Sex Ed: Edge, Chlamydia, etc. — entire subforums deleted?

Who on earth deleted EVERY single post from the last two or three pages on the sex education thread and why?

Nobody was insulting anyone, there wasn't any off-topic nonsense, and nobody was trolling! What is even going on here?

Seriously, why is it such constant torture having to deal with these mods and their total power trips in this sex ed thread?

So, apparently one of the mods thinks—and still thinks—that talking about gender indoctrination is off-topic. Look, if the whole subject is "sex education," but they’re using it to push this fake distinction between sex and gender—which, let me be clear, is just pure gender ideology—then discussing that messed-up part of the curriculum is totally "on-topic." On one side, you've got these proponents of this kind of education who just LIE about everything regarding sex and gender just to justify their own agendas. On the other side, you have us forum users actually trying to stand up for truth and common sense while debating what’s actually being taught in these school classes. What exactly is "off-topic" about that? I mean, twisting the definitions of gender and sex might honestly be the biggest issue with this entire curriculum.

What are we supposed to do? Just scream unhinged nonsense like "Sex ed is garbage!" or "Sex ed is great!" or "There is a difference between gender and sex!" versus "No there isn't!"? Like, seriously, what do you moderators think we should even be talking about here if not the actual content of the curriculum and how it's being forced on kids? The topic is huge, obviously, but it's what it is. There's nothing else to do.

I really think it would be pretty smart to just restore those deleted threads.

Going off-topic is what happens when you and a coworker spend five pages trying to outsmart each other over whether a dictionary defines nouns by gender or sex. Since neither of you seems able to just drop it, I guess I’ll be the one to step in. I’ve already explained the core subject a hundred times, and frankly, I have no interest in repeating myself every time someone gets upset because their post was deleted. If you truly have nothing else of substance to contribute to this discussion, just say the word and I'll let this thread rest.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Going off-topic is when you and some lady spend five pages trying to outsmart each other over whether a noun refers to gender or sex in a dictionary. And since clearly neither of you knows when to quit, I guess I’ll be the one to step in. I’ve said what this thread is about a hundred times already, and I’m not going to repeat myself every single time someone gets salty because their post was deleted. If you don't have anything actual to say about the topic, just say the word and I'll shut this down.

So, if I say a reproductive organ is a sexual organ, and then someone comes along—someone who constantly derails the discussion, completely misinterprets every single argument, and starts acting like I'm an idiot because I supposedly don't get that "gender" means every organ we're born with... after I've already shown her she's wrong a dozen times, and after I've pointed out how these organs were referred to historically, maybe even by old folks today... well, it's on you as a moderator to finally tell her to stop trolling. I mean, how dense do you have to be to not realize there's nothing "socially constructed" about birth!? To me, she's just a straight-up troll. Instead of limiting her ability to drag out proofs of obvious facts, you just delete everything—and of course, you leave her latest nonsense standing. Why did you wipe my proof that a reproductive organ is a sexual organ, but leave her vague posts where she attacks me and claims I have no clue? It makes it look to everyone reading that she was right, simply because nobody can counter her since those posts are gone. Either you don't get what kind of debate this is, or you just don't care. Besides, she was posting at light speed, making it impossible to follow, and it wasn't just the two of us "outsmarting" each other. There were 5 or 6 other forum members trying to explain how ridiculous her stance is—a stance that is actually being pushed into our American SCHOOLS through the Department of Education curriculum for 3rd or 4th grade (see the opening post)!

Just like any other ideology, this gender stuff has zero scientific basis. It's tucked into health class, promoted by the government, and that's what needs to be written about. It's all just a result of twisting facts, hijacking old definitions, forcing new meanings onto words, ignoring etymology, and a whole bunch of other nonsense.

This whole mess regarding gender ideology stems from people not knowing the difference between gender and sex. I mean, you can't talk about gender roles, gendered terms, or even things like "gender relations" if you don't understand what the root word even means. So, shouldn't we agree on what we're actually talking about first?

