Category talk:LGBT/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Categories as acronyms?

Categories shouldn't be acronyms, please fix this. Oberiko 12:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that categories like this maybe should be exceptions - "LGBT" is very commonly used, and the alternative, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered" is pretty long. -Seth Mahoney 05:48, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agreek with Oberiko. The acronym may be common in the US, but it is entirely unclear where I come from. Find a suitable euphemism, I guess? Radiant! 09:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That's interesting - where do you come from, Radiant!? What suitable euphemism might you suggest? 'Lesbigay' has been tried, with little success (it also leaves out trans people), 'queer' has been tried, but many people find that offensive, 'homosexual' is offensive to many (and leaves out trans people). The best solution we've been able to come up with is to use LGBT as the category name, and then have an explanation on the category page. Any other options you can think of to throw out? -Seth Mahoney 20:58, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm thinking this category needs some cleanup, but I don't want to make a unilateral reorganization. Here's the deal: we have Category:LGBT, which seems to be used for a lot of LGBT, including specifically gay and lesbian, topics, and also have Category:Homosexuality, which I would rather (personally) only see used for articles about groups or events that would be sympathetic toward a clinical view of gay and lesbian sexuality (such as the Homosexuality and ... articles, or articles on the "treatment" of homosexuality), we have Category:Gay-related topics, Category:Lesbian-related topics, and Category:Bisexual-related topics, but rarely are articles exclusive to one of these topics. We also have Category:LGBT civil rights which, after a helpful note and some thinking I'm thinking maybe should be changed to Category:LGBT rights (to include both civil and, more broadly, human rights, and thus include gay history as well as current gay issues). So here's what I propose: move articles from Gay-, Lesbian-, and Bisexual-related topics to Category:LGBT, move all articles specifically dealing with a pathological view of homosexuality and all articles titled "Homosexuality and ..." to Category:Homosexuality, and change Category:LGBT civil rights to Category:LGBT rights. -Seth Mahoney 05:48, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Your categorization scheme seems to assume the non-neutrality of the articles concerned, which does not seem advisable. Hyacinth 20:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How does my proposal seem to assume the non-neutrality of the articles concerned? -Seth Mahoney 04:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any more thought or interest in cleaning up the LGBT sections and categories including pulling the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender sections together. Frankly, I can see a separate gay wiki but would like to see the gay information on this great site more organized. -- tdempsey 05:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson and Restructuring

Why did you classify Pat Robertson under homosexuality, except maybe to piss him off? I mean, that's not the worst goal in the world, but it seems unencyclopedic. -- Jmabel 18:41, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

<moved from User talk:Jmabel>
I've been putting articles that relate to a specifically clinical view of homosexuality and those that deal with opinions on and views regarding homosexuality (along with the people who express them) in Category:Homosexuality (which would otherwise be pretty much redundant with Category:LGBT), including those on people who have public views opposing GLB issues and people. I've put a few other people in the category, including Laura Schlessinger and Fred Phelps as well. I've been thinking for a while that they will need their own category, but Category:People opposed to homosexuality is all I can think of, and it sounds absurd to me (how can you be opposed to homosexuality?), so it hasn't happened yet. -Seth Mahoney 18:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) <end moved content>

Let's keep dialog on one page; I'll temporarily add this to my watchlist. I have a feeling we'll want to copy this somewhere when we are done.

I'm not sure if Category:People opposed to homosexuality is exactly the right title, but something like that is needed, or Category:Homosexuality is going to get very confusing: especially as to whom it applies to. We do have a Category:Anti-gay rights legislation, which is not exactly on the mark, but maybe something else under its parent Category:LGBT civil rights? Or under the more open-ended Category:Gay-related topics?

In any case:

