all posts post new thread

Forum Business Training forums hidden

Problems, Questions, Suggestions
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Steve W.

Level 8 Valued Member
I notice that all the training forums are now hidden behind a "Training" link on the main forum page.

I'm finding this annoying because it's an extra link to click to see the various training forums, instead of just seeing all the forums on main list.

IMO, there aren't so many subforums that just listing them all on one page is problematic, although I can see consolidating the Special Events subforums because most users are excluded from those anyway.

While I'm complaining about forum formatting, I also miss having direct links to the latest articles at the bottom of the main forum page. That's usually where I first noticed new articles in the past.

Finally, I'm not loving the "Ladies and Gentlemen"/"Brotherhood/Sisterhood" language, especially specifying "Ladies and Gentlemen ONLY." I get that this is intended to refer more to polite and civil behavior than gender identity (at least I hope it is...), but it seems unnecessarily binary and exclusionary (and therefore ironically contrary to an ethos of welcoming and considerate behavior) in a context where gendered language doesn't seem necessary at all. Can't we just be a "Community of Strength" (or Family of Strength, House of Strength, Clan of Strength, Tribe of Strength, Society of Strength, Fellowship of Strength, League of Strength, Circle of Strength, etc.)?
 
Last edited:
The “listed twice” is specific to some platforms. I am not seeing it on my phone or laptop. Please PM me with specifics of your platform and screenshots.

-S-
 
I see it twice on Windows 10/Chrome.

Screenshot attached.
 

Attachments

  • The Forum. Ladies and Gentlemen Only_.pdf
    451.9 KB · Views: 14
Very mysterious to me. I am using Chrome on one Mac laptop, Safari on another, and Safari on my iPhone, and none show what you folks are seeing. I appreciate the information - no one else needs to tell me, though - I get it. :)

-S-
 
Finally, I'm not loving the "Ladies and Gentlemen"/"Brotherhood/Sisterhood" language, especially specifying "Ladies and Gentlemen ONLY." I get that this is intended to refer more to polite and civil behavior than gender identity (at least I hope it is...), but it seems unnecessarily binary and exclusionary (and therefore ironically contrary to an ethos of welcoming and considerate behavior) in a context where gendered language doesn't seem necessary at all. Can't we just be a "Community of Strength" (or Family of Strength, House of Strength, Clan of Strength, Tribe of Strength, Society of Strength, Fellowship of Strength, League of Strength, Circle of Strength, etc.)?

Well, you know what? If the name was "Family of Strength", someone would complain that it is racist and exclusionary against orphans,
if it was "House of Strength", homeless people interested in getting strong would surely get upset, "Clan of Strength" resembles KKK too
closely, ....etc. There will be always someone who isn't happy and get seriously triggered by something and anything and everything.

I think the message "Ladies and gentlemen only" is very clear and needs no further explanations.
 
Well, you know what? If the name was "Family of Strength", someone would complain that it is racist and exclusionary against orphans,
if it was "House of Strength", homeless people interested in getting strong would surely get upset, "Clan of Strength" resembles KKK too
closely, ....etc. There will be always someone who isn't happy and get seriously triggered by something and anything and everything.
It's not about offending or triggering anyone. It's about sending an inclusive message, and not sending an exclusionary one when there is no reason to do so.

I work with a lot of young people who are non-binary or non-traditional in their gender identity/expression and/or in the process of figuring themselves out. And one thing many of them frequently express is how appreciative they are of any effort to understand, recognize and include them in language and deed.

So to me, it's not about conforming to some politically correct orthodoxy under threat of criticism or cancellation, or empty virtue signalling***, it's about having empathy for others and just being polite and welcoming -- just a matter of good manners.

"Family," "House," and "Clan" are inclusive terms. Anyone is welcome in this family, house or clan, regardless of personal circumstances or characteristics. If you are an orphan, you are welcome in THIS family. If you are homeless, you are welcome in THIS house. I probably wouldn't choose "Clan" myself, given alternatives, but that's based on an association, not anything inherent in the term itself.

If you don't think the phrase "Ladies and Gentlemen Only" is not exclusionary (and not just of bad behavior), then I don't know what to tell you, except that I disagree.

Or by:
I think the message "Ladies and gentlemen only" is very clear and needs no further explanations.
Do you mean that it clearly is exclusionary? What do you think the message clearly is?

***One of my pet peeves is the current (mis)use of the term "virtue signaling." And since I introduced the term to this thread myself, I want to clarify that I am using it in way that is common, but that I disagree with.

"Virtue signalling" is currently commonly used to dismiss an empty public display of virtue that costs a person nothing and has no substance behind it. But virtue signaling in psychology means almost exactly the opposite. It's not a token verbal expression, but a symbolic expression that has meaning precisely because it comes at a cost. For instance a bank in a classically styled stone building expresses financial stability because it costs a lot to build and the building itself is physically substantial and durable. Or a doctor's white coat expresses expertise because it symbolizes the extensive, expensive, and rigorous education and training of the doctor.

