PDF Apple - Topic: "Research on adult children in the gay community

I ended up getting flagged during a heated debate over on Reddit regarding same-sex marriage, where I shared my personal view that homosexuality—as a concept—is actually a disorder.
I've been waiting, but naturally, I haven't received a single response.
And now, I’m looking at this other thread where guys are systematically calling women sluts without any moderation or consequences whatsoever!

Aren't the standards just absolutely wonderful?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

John Newman34 said:I ended up getting flagged during a debate over over on Apple where we were talking about same-sex marriage. I shared my view that homosexuality (as such) is personally something I consider a disorder.
No response from anyone, though.
And now I’m looking at threads where guys are systematically calling women sluts—and there aren't even any consequences.

Aren't the standards just wonderful?

Don't sweat the flag or the deletion, it's fine. We aren't online 24/7, but we always sort this stuff out, even if it takes a little while to catch up. By the way, why not report those posts so we can see them right away?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Matthew Anderson said:We just wipe them away, don't worry about it. We aren't online 24/7, but we always sort things out, even if it takes a little while if something slips through the cracks. By the way, why don't you report those posts so we see them immediately?

I didn't report it because your colleague jumped right into the debate after that post, so I just assumed he had already read everything prior!

Since I can't get an answer from him directly, I’m actually quite curious about the justification for that warning I received during our discussion—you know, where we were clearly coming at this from opposite sides of the fence. Personally, I feel the warning wasn't objective at all, and frankly, I don't believe I violated any of the subforum rules.

It says here that calling homosexuals "disordered" or "sick" is prohibited. Fine, okay.
But defending a personal opinion for the sake of a debate... 😕
I never once called homosexuals sick or disordered. I simply expressed my own personal view that homosexuality is an anomaly or a disorder, and for that, I was slapped with a warning by the very same moderator who stepped into the discussion with me—someone who clearly holds a different, opposing viewpoint.
Well, yes, recently homosexuality was removed from the list of psychological disorders, but there is still a significant number of people who disagree with that. Currently, that second school of thought is gaining some ground.
Actually, that isn't even the main point.
It's funny, really... I remember writing recently that I believe people who reach a certain age without having established any romantic, emotional, or sexual contact with the opposite sex (or even the same sex, for that matter) possess some kind of disorder, whether it's socio-psychological or physical—like a hormonal deficiency.
That wasn't flagged with a warning; it was treated as a valid opinion that I explained and defended, yet my "other opinion" regarding homosexuality was met with an immediate warning!

I used to find all those stories about the famous gay lobby quite amusing. Now, I'm not so sure.

Look, you can certainly see a moderator's personal stance during a debate, but should that same stance be used as the criterion for moderation?

It's just not clear to me, so I would truly appreciate it if someone could explain the logic behind this in a bit more detail. 🤷

John Newman34, homosexuality hasn't been officially classified as a disorder since 1975.

It is much like how people of color have long had the right to sit wherever they choose on a bus; if we are going to discuss the nature of discrimination, let us look at the broader context.

Furthermore, you are complaining about a post that was clearly flagged and removed quite some time ago. I am not entirely sure if you filed a complaint back when it happened. If you didn't, then I'm puzzled as to what you expect the administration to do now. Conversely, if you did report it and the appeal was denied, it simply means the administration determined the moderator's original decision was sound.

Because of this, I fail to see the logic in comparing an old, archived post to these other posts you claim are offensive toward women—posts for which you haven't even provided any links. Which specific posts are you referring to? Please, provide the links so we can actually examine them.

Additionally, I have searched through my inbox and cannot find a single report from you regarding any controversial content.

In short, what exactly are we discussing here?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Sarah Sanders34 said:Well, just like how people of color have been able to sit wherever they want on a bus for ages now—since we’re already talking about discrimination.

Okayyyy? 😕

Sarah Sanders34 said:Furthermore, you're complaining about a post that was clearly flagged a long time ago. I don't know if you complained back then.

I appealed the flag in the exact place provided for it. Twice!
Actually, it’s my own fault for not jumping straight into the arguments instead of writing this:

Dear Einstein,

You have received an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: Violation of forum rules (sub-
) -------

-------

This infraction is worth 30 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Anderson View Post
You aren't homophobic, but... they definitely bother you, there's quite a lot of hate there.

