Talk:Ex-ex-gay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

There is not this: ex-ex-gay!...[edit]

That is a fallacy. On the assumption that a homosexual person has been treated, which can give is that homosexual person (gay) has not been adequately dealt with. Similarly, if a person failled in influenza is not adequately dealt with, there will be a "relapse"... be so and could speak of a seemingly endless sequence of typology:

(ex)n-gay, where n ∈ {–1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... , ∝}
expression in which: ::: n = 1 refers-if the person who has never been gay (naturally heterosexual), here cited by generality;
n = 0 refers to the person who thinks (or says self...)gay
n = 1 refers to properly "that homosexual person which, effectively treated, no longer be gay"
n = 2 refers to (but, here comes this reply!) to the person of the probationary period preceding returns to the state gay
and so on...

The above provided — if there is effectiveness, seriousness and verity in treatments — it is not possible to talk in "relapse gay".

To confirm this assertion and for an adequate and correct understanding, it will be very usefull to explain accurately the focal point of the arguments above. Independent my conviction, what is in check here is a pure first order linear logical reasoning:

  1. there is no possible treatment for homosexuality, there is no ex-gay. Therefore, there is no ex-ex-gay. Although there is still gays normally (those who have not submitted to what simply does not exist... the treatment);
  2. another hand, possible heal homosexuality, then effectively there will be the ex-gay, which, once healed (in line with the reasoning...), will not rellapse, whence is not possible to have the figure of ex-ex-gay. Will also continue to have the gays normally (those who have not submitted to what simply they do not want... the treatment).

So, whether it be possible, or is not possible treatment in question, in both situations is not possible the figure of ex-ex-gay. This is merely due. It is not or not be possible, that is another story. Then, which was considered above is clearly expressed a elemental analysis of logical consistency. Only that. BeremizCpa? 17:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What??[edit]

I'm afraid BeremizCpa?'s lack of fluency in the English language renders his logical argument indiscernable. He seems to be implying that there is no such thing as an ex-ex-gay; but I'm really not able to follow his line of reasoning. MishaPan (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So sorry...[edit]

...if one can't understand the above reasoning. It is logically coherent, consistent and, so, perfect. Should be tried to understand it. BeremizCpa? 00:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


Find an external source supporting your argument and write a "controversy" section in the article. 75.38.141.74 (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not the reasoning that is difficult to understand but the language. What I think Beremiz is saying is that the concept of someone being ex-ex-gay does not make sense because if the "treatment" was effective (and was properly implemented) then people would be converted to straight and not go back, whereas if the "treatment" is a crock then they can never really have become ex-gay, only repressed, and have in fact been gay the whole time. The phrase ex-ex-gays implies gay people have actually become straight with treatment but "relapsed" into being gay which would imply that the treatment was in some sense effective and could be repeated so that the people could be mades straight again, with possible further cycles of relapse and "treatment" ad infinitum. It is a reasonable point but I don't think it has to effect the articles title since article names are more based on what people commonly call things than how accurate that desciption is. Plus it would create controversy and unweildy titling if you had to fight it out between "relapsed gays" and "gay people who tried to pretend to be straight but got sick of it." 84.51.188.10 (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

@Beremiz: Hi, Egidio! Se você quiser, escreva-me em português na minha página de discussão, e eu vou tentar ajudá-lo.
From your many contributions I can see that your native language is Portuguese (and that you've also made a handful of contributions in de, es, fr and it Wikipedias; bravo) as well as many contributions on the English WP. However as others have stated, your level of English makes it hard to follow your argument. I realize it's been quite some time since you posted here, but if you're still interested in pursuing this, please add a comment to my Talk page in Portuguese, and I'll try to clarify your intent here. As a friendly but honest comment to you, your English is very difficult to understand, and so to save you wasted effort, you probably shouldn't edit English WP articles in the main article space, because they will likely just get reverted; but feel free to edit in Talk space as it doesn't matter if the English is correct or not, as long as people can understand you. Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Beyond Ex-Gay be merged into Ex-ex-gay for reasons Overlap and Text (see WP:Merge).

Ex-ex-gay is a concept, movement, category of like-minded people, whatever you wish to call it, and Beyond Ex-Gay is simply one prominent website of this movement that is already referenced and explained sufficiently in the Ex-ex-gay topic. In addition, there is a lot of overlap, as Ex-ex-gay already mentions almost all the essential information regarding the website, namely who its founders are, and what it's about.

Both articles are short, stubs almost, and can easily be merged into Ex-ex-gay without making the article too long. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

At least judging from the article itself in its current state, there is not much supporting there continuing to be an article there; there are two dead refs, and the third has literally a half-sentence mention of the article's topic as something planned for the future, on page 6 of 7. I'm fine with a redirect; I would need to see better sourcing to believe that there is anything here that needs to be added to ex-ex-gay in its current state. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
This article doesn't have good sourcing either. Anyway, perhaps the other article should be nominated at AfD? I agree with you that it doesn't seem notable. But I'd prefer an open deletion rather than one that is stealthily accomplished through a 'merge' 69.127.235.74 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If I was judging by just what was in the article, then I would call for an AFD... but that's not what one should judge by. If you want to take the time to investigate whether sufficient sourcing can be found, and, if that fails, AFD it, that would not seem out of line. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge to ex-gay[edit]

This really seems like it should just be a subsection of Ex-gay movement; it's just a "failure" of that movement rather than something distinct. As it stands now, this article is redundant and is just information about "ex-gay" followed by a list—both of which are duplicative of the ex-gay article. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you check the history, I think it might be that this article was originally spun out from the article to which you propose re-merging it. I have no particular opinion on the matter, just chiming in for history's sake. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks- I saw that after I posted this, but then I also saw that this was nominated for deletion and there was significant support for merging it back then too (although no consensus). But it still hasn't blossomed into anything distinct in the years since it achieved independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.235.74 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I support either deleting it or merging it. It is not really needed on its own.