A charge of virtue signaling is also impossible to rebut because any sincere and substantive expression of virtue is indistinguishable from an insincere and superficial one. I mean, if you think racism (or whatever) is bad and you say so, are you saying it because you are expressing a strongly held moral value, or because you want to appear righteous to others?

In this currently common sense of the word, a charge of virtue signaling is just as much virtue signaling as the statement it criticizes.
 
Last edited:
It's not about offending or triggering anyone. It's about sending an inclusive message, and not sending an exclusionary one when there is no reason to do so.
How exactly do you send an "inclusive message"? By explicitly listing every possibility ?

I work with a lot of young people who are non-binary or non-traditional in their gender identity/expression and/or in the process of figuring themselves out. And one thing many of them frequently express is how appreciative they are of any effort to understand, recognize and include them in language and deed.
What means non-binary people? Trans? And a lot of them? I dont know statistics but I guess those are < 1% of population so you are probably living in some area of statistical fluctuation.


So to me, it's not about conforming to some politically correct orthodoxy under threat of criticism or cancellation, or empty virtue signalling***, it's about having empathy for others and just being polite and welcoming -- just a matter of good matters.
Once again, who are those others? I never encountered someone who is not polite and welcoming around this forum. With one possible exception of myself, hahha. But I keep on trying.

If you don't think the phrase "Ladies and Gentlemen Only" is not exclusionary (and not just of bad behavior), then I don't know what to tell you, except that I disagree.
Yes, I don't think so.

Or by:

Do you mean that it clearly is exclusionary? What do you think the message clearly is?
It clearly is, for me at least, signal of being good boy or girl while on the forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
How exactly do you send an "inclusive message"? By explicitly listing every possibility ?
No, just by avoiding excluding people, and certainly not excluding people when there is no reason to do so. So instead of specifying "brotherhood/sisterhood" (gendered terms for familial relationships), why not just use "family" (inclusive of anyone). Using "brotherhood/sisterhood" is trying to explicitly list possibilities, but in a way defined by a binary conception of gender. I'm suggesting avoiding explicitly listing possibilities.

What means non-binary people? Trans? And a lot of them? I dont know statistics but I guess those are < 1% of population so you are probably living in some area of statistical fluctuation.
No. Non-binary just refers to anyone who doesn't identify as traditionally male or female. I work in a school with hundreds of students, and it is definitely more than 1% who don't conform to a traditional gender identity in some form or fashion.

Once again, who are those others? I never encountered someone who is not polite and welcoming around this forum. With one possible exception of myself, hahha. But I keep on trying.
Sorry, that comment suggested an assumption about where you or others with a similar opinion might be coming from, and I have no specific basis for any such assumption, so I apologize for the suggestion. I agree that people on this forum are generally very polite, and I personally make an effort to be more polite here than I might sometimes instinctively be, or might be in other contexts.

It clearly is, for me at least, signal of being good boy or girl while on the forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
See, just specifying "boy or girl" and assuming that applies to everyone is the kind of thing I'm trying to point out. How about "good person"?

BTW, I slip up on this stuff all the time and default to using more traditional gendered or exclusionary terms when I could easily use more inclusive ones. So I'm not looking to attack anyone as much as just encourage a greater awareness. In some cases, it is hard to avoid, just because the language is structured around traditional assumptions. For instance, in English we only have gendered singular pronouns. When we are talking about a hypothetical person of unknown gender, there is a long history of using "they/them/their," technically plural pronouns, as singular. But it can get confusing when using "they," "them." or "their" to refer to a specific single person, although many people who don't identify as traditionally male or female are adopting "they/them/their" as their preferred personal pronouns, and it is becoming more widely accepted and normalized.
 
Last edited:
It's not about offending or triggering anyone. It's about sending an inclusive message, and not sending an exclusionary one when there is no reason to do so.

I work with a lot of young people who are non-binary or non-traditional in their gender identity/expression and/or in the process of figuring themselves out. And one thing many of them frequently express is how appreciative they are of any effort to understand, recognize and include them in language and deed.

So to me, it's not about conforming to some politically correct orthodoxy under threat of criticism or cancellation, or empty virtue signalling***, it's about having empathy for others and just being polite and welcoming -- just a matter of good manners.

"Family," "House," and "Clan" are inclusive terms. Anyone is welcome in this family, house or clan, regardless of personal circumstances or characteristics. If you are orphan, you are welcome in THIS family. If you are homeless, you are welcome in THIS house. I probably wouldn't choose "Clan" myself, given alternatives, but that's an association, not anything inherent in the term itself.

If you don't think the phrase "Ladies and Gentlemen Only" is not exclusionary (and not just of bad behavior), then I don't know what to tell you, except that I disagree.

Or by:

Do you mean that it clearly is exclusionary? What do you think the message clearly is?

***One of my pet peeves is the current (mis)use of the term "virtue signaling." And since I introduced the term to this thread myself, I want to clarify that I am using it in way that is common, but that I disagree with.