What did you prove with Ancient Greek civilization? Are you suggesting there's some correlation that it collapsed because of what you wrote?
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
No, they don't bother me nearly as much as you probably assume, nor do I hate them!
What truly bothers me—and I won't say I hate them, but—is their organizations and their fascist regime.
I'll be first in line to make sure they aren't bullied or harassed because of their orientation! They also have the right to legalize their romantic relationships (provided it isn't done under the name marriage)

But generally, I view homosexuality as a disorder. Period.

No, I don't have proof that an entire civilization fell because of it. But I want to tell you that things which were once considered normal (in our culture—Western culture) are seen today as having not been right.
We said: Hey, it turns out a maturity test involving 15-year-old girls shouldn't involve a 40 or 50-year-old man raping them. We figured that out after a few hundred years.
We might figure out the same thing regarding adoption by same-sex couples
Or maybe we won't.

Now, you know I always love to tie things back to nature. Homosexuals are part of nature; they emerged from it. But as an anomaly (10%)
And as such, we won't bully them, and we should accept them as full members of our society! But when we give them the right to adopt children, to raise offspring, we are directly throwing nature's "laws" right in its face!
All the best,
Reddit

______________________________________________

So, there I go, complaining.
I am asking for an explanation regarding what criteria made this subject to a flag.

I filed my appeal in post #4939 and again a few days later in #4956.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Sarah Sanders34 said:If you aren't, then I honestly don't know what you're expecting the admin team to do at this point. If you filed an appeal and it wasn't overturned, it simply means the administration decided the moderator's call was correct.

It isn't even about the warning... really. Let's just move past the whole "warning" thing.
I didn't come here to complain, even if it might have looked that way initially. Honestly, I would have been perfectly happy if you all had just told me via the appeals—hey, look, the warning is totally justified.
The point of this thread is: questions for the administration.
And I am asking you about the moderation style because I’ve noticed some real inconsistencies here. 🤷

As I mentioned before (Matthew Anderson knows this better than anyone), I was arguing that someone who hasn't had any romantic, emotional, or physical contact with another person by the age of 35 likely faces developmental challenges and a certain disorder because they haven't realized their most primal instincts.
There were quite a few reactions to my use of the word "disorder," which I went on to explain later in the discussion....

And that's fine! But the moment a discussion mentions homosexuality in the same sentence as any opinion that doesn't frame it as something absolutely wonderful, cool, fantastic, or desirable, suddenly there's big trouble. 😕

I never called a gay person "disordered" or "sick"... I simply expressed my viewpoint that homosexuality is, to me, a disorder—an anomaly.

My question is: are gay people considered sacred cows here? I'm asking so that if we continue discussing this, I'll know exactly how I can and cannot participate in certain topics...

From what I can see, the answer is yes. In that case, please be fair and include it in the rules or guidelines: "Any questioning or debate regarding homosexuality is prohibited unless it is framed in a purely positive light." The moderator's stance seems to be that "same-sex unions" should be married and allowed to adopt children, and any discussion or questioning from the opposing side results in a warning and being labeled as intolerant, discriminatory, or some kind of "backward hillbilly."

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Sarah Sanders34 said:By that logic, I don't see why you're comparing some old warning you received to posts containing offensive content toward women, especially since you haven't provided any links. Which posts are you talking about? Give us the links so we can take a look.

How do you not see it....?
I was truly baffled seeing this particular moderator participating in discussions where women are systematically called sluts and idiots (those posts were sanctioned or deleted... eventually, by a different moderator) yet the same moderator issues a warning when you express a personal opinion stating that you view homosexuality as a disorder!

I hope you understand where I'm coming from. ☕

John Newman34 said:I didn't report it because your buddy jumped into the thread right after that post, so I just assumed he’d actually read what came before!

Since I can't get a straight answer from him, I’m curious about whether that ban actually made sense during our debate—you know, back when we were arguing from completely opposite sides. Honestly, I don't think the moderator was being objective, and as far as I can tell, I didn't even break any of the subforum rules.

