Analysis of the latest Exodus press release (posted to their web site on most Fridays) is forthcoming.
In the meantime, some draft guidelines for comments posted to Ex-Gay Watch. I hope this will give visitors an indication of what types of comments I feel are most constructive.
1. XGW is primarily about ex-gays — their sexual orientations, therapies, politics, and impact on other people. Discussion for and against exgays is on-topic. One-sided antigay screeds are off-topic. Pro-gay discussion is only marginally on-topic; it should ideally relate to the various choices that mature and responsible exgays have available to them, and the discussion should remain aware that a decision in favor of sexual activity is not best for everyone.
2. I hope all of us will try harder to document our assertions with links to the source of each factoid. Simply linking to some organization’s home page is insufficient: A link should go directly to the page containing the specific fact being cited.
3. I discourage wisecracks and putdowns (both antigay and anti-exgay). Facts and observations are preferable. But I haven’t figured out how to enforce that. I want to be understanding, especially with people whose lives have been directly torn apart by specific exgay and antigay activists.
XGW is not intended to be an online free-for-all; over the long haul, its pages should reflect documented and balanced observations about the pros and many cons of the ex-gay movement.
I think XGW should also discuss on the issues of aversion, hormonal, reparative therapy and the past butchery in the name of ‘science’ of making queers straight. I think reading the history of these would gives people a better understanding on the rotten roots of the reparative therapy movement.
Thank you for the clarifications Mike. I will attempt to abide by these rules. It seems that the web could use a sober, rational examination of the exgay world.
Question: why have the links to the exgay information sites been removed from exgaywatch?
Ya if I ever get a little crazy from time to time just smack me and I’ll fall back into line.
No but seriouly, have you considered using a comment system that lets users form threads and respond to specific comments, ie the BackBlog system I use on my site. Also BackBlog emails a commenter when someone else has responded to thier comment.
It will be interesting to see how I quickly I break my own draft guidelines, especially when I’m short on time or ideas….
Dan, I hadn’t heard of BackBlog, but I will definitely look at it. Thanks. I’ve also considered channeling idle/anonymous chatter to the XGW Yahoo group while implementing TypeKey and requiring ID verification of all blog commenters. That might eradicate trolling (depending on how you define that) and cut down on uncivil remarks, but it wouldn’t necessarily make our posts better-documented, and it would probably wipe out a lot of XGW’s diversity and spontaneity. I don’t always object to comments that rant — when I agree with the comments. 😀
These are excellent guidelines. I really appreciate the balance that XGW provides on the issues. As you say, there is not one single choice which is good for everyone, and it is extremely rare to find a site that is willing to treat everyone with respect and dignity, and even to concede the point when an “adversary” has one. As my father used to say, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
This is one of the hallmarks of intelligent debate. Keep up the good work.
I also wondered why the ex-gay links were taken down…