This directive is unlikely to be used to start a witch hunt of gays still in living in the closet within the organisation. It makes no difference to the majority of people studying since the chances of them being openly gay and still wanting to join the Witnesses is virtually nil.
For those people, particularly born-ins, who have contented with trying to square their natural feelings with their programming that homosexuality is a sin and not to be practised there are a few scenarios:
1 - they acknowledge their feelings, come out as gay and leave the organisation
2 - they acknowledge their feelings but stick the organisation and simply try to squash their natural tendencies
3 - they kid themselves and try to live as a heterosexual witness
Basically, the cream either rises to the top and leaves or is suppressed by the individual.
I would suspect that it would only be the extreme case where someone who believes themselves to be gay stays in the organisation and fights against whatever intolerance is shown as a result of this directive.
However, I still believe there is the question of how this is implemented. Although the notes suggest that counsel and the sanction on ministry would be provided only to one continually reflecting the extremes of the spirit of the world, we all know this type of poorly qualified direction is regularly interpreted in ways that go beyond the spirit and intent of the original instruction.
Given it's inference to not just clothing but also mannerisms that could be construed as crossing the gender divide, I would not be surprised if we start to hear of cases where elders start wading into situations with their size tens, dragging their cultural knuckles on the floor behind them.
I think Simon is correct to point out that this probably makes zero material difference to the genuine homosexual but the collateral damage is not going to be there. It's going to be in the young ones who like to be well groomed and enjoy expressing themselves sartorially. It's going to be on those that like to be a little different. It's going to be amongst those that are in congregations where one or two elders rule the roost and have no liberally minded foils (and they do exist) to temper the control they wish to exercise.
In my opinion, this instruction does represent a resurgence of the sort of top down, prescriptive, rule based, unqualified, high control thinking and approach that typified times past.
Aside from the ministry sanction, maybe little is actually that different to previous commentaries on clothing etc. however there is something more insidious about the way this is presented that may be more visible to the average joe witness, especially if they are the more professional and culturally aware type that are out there.
To that end I would hope that the elders do act on this instruction and do it in a way that is ill conceived. That way, there is a chance that it may be catalyst for some to wake up.