I don't want to start a whole new thread here, but I was hoping for some clarification—maybe someone could explain why posts that were clearly on-topic regarding the foreign affairs discussion ended up getting flagged as off-topic? It feels a bit strange to get hit with warnings when we were actually sticking to the subject at hand. And honestly, I'm wondering why this keeps becoming such a flashpoint again... especially since the conversation seemed perfectly relevant to the topic we were all having.

Look, there’s this thing about topics—they have their own little bubble, right? You’ve got the immediate subject matter, sure, but then you’ve got the broader context too. I mean, anything that actually fits within the scope of the subject should really be considered part of the topic itself. If the moderation team can't tell whether someone is actually staying on track or just drifting off, then... well, I guess you could say the moderation isn't exactly hitting the mark. It feels a bit off when they can't distinguish between a relevant point and something totally out of left field.

I’m honestly looking to get all those off-topic strikes overturned—the ones the moderator "The Edge" handed out today. I really think he missed the mark on what actually counts as off-topic here, and, I don't know, maybe he just got a little lost with the moderation guidelines? It feels like he's a bit confused about where the line is drawn.

Joshua Anderson said:after I proved that reproductive organs were still referred to that way until quite recently

Look, you haven't actually proven anything. That document you found (the one about cows 😂) is fifty years old and uses "reproductive" exclusively for bovine anatomy; that doesn't prove much of anything in a modern context. If you plug "reproductive organs" into any search engine, you get basically zero results. The only hits you find are either in another language or just links back to this very forum where you're using that specific phrasing. 🤣
I gave you a detailed response to that post, but unfortunately, it looks like it was probably deleted before you even had a chance to see it.

Here’s what I think you’re missing: nobody is denying the fact that at one point in history, "sex" and "gender" became synonyms within certain contexts. We have documents from the 1800s that refer to grammatical categories as masculine, feminine, or neuter. Those words originally meant different things, but they merged into synonyms in specific contexts at one point in time. Nobody is arguing against that—we all know it. However, with the fight for women's rights and the rise of feminism, those two concepts were split apart again to clearly distinguish between what is biological and what is socially constructed. So, why is that usage correct?

You once wrote something along these lines: that gender, as a word, tends toward the shared, whereas sex tends toward identifying differences.
That sentence escaped me at the time, but I remembered it recently and realized that all the wisdom is contained in that simple observation.

It’s precisely because gender is oriented toward the commonality (humanity as a whole), covering those shared characteristics and roles (which both men and women can perform), that it’s more appropriate to use "gendered." Meanwhile, for traits that are naturally conditioned and contain clear biological distinctions, it's more accurate to say "sexual."

That’s really it; that's the entire philosophy behind this way of expressing ourselves. Again, I'll say it for the hundredth time: no one is denying that these words became synonymous. But based on your own explanation, the push to separate them is happening, and it's entirely justified because the words possess distinct original meanings.
Why the separation? Well, that's where our worldviews will never meet, so I don't expect us to agree on anything, and I'm not expecting you to agree with me either. But I engaged in this debate with you specifically because of that linguistic construction. This terminology is linguistically sound and completely valid. There's really nothing left to argue about here.

Paul Jones7 said:I’m trying not to start a whole new thread here, but could someone please explain why posts that were clearly on-topic were flagged as off-topic in the foreign policy II thread? Also, why is that topic being reopened if the discussion was actually relevant?

I've mentioned this several times, both here and in the thread itself, but discussions regarding homosexuality don't belong there. It's also worth remembering that we publicly announced much stricter moderation once that thread was shut down last time. You're keeping the warnings, but the thread is locked because the moderators are honestly exhausted from constantly having to play cop or babysitter to people who simply refuse to follow basic rules.

If the UN is already incorporating homosexuality into its agenda, then you can't just ban discussions about it within the context of the UN. Look at the logic here: according to the UN, homosexuality isn't some forbidden taboo when it comes to children—it's actually part of the curriculum being taught (and it is being taught)—so how does it make sense that for people discussing it in a forum thread about that very same UN policy, it suddenly becomes an off-limits topic?

That’s what I call tabooing a subject; plus, calling it "off-topic" doesn't really hold water either. As for locking the thread, I honestly don't see any justification for it. Aside from one single post, this was a completely civilized cultural debate, and people from both sides are just left scratching their heads wondering why it was shut down—I was even chatting with a user who's on the complete opposite side of this issue, and both of us were just baffled as to why the thread was locked 😕)

Listen to this guy, acting like he’s an expert on homosexuality now. Honestly, you might as well have said they give out exams on it too. Give me a break. If we followed your logic that this discussion should stay strictly within the realm of foreign policy II, then we’d never actually close any debates. It’s a minor issue, really—the fact that you two barely ever stepped foot in that domain to begin with. That's why the topic is closed, and that's why it's staying that way. Cheers.

I mean, they’re literally discussing what homosexuality actually entails. How can you even claim someone is off-topic if you don't even grasp the scope of the subject at hand? It just shows—well, it shows you haven't really wrapped your head around it. Not to mention, the whole point of a thread isn't just the narrow definition of social issues as a concept; it’s also about debating what those issues should include, or shouldn't, in the first place. That debate itself is part of the discussion.

So, what's the fix here? If this is truly off-topic in your eyes—which, for the record, I don't agree with at all, and you haven't even explained *why* it's off-topic—are we supposed to just start a whole new thread? One with such a massive, vague definition that it somehow covers both social issues and homosexuality simultaneously?

And please, don't try to tell me that homosexuality is some sort of forbidden topic that's strictly off-limits for discussion.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I have stated multiple times, both here and in other threads, that this platform is no place for discussions regarding homosexuality. This is just as true as the fact that we announced stricter moderation because the topic was locked last time. You can keep your cards, but the thread stays closed because the moderators are exhausted from constantly playing police officer or acting as babysitters for people who refuse to follow basic rules.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Listen to him, acting like he’s studying homosexuality. It would be great if you hadn't suggested they give out exams on it too. Give me a break. If the discussion were actually staying within the scope of what this site covers, I’d quote you saying it "remained in its domain," but then the thread would never have been shut down. The issue is small: you guys almost never stayed within that domain. That is why it was closed, and that is why it will remain closed. Regards.

Is homosexuality truly a disorder?

Not a single actual argument has ever been presented as to why homosexuality was declared normal in the USA back in 1973. It is known that Spitzer played a significant role, though he later changed his mind. It is even less understood why the WHO took nearly twenty years to follow suit. If there were valid arguments, they would have done it immediately, wouldn't they?
It is also a fact that in America, this passed with barely a majority vote among scientists. Is that what constitutes a scientific argument? Professors who held opposing views had their lectures canceled, were ousted from their departments, or were even threatened with death. It is quite accurate to say that declaring homosexuality normal was essentially the largest collective delusion in human history. Numerous recent studies are being suppressed—studies showing that homosexuality brings various other issues, such as a predisposition toward suicide, and that children raised by homosexuals show a statistically higher inclination toward homosexuality.
Based on the arguments and data from the studies I have accessed, I am convinced that homosexuality is a sexual disorder. Should we face imprisonment, job loss, expulsion from universities, labeling, or persecution simply for holding such an opinion?
It would be right and desirable to stop discriminating against all of us who hold different views and to stop bombarding us with homosexual propaganda and similar content. We aren't interested! What we are interested in are our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and you will certainly respect those! That isn't a request; it is your duty.

link
I understand that being a moderator in these types of debates is difficult. However, that is no excuse for shutting down a thread. If certain individuals are breaking the rules, penalize them. If you lack the patience to moderate, leave it to someone who does.

Regarding this subject, the curriculum maintains a scientific
stance that homosexuality is not a disease.
Furthermore, in alignment with democratic principles,
EU regulations, and the position of the Catholic Church, the goal is to
promote tolerance toward individuals of diverse sexual
orientations and foster an understanding of their right to
a dignified life. Rather than imposing notions regarding
what is "natural," the curriculum informs young people
about historical social attitudes toward homosexual
individuals, while providing insight into both religious
perspectives and the viewpoints of human rights advocates.