You broke one of the core rules listed in the Apple guidelines, so honestly, that strike was totally justified. The rules explicitly state you can't refer to homosexuals—or anyone else, for that matter—as "sick," and they strictly prohibit sharing medical diagnoses.

John Newman34 said:So, apparently, you aren't allowed to call gay people "disordered" or "sick" anymore. Got it.
But hey, just to be clear, I'm speaking strictly from my own perspective here. 😕
I didn't go as far as calling homosexuals sick or mentally ill. I simply stated my personal opinion that homosexuality is an anomaly and a disorder—and for that, I got slapped with a warning from the very same moderator who jumped into the thread to argue with me, clearly holding a completely different view.
It looks like you might have cut off your message! What's on your mind? recently Homosexuality was officially removed from the list of psychological disorders ages ago, yet there’s still a significant chunk of people out there who refuse to accept that. Honestly, at the moment, that skeptical crowd seems to be gaining a bit of momentum.
Honestly, it’s not even that big of a deal.

If someone’s personal opinion ends up being offensive, we step in and ban them. I’ve explained this a few times already, but since there seems to be some confusion, I’ll say it again. We don't want people throwing out medical diagnoses on Apple. Honestly, every single time someone tries to diagnose another user, the debate turns toxic, nobody walks away happy, and things just spiral. There is simply no way to post a diagnosis without triggering a chain reaction of follow-up posts that inevitably devolve into insults, dozens of deleted comments, and mass bans. To keep the peace, we treat those kinds of posts as rule violations and issue a 35-point penalty.

John Newman34 said:It’s pretty interesting—I was actually just thinking about how people who reach a certain age without ever having had any real romantic, emotional, or sexual connection with anyone (regardless of gender, really) might be dealing with some kind of underlying issue. Whether it’s a socio-psychological thing or even something physical, like a hormonal imbalance, there’s usually something deeper going on.
That wasn't just some cardboard cutout opinion; it was a genuine perspective that I laid out and defended. But the second anyone brought up a "different view" regarding homosexuality, they immediately shut it down like it was nothing more than a flimsy piece of cardboard!

I took a look at that post, and honestly, it should have been flagged—it wasn't. If you want me to go back and take care of that, just let me know. I'm happy to jump back in and handle it.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

John Newman34 said:I used to think all those stories about some massive gay lobby were just a joke. Honestly, I don't find them funny anymore.

Look, I'm really not interested in any conspiracy theories regarding a gay lobby.

As for that "birds of a feather" comment—the user wasn't calling every single woman a slut. If you actually look at what they wrote, you'll see that isn't the case.

Matthew Anderson said:Look, you totally broke the rules laid out in the Apple guidelines—straight up. From my perspective, that strike was completely justified. The rules clearly state you can't label homosexuals (or anyone else, for that matter) as "sick," and there's a super strict ban on sharing medical diagnoses like that. It’s just how things work here.

I'm not exactly knee-deep in John Newman34's specific situation—don't ask me to play doctor here—but from a strictly scientific standpoint, there’s actually a massive distinction between a disease and a disorder.

"Disorder" is one of those newer buzzwords people throw around all the time lately—usually when they're talking about conditions where the actual cause, how long it lasts, or even the underlying biological stuff is still pretty much a massive question mark. unknownIt’s also applied when you’ve got a glaringly obvious root cause, but the actual symptoms end up being this massive, unpredictable spectrum—often so subtle you might miss them entirely if you aren't looking closely.

Modern science—and honestly, let’s be real, they aren't exactly claiming to have all the answers here either—still hasn't pinned down the exact causes behind homosexuality:

Look, people have been throwing every theory under the sun at the concept of how homosexuality develops—it’s like everyone thinks they’ve cracked the code—but honestly, so far, nobody has actually nailed down a definitive answer. It’s one of those things where you see a dozen different scientific papers or psychological deep dives, all claiming to have found the "smoking gun," yet we're still basically staring at a giant question mark. There are arguments about genetics, stuff involving prenatal hormones, even some old-school sociological takes, but it’s all just layers of speculation at this point. It’s kind of wild how much debate goes into this when, in reality, the science is still playing catch-up with the complexity of human nature. Look, let’s be real—there is absolutely no single version of events that everyone actually agrees on. It’s always a mess. You ask ten different people about what happened, and you’ll get ten different stories, half of them probably made up on the spot just to sound more interesting. There’s no "official" truth that sticks, no matter how much people try to hammer it home. Everyone's got their own angle, their own bias, and their own little version of reality they cling to like a life raft. It’s honestly exhausting trying to find any kind of consensus when everyone is basically playing a different game entirely. The whole debate over where a homosexual orientation actually comes from—man, people have been tearing their hair out over this forever. It’s one of those deep, messy rabbit holes that scientists and psychologists just can't seem to nail down once and for all.

