To my fellow LGBT members, Did I do something wrong?

[William769]

This thread was alerted on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11373283

Here are the jury results.

"REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"Back in the 1970′s, the gay culture was a very different place because, well, it was dominated by gay men. By and large, lesbians were part of the Women’s Movement, and trans people were kind of viewed as social pariahs. Gay men saw trans women as traitors and lesbians saw them as interlopers. " Unhistorical garbage that implies gay men just had parties until lesbians came in to set them straight. Women were plenty involved in the early gay rights movement and Men weren't just focused on partying in that time period either. These implications are entirely bigoted against gay men.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jan 23, 2012, 02:56 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter--the way to make the point you are trying to make is to engage the OP about the article posted. You don't alert because you disagree, you alert because someone has done something wrong. Frivolous use of the alert process. LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post is through the view of the poster which may be in fact true for him.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with the alerter. This article employs some serious historical revisionism. We don't need to re-write history to prove that the GOP is bad news for LGBT folk.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Wouldn't kill the whole thread over an unrelated throwaway line, even if it is somewhat inflammatory.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future."

I have no idea why this was alerted on. Luckily for me the jury found in my favor. If any LGBT member has a problem with any of my threads I would appreciate letting me know I don't have a problem with deleting anything that fellow members find objectionable, I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable in this Forum with articles that get posted.

Sorry for rambling, I am just flabbergasted over this alert. Please comment So I know how members feel about this.

P.S. since this affects the LGBT community and a LGBT member (me), I feel it's within the SOP and not the H&M Forum.

[closeupready]

1. I think it's fine, personally. However, I guess if I were forced to find something 'wrong' with it,

perhaps the alert was prompted by a perceived overgeneralization in referring to "gay men say trans women..." rather than "some gay men" or even "most gay men"...? If one is paying attention to what you posted, they would see that this is not YOUR characterization - indeed, you rightfully reject it - but maybe the alerter was shocked and hit the alert in a hasty way?

I've found that sometimes in this forum (not naming names), people are jumpy and pick fights for no good reason.

When you consider how poorly this board has dealt with GLBT issues, it makes a certain sense, unfortunately.

[William769]

3. Unless I missed the mark on the article completely

I thought the person who wrote the article was saying Gay people in the republican party are ignorant in supporting that party.

quoted from the article "What Garrett misses is the nuances here. Like it or not, the national party is very homophobic. Perhaps Garrett would like to review the GOP 2008 Party Platform?"

[closeupready]

4. Yeah, lol, as I look more closely at the link, I'm confused

as to who is saying what to whom... I guess that's the hazard in quoting people quoting other people's quotes.

[joeybee12]

2. No, I think things go to jury more not because

there are more alerts, but because there are no monitors to judge whether they should be locked...I would have disagreed with what you had posted, but wouldn't have alerted.

[DURHAM D]

5. No.

JFTR - Myself and my partner were on the convening board of a human rights organization in the mid-70s. It was a 14 member group - 12 men and us two women. It took almost two years to get the word "lesbian" added to the organization's name because a majority of the board members would not buy the argument that "gay" was not inclusive. I am still friends with the three remaining men although I now live in a different part of the country. When I go back and visit they will bring up the issue and make fun of themselves for being so out of it in the beginning.

My goodness things have changed...

[yardwork]

6. If you read the comments in the thread, it's obvious who alerted.

The exact same phrases appear in the alert and the post in the thread.

Personally, I think that the alerter may have misunderstood that you were quoting somebody else's words. I see that a lot on DU. People assume that the poster is speaking in the first person, instead of noticing the link.