"Virtue signalling" is currently commonly used to dismiss an empty public display of virtue that costs a person nothing and has no substance behind it. But virtue signaling in psychology means almost exactly the opposite. It's not a token verbal expression, but a symbolic expression that has meaning precisely because it comes at a cost. For instance a bank in a classically styled stone building expresses financial stability because it costs a lot to build and the building itself is physically substantial and durable. Or a doctor's white coat expresses expertise because it symbolizes the extensive, expensive, and rigorous education and training of the doctor.

A charge of virtue signaling is also impossible to rebut because any sincere and substantive expression of virtue is indistinguishable from an insincere and superficial one. I mean, if you think racism (or whatever) is bad and you say so, are you saying it because you are expressing a strongly held moral value, or because you want to appear righteous to others?

In this currently common sense of the word, a charge of virtue signaling is just as much virtue signaling as the statement it criticizes.
To me, it seems pretty obvious what is meant by ladies and gentlemen......people who behave as ladies and gentlemen on the forum. I don’t think it’s supposed to be 100% inclusive. The forum “trolls” and disrespectful people, don’t behave as ladies and gentlemen, and should stay away. This is what I get from this.
The behaviour on this forum is great compared to so many out there.
People can find something offensive about anything if they try hard enough, even if it’s obvious to others nothing offensive was intended.
 
No, just by avoiding excluding people, and certainly not excluding people when there is no reason to do so. So instead of specifying "brotherhood/sisterhood" (gendered terms for familial relationships), why not just use "family" (inclusive of anyone). Using "brotherhood/sisterhood" is trying to explicitly list possibilities, but in a way defined by a binary conception of gender. I'm suggesting avoiding explicitly listing possibilities.
Well, my problem here was that I instinctively think that term "ladies and gentlemen" simply includes everyone.

No. Non-binary just refers to anyone who doesn't identify as a traditionally male or female. I work in a school with hundreds of students, and it is definitely more than 1% who don't conform to a traditional gender identity in some form or fashion.
I see, I was thinking in a purely biological terms. Honestly, I have hard time imagining what it means that someone who actualy, biologically, is
male or female doesn't identify as one but that's just my problem, I suppose. Do you have perhaps some examples of such a gender non-conformity and their expressions in youngsters?

... I personally make an effort to be more polite here than I might sometimes instinctively be, or might be in other contexts.
As indicated, me too! And beacause it is quite to contrary of my natural instincts, I sometimes fail.

See, just specifying "boy or girl" and assuming that applies to everyone is the kind of thing I'm trying to point out. How about "good person."
In a light of what was said above I understand the point. I certainly have no objection about "good person".

BTW, I slip up on this stuff all the time and default to using more traditional gendered or exclusionary terms when I could easily use more inclusive ones. So I'm not looking to attack anyone as much as just encourage a greater awareness. In some cases, it is hard to avoid, just because the language is structured around traditional assumptions. For instance, in English we only have gendered singular pronouns. When we are talking about a hypothetical person of unknown gender, there is a long history of using "they/them/their," technically plural pronouns, as singular. But it can get confusing when using "they," "them." or "their" to refer to a specific single person, although many people who don't identify as traditionally male or female are adopting "they/them/their" as their (see what I did there?) preferred personal pronouns, and it is becoming more widely accepted and normalized.
Thanks for Interesting language sideway. I as a non-native speaker would get confused for sure.
 
If you don't think the phrase "Ladies and Gentlemen Only" is not exclusionary (and not just of bad behavior), then I don't know what to tell you, except that I disagree.
We note, and respect, your right to disagree with our choice of words.

It clearly is, for me at least, signal of being good boy or girl while on the forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, this.

To me, it seems pretty obvious what is meant by ladies and gentlemen......people who behave as ladies and gentlemen on the forum. I don’t think it’s supposed to be 100% inclusive. The forum “trolls” and disrespectful people, don’t behave as ladies and gentlemen, and should stay away. This is what I get from this.
Yes, this.

The behaviour on this forum is great compared to so many out there.
I agree, and thank you very much for saying so.

-S-
 
I see, I was thinking in a purely biological terms. Honestly, I have hard time imagining what it means that someone who actualy, biologically, is
male or female doesn't identify as one but that's just my problem, I suppose. Do you have perhaps some examples of such a gender non-conformity and their expressions in youngsters?
Yes, if you fit the common traditional pattern of your biological sex matching your gender identity and expression and being heterosexual, and grow up and live in a culture that assumes that is the case for everyone, it seems very obvious and natural (which it is, for the vast majority it applies to). That's certainly how I grew up. And it can be hard to understand the experience of folks who are different, especially since they've often historically kept those differences hidden due to a lack of understanding, acceptance, and outright and often violent hostility.

I'm far from an expert on this topic, and my comments in this thread are more about how I think StrongFirst is, intentionally or not, less inclusive (and therefore less welcoming) in the language it uses to present itself than I think it should be. And that's based on my experience of how it's often hard to realize when you are unintentionally being exclusive in the language you use or unaware of how your language may be perceived as exclusive, and just how thankful and appreciative folks can be for even small efforts not to exclude them.

So I'm not really comfortable holding forth on the ins and outs of gender identity. But a Google search for the terms gender identity and gender expression will yield a lot of good resources.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom