobia comment.

Transphobia is very specific to acts of prejudice against transgender individuals. Discussions and misunderstandings surrounding gender and sex are not themselves transphobic unless someone were to say an individual's views should be dismissed because they were transgender.

Further transgender individuals, while more obviously affected by notions of sex and gender, are not exclusively affected by them. Non-transgender individuals have just as much right to discuss and disagree with notions of gender and sex. This may mean the individuals aren't being empathetic, but again that is distinct from outright transphobia.

Akkarin wrote:

Aino wrote: Even plain transphobia. I'm really disappointed that some peple call themselves Jedi and still fail to see why this issue matter so much to some of their brothers and sisters.

Just to address the transphobia comment.

Transphobia is very specific to acts of prejudice against transgender individuals. Discussions and misunderstandings surrounding gender and sex are not themselves transphobic unless someone were to say an individual's views should be dismissed because they were transgender.

Further transgender individuals, while more obviously affected by notions of sex and gender, are not exclusively affected by them. Non-transgender individuals have just as much right to discuss and disagree with notions of gender and sex. This may mean the individuals aren't being empathetic, but again that is distinct from outright transphobia.

I've had no problems with people disagreeing and arguing on this thread. Although there was a lot of lack of empathy, I believe many people here are genuinely trying to contribute to the discussion and even trying to learn new things. And even if they aren't, it's their right to express themselves.

But I still see problematic issues among the sea of goodwill. I'd like to address that on private if you don't mind, to not further extend the argument.

I just like to remind people that problematic is a word outside of social justice


Okay, well I clearly don't know how to put videos in posts.

Here's a link ....but the moment has sort of gone now...

JamesSand wrote: Okay, well I clearly don't know how to put videos in posts.

Don't use the [ video ] tags... just post the link.

JLSpinner wrote: Perhaps a poll vote would settle the debate without further harm done?

I would like to second that.

Perhaps a poll vote would settle the debate without further harm done?

I would like to second that.

I wouldn't.

How long is it open for? will you be sending emails to all members to vote? Who qualifies to vote? who cares enough to vote?
What's stopping me from creating a hundred new log ins and rigging the vote?

Better to have a straight decision by the clergy after considering what they feel fits the Temple than a facade of a democracy run by a belligerent few.

I have not been here long enough to know - Are many things "put to a vote"?


(My issue here is with the principle of solving issues and changing things within the Temple, not so much on *this* particular issue itself)

A bit backwards (my quoting), sorry about that.

JamesSand wrote: (My issue here is with the principle of solving issues and changing things within the Temple, not so much on *this* particular issue itself)

Fair point. I don't think there is a routine for that, at least non I have heard about. Things below would be suggestions then.

JamesSand wrote: How long is it open for?

6 days, as argued below.

JamesSand wrote: will you be sending emails to all members to vote?

That seems advisable.

JamesSand wrote: Who qualifies to vote? who cares enough to vote?

Members. (Or 'Temple Members' and upwards if you'd like) As to who cares: That's a basic problem of any democratic election, is it not? Last time I heard of people being forced to vote was a history lesson on east germany. They had rather predictable elections.

JamesSand wrote: What's stopping me from creating a hundred new log ins and rigging the vote?

7 days restriction on becoming a Temple Member.

JamesSand wrote: Better to have a straight decision by the clergy after considering what they feel fits the Temple than a facade of a democracy run by a belligerent few.

We are not a theocracy. If this decision is to be made, it ought to be by the Council, which is not clergy as evident by the fact that some of the Council are not part of the Synod. They are seperate entities.

I'd actually be fine either way, admittably having the council make that decision would be less troublesome.

JamesSand wrote: I have not been here long enough to know - Are many things "put to a vote"?

The Council and Synod hold votes on things. Knights and Clergy often get input on decisions and the Knights have held votes on a couple of changes. As far as possible the views of all members are taken on board, but I can't remember a Temple-wide vote.

x57z12 wrote:

JamesSand wrote: Who qualifies to vote? who cares enough to vote?

Members. (Or 'Temple Members' and upwards if you'd like) As to who cares: That's a basic problem of any democratic election, is it not? Last time I heard of people being forced to vote was a history lesson on east germany. They had rather predictable elections.

We are not a democratic website... :blink:

I am sorry to say it like that, and we do LISTEN to the membership when things need to be listened to, but, we have also not agreed, and held firm, thinking our logic still sound...

An opinion poll, perhaps, on some topics, would show opinions of those voting... At least the opinion of those who voted...

No one should think 'their way' is the 'only' way... This does include Council, despite how we may seem to act to some, we do know this... To use someone not easily offended, OB1 has been a member for less than a year, and he has seen what he has seen in his time... I have been a member much longer (doesnt make me better, only more experienced) and seen much more of the discussions that go on... And, while that doesnt mean things shouldnt be reviewed, just because someone who joined today thinks something is a good idea, and time for review, doesnt mean they are 'right'... Its why the senior membership seldom posts on the 'physical temple' threads... We get tired of pooping on the ideas and spirit of others, lol... But, Ive seen more than a dozen of those conversations, lol...

We do weigh it all... But, ultimate decision rests with Council...

Members come and go... Some guests have been here longer than some members, and are more active... But, as they dont want to join, I wouldnt be worried if they were excluded, to be honest... If they were THAT worried, theyd join to help steer our direction, ... I say this as myself, not a Councillor, but, then, where is the invisible line? haha

Of the membership, most Knights have proven they have the resolve to stick it out through all of the 'ugliness' of the squabbles, and, even then, we lose some of them...

JamesSand wrote: What's stopping me from creating a hundred new log ins and rigging the vote?

7 days restriction on becoming a Temple Member.

I do like this logic though, excellent...

JamesSand wrote: Better to have a straight decision by the clergy after considering what they feel fits the Temple than a facade of a democracy run by a belligerent few.

We are not a theocracy. If this decision is to be made, it ought to be by the Council, which is not clergy as evident by the fact that some of the Council are not part of the Synod. They are seperate entities.

Some Council are Clergy, some are not... The clergy is more a 'committee' of TOTJO, as opposed to an actual separate entity...