I was just falling down a rabbit hole reading through this Wikipedia deep dive on homosexuality—you know how it goes, you start looking up one thing and suddenly it’s three in the morning and you're questioning everything. It’s honestly pretty wild how much ground they cover here, from the biological theories to the sociological stuff, all the way through the historical shifts in how society views it. It’s a massive topic, obviously, and seeing it laid out like this really makes you realize how much "normality" is just a moving target depending on when and where you're living. One decade it's treated like a medical issue, the next it's a civil rights battleground, and then you've got the whole spectrum of identity that people are navigating today. It’s messy, it’s complicated, and frankly, it’s a lot to wrap your head around if you aren't already deep in the weeds of gender and sexuality studies. Anyway, I found myself staring at the section on evolutionary biology for a good twenty minutes—trying to make sense of the various theories on why it exists in nature. It definitely puts things in perspective when you realize we're talking about patterns that show up across basically the entire animal kingdom, not just among humans. Just some food for thought while you're scrolling through the internet late at night.

So, look at this controversial post—they’re using the word "disorder," but according to the official handbook, you aren't even allowed to use the term "patient." Since these quotes make it crystal clear that a disorder isn't exactly the same thing as a disease, what exactly was violated here?

Just a quick suggestion for the admins here—maybe take a look at how discussions about homosexuality are handled over on Apple. You’ll notice that anyone who dares to hold an opinion different from the "honored" users (or even Matthew Anderson himself), whether their argument actually holds water or not, ends up getting mocked or straight-up banned. It's pretty much a pattern at this point.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Jacob Chase42 said:Look, I don't know much about what John Newman34 is dealing with specifically, but from a scientific standpoint, there’s actually a distinction between a disease and a disorder.

Honestly, calling something a "psychological disorder" just feels like some fancy-schmancy way to say mental illness. If being gay is a psychological disorder (sorry, let's call it a *disorder*), then what's the actual code for it? If there isn't one, how can you even claim it's a disorder in the first place?

Some things you just can't pick up from a textbook, and when it comes to mental disorders, nothing is ever black and white.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Elizabeth Davis said:"mental disorder" is just some fancy-schmancy way of saying mental illness. If homosexuality is a mental disorder (excuse me, a *disorder*), then what's the actual code for it? Because if there isn't one, how can it even be called a disorder in the first place?"

Look, anything that deviates from the norm can be labeled an anomaly or a disorder. But honestly? You’ve gotta ask yourself—who defines what "normal" actually is? That’s the real question right there. It's hard to set a standard when there isn't a fixed direction for society to head in, but since the number of heterosexual people stays pretty much constant, any deviation from that baseline could technically be tagged as a disorder.

From that perspective, homosexuality—as a phenomenon that shows up infrequently in society—is an anomaly. And hey, I'm not trying to be offensive here, I'm just stating a fact. 🤷

Is a dark-skinned person in America an anomaly? Is a white person in Africa an anomaly?
And honestly, it’d be great if someone actually defined what "normal" even means. So much stuff gets shoved into that category just because of the era—like how Black people were labeled "abnormal" back in the day.

If you have a mental health disorder, you can't really live a full, happy life until you deal with it or—I don't know—suppress it somehow. So, if you view being gay as a disorder, then a gay person would either need to become straight or just pretend to be straight to cope. But the thing is, gay people can be perfectly happy just being themselves—without "fixing" anything (since there isn't a problem to fix) and without all that repression.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Jacob Chase42 said:Anything that deviates from what’s considered standard could be labeled an anomaly or a disorder. But then again, you have to ask, what actually defines "normal"? That’s a fair question to pose, I suppose. If we're talking about society where the number of heterosexual people stays pretty much constant, then any significant deviation from that baseline could be viewed as a statistical anomaly.