This is straight from the health education pamphlet.

They’re more prone to suicidal thoughts because they spend their entire lives being told they're sick when, honestly, they aren't.

You’re just brushing off what medical professionals actually say. This is a private forum, and frankly, it isn't interested in your personal spin on things. Fair enough? ☕

This isn't about my opinion or some personal interpretation; it’s simply an indicator that people hold differing views, and those views deserve respect—just as they do for homosexuals. As previously noted, there is no definitive, scientific proof establishing whether homosexuality is a disorder or not. Or perhaps there is? I couldn't say.
Of course, this forum and its administrators have the right to ignore, discriminate, spread falsehoods (which I assume stems from ignorance rather than malice), or be insulting (referring to Ryan Vaughn7). Is it fair? Well, it's their forum, so fine. It's fair. I'm not complaining; I am merely pointing out certain lapses.

rowdydrifter22 said:This isn't my personal stance or even my interpretation; it’s just an indicator that there are people out there who think differently. And we should respect that, much like how we respect homosexuals. As mentioned earlier, there isn't any scientific proof proving homosexuality is a disorder—or maybe there is? I honestly don't know.
Of course, this forum and its admins have the right to ignore, discriminate, spread falsehoods (which I assume comes from ignorance rather than malice), or even be offensive (looking at you, Ryan Vaughn7). Is it fair? Well, it’s their forum, so... sure. It’s fair. I'm not complaining; I'm just pointing out certain lapses in logic.

There are people with different perspectives, and maybe among them, someone might try to claim that rowdydrifter22 is mentally unstable or "abnormal" because of certain views. After all, there isn't definitive scientific evidence to disprove such labels. But why would anyone feel the need to prove rowdydrifter22 is "unstable"? Just to insult and discredit him, really. Should those kinds of opinions be respected on a private forum with its own rules of conduct? No, not at all. And who cares? The moderators. Should the moderators care if someone complains about not being allowed this specific type of "freedom of speech"? Not really. And do they care? No.

Linguists are all over this forum lately... I wonder if there's any lawyers in the mix too?

Ryan Vaughn7 said:There are people who see things differently, and you might find someone among them claiming that rowdydrifter22 is unstable or irrational for his specific views. There isn't any actual scientific evidence to support such a claim, but why would anyone feel the need to label rowdydrifter22 as mentally unfit? It’s purely a tactic to insult and discredit him. Should such opinions be tolerated on a private forum with its own established communication standards? Absolutely not. And who is responsible for managing that? The moderators. Should moderators care when someone complains about their lack of "freedom of speech"? No. And do they care? They don't.

Let me clarify my objection so it's easier to follow.
Cuka made a polite request that we stop using being gay as a way to label people as sick in any context whatsoever. As the administrator, he expects us users to respect that.
When someone fails to follow the rules, that same administrator should issue a warning or perhaps an outright ban, right? Instead, we deal with the supposed authority of Edge, who just shuts down the entire thread because, in his own words, he's bored of playing moderator.🙂
And this pattern has repeated itself three times now.

This thread was shut down once before because everyone drifted away from the actual subject. It seems to be a pattern here—whenever homosexuality comes up, people immediately pivot to trolling. Honestly, it’s much easier to spin conspiracy theories out of thin air than it is to actually engage with the provided materials. This topic likely got locked because managing the chaos is draining too much of the moderators' time, which is a problem in itself. Breaking the rules carries consequences, yet it feels like the moderators lack the backbone to properly penalize those who repeatedly ignore the guidelines. This isn't about bias; it's about basic enforcement. All this pedantic debate over the etymology of gendered terms is an interesting diversion, but as a logical argument regarding foreign policy II, it is completely irrelevant. Yet, people are treating it like it’s a matter of life and death.