From that perspective, homosexuality—being a phenomenon that occurs less frequently in society—is an anomaly. And I don't mean that to be offensive; it's just a way of looking at the data. 🤷

So, does that make left-handed people disordered too? 🤣

I mean, it's not like there isn't a reason for it, but nature seems to favor the right hand over the left. Otherwise, I guess the number of lefties and righties would be roughly equal... 😁

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Jacob Chase42 said:In the post in question, they used the word "disorder." Since the rulebook forbids using the term "patient," and these quotes clearly make it known that a disorder isn't the same thing as an illness, what exactly was violated?

edit: A quick suggestion for the admins—take a look at some of the old debates on homosexuality over on apple, and you’ll see that everyone who held an opinion different from the "honored" users (and even Matthew Anderson himself) ended up being mocked or banned, regardless of whether their arguments actually made sense.

It’s the same principle. If you tell someone they have a "disorder," the conversation always ends the same way: a mountain of deleted posts and a bunch of bans.

The rules weren't just dreamed up by one single moderator (the stuff regarding homosexuality was already in place before I stepped into a mod role), but rather the current moderation team is in agreement on them. If you're really that obsessed with technicalities, we can always add "disorder" to the list.

If someone is truly looking to dive deep into disorders or clinical diagnoses, there are plenty of PDFs out there for that. apple isn't one of them, and we aren't going to tolerate that kind of thing here—mostly because we want to protect actual discussion among the users.

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Matthew Anderson said:The principle remains the same—if you label someone as having a 'disorder,' the discussion will inevitably end the same way... a mountain of deleted posts and a pile of bans.
...

Could we please stop tolerating people labeling believers as mentally ill, whether in this context or any other?

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

hiddenotter98 said:Can we please stop letting people label believers as "sick" in one context or another?

I wish people wouldn't call us "sick" just because we have a common cold. It feels pretty ugly to me, and honestly, it’s just depressing. 😢

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

slycrane94 said:I wish we wouldn't label people with a common cold as "sick" either. It feels incredibly distasteful to me, and honestly, it just leaves me feeling pretty depressed about how we talk. 😢

So, let me get this straight: it's okay to call religious people sick, it's fine to call people with a cold sick, but we can't call homosexuals sick?

What kind of logic are we using here? 🤷

Just pick a side and be consistent. Either everyone—religious folks, the LGBTQ+ community, and people with a sniffle—can be called "sick."
Or nobody gets that label, and we apply that standard across the board.
☕

Look, I’m not saying we should start labeling everyone—unless they actually have the flu—as "sick," but you can't really put faith and sexual orientation in the same bucket. One is a choice you make, and the other... well, it isn't really up to you.

No one is allowed to call anyone a "patient" anymore, but you should absolutely be able to say you view something as a disorder. What kind of nonsense is it to restrict our vocabulary like this? Who decided we can't label certain things? Sure, maybe calling a religious person "sick" isn't the move, but why can't I say that believing in the supernatural feels like a psychological disorder to me? Or why can't I say I view homosexuality as a disorder? Honestly, if we keep going down this path, we won't be able to say anything at all.🙄

original post : http://www.reddit.com/r/post/123

Elizabeth Davis said:And honestly, it would be great if someone actually defined what "normal" means—too much gets shoved into that box, which is why things like race were considered "abnormal" just a few decades ago.

Here you go: http://www.reddit.com/r/post/658275 🙂

slycrane94 said:I wish we didn't label people with a common cold as "sick"—it feels incredibly condescending and honestly just drags me down. 😢

Just an admin shamelessly trolling on PŽK because they know they’re untouchable. How precious. 😍

Matthew Anderson said:We don't want people throwing around medical diagnoses on this forum because, frankly, discussions regarding them never end peacefully. If someone posts a diagnosis, it inevitably spirals into endless threads of insults, dozens of deleted posts, and mass bans. Therefore, we flag these posts for rule violations—that's a 35-point deduction.

This has been explained multiple times already. Every so often, someone decides they want to share diagnoses here just to claim that gay people are "sick" or mentally ill. The rules exist for a reason; experience has shown us that we need them, and they aren't going to change. So, the penalty stands.