  1. We may want a categorization hierarchy distinguishing:
    1. People who say homosexuality is sinful.
    2. People who advocate criminalization or civil penalties for homosexual behavior.
    3. People who advocate or perpetrate anti-gay violence.
  2. The mere fact that someone holds an opinion (and even has expressed it) does not seem to me to be adequate reason for inclusion in the category. I the Pat Robertson article, we quote one homophobic remark. We don't really discuss his views on homosexuality beyond that. Is this a useful categorization under the circumstances? -- Jmabel 19:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
I'm all for breaking up Category:Homosexuality and possibly removing it completely. As I said on the Category:LGBT talk page, I'm trying to press for (or just do it myself) a restructuring of the LGBT categories, as they're a mess right now. I also think that Category:Gay-related topics needs to be broken up and deleted, as it is pretty vague and pretty much redundant with Category:LGBT (though I would be in favor of creating a Category:LGB or something similar to deal with those articles that exclusively talk about issues of sexuality and not transgender). As far as your categorization scheme goes, those people who advocate the criminalization of homosexual behavior are often people sho say it is sinful, so there's going to be a lot of overlap between the two categories, suggesting to me that they should be merged into one, and the same with people who advocate anti-gay violence and people who advocate criminalization. Really, what we're talking about is two categories: Category:Homophobia and Category:Homophobes (and possibly Category:People who are against homosexuality for religious reasons), but of course we can't call it that because it would be POV. As far as Pat Robertson goes, my reasoning was that his comment was extremely homophobic, extremely public, extremely opportunistic (using 9-11 to attack gay people), and very obviously representative of his views on homosexuality. He has also made himself an icon of the anti-gay-rights movement. To me, this justifies his inclusion. Also, I was thinking of copying all of this to the talk page for Category:LGBT if you don't object. -Seth Mahoney 19:14, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, please do copy it or move it, but can we do one more back-and-forth here first?
  1. I'm glad someone is thinking about this, but now that the current categories have been used enough to be suggestive of the problems, you might want to stop actively place articles into categories likely to be reworked soon.
    Agreed.
  2. Yes, a category Category:Homophobia would be very controversial, and a Category:Homophobes more so. We already have Category:LGBT civil rights where that's relevant: it can include both those who support and those who oppose civil rights for LBGT people. We could easily add a Category:religious views of LGBT and use it similarly.
    I agree that's a good place to put them, but what do we call them? Category:Supporters of LGBT civil rights and Category:Opponents of LGBT civil rights? Something like that is pretty long, and I don't think a lot of people who would fit into the latter category would not agree that they actually oppose gay rights, but that some other concern supercedes any particular gay rights issue, like their conception of family or marriage, their religion, or whatever. Actually, I just got an idea. I'm going to do a little poking through CBN et al's web sites and see what they call themselves.

-Seth Mahoney 22:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) -- Jmabel 21:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that idea wasn't too fruitful. Of course Pat Roberston and the like aren't going to refer to themselves in the third person, so I'm not going to get anything useful there. "Opponents of gay rights", though, seems to be a fairly common term in the US media, though, so that might actually work. -Seth Mahoney 23:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think everyone is going to be cleanly a "supporter" or an "opponent" anyway; for example there are gay people who are pretty appalling on their attitude toward transsexuals. Subordinate to Category:LGBT civil rights we already have Category:LGBT rights activists, so what we call that side is easy, the category is already there. I wouldn't object others who have significant stands on the issue of LGBT civil rights being classified for now directly in Category:LGBT civil rights until we can come up with a name for the subcategory: it's certainly a lot more appropriate than Category:Homosexuality.

I still think that the religious issue and the rights issue are separate. Many (although not all) who come at this from a religious perspective are not neatly "supporters" or "opponents". I'd advocate a category Category:religious views of LGBT and after we have, say, 20 people in it, it's time to see whether it needs further subcategories.

That's probably about it from me on this. Feel free to move the discussion to Category:LGBT, I'll put that on my watchlist (and drop your user page). Ping me if you want me back in the loop about something not on Category:LGBT. -- Jmabel 23:49, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Tidying up

So the LBGT, gay, homosexual, sexology, and sexuality categories are getting pretty messy. I'm going to try making some logical subcategories here, having to do with religion, festivals, civil rights, etc. Feel free to join in or comment. -- Beland 05:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reclassification

So I think I'd like to reclassify everything under "Category:Homosexuality", "Category:Gay-related topics", "Category:Lesbian-related topics", and "Category:Bisexual-related topics" and delete these categories, which seem like a bunch of twisty categories, all alike. I'd instead create "Category:Sexual orientation and science", "Category:Sexual orienation and society", "Category:Gay and lesbian culture", "Category:LGBT symbols", and "Category:Sexual orientation and identity". Thoughts? -- Beland 14:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought they were a twisty bunch of categories each slightly different. No actual opinion, but I take that you, like me, are not one of the younger Wikipedians. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
I like "sexual orientation" rather than "homosexuality" - this seems to be the way all the related articles are headed anyway. -Seth Mahoney 00:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I like it. Hyacinth 00:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, cool. I'll proceed at my leisure. (I don't know if you mean young to Wikipedia, which I have been active at for less than a year, or new to the universe, which I have been participating in for 26 years or so. But enough about me...) -- Beland 05:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was wrong. "...bunch of twisty categories, all alike..." had me guessing you were old enough to have been using computers befor the days of visual operating systems. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:07, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I remember when Windows first came out, but not X. 8) -- Beland 23:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure the new categories are any clearer than the old. It seems like all the topics are being simultaneously lumped into three or four categories each, and I'm not really clear what the difference between the categories is supposed to be. Categorizing should make things clearer, and I don't think that's being accomplished at the moment. --Azkar 04:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Being in multiple categories is not inherently a bad sign. Can you indicate where it seems to be a problem? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Off the top of my head .. fag (pejorative) was recently placed into Category:Sexual orientation and identity, Category:Gay and lesbian culture, and Category:Sexual orientation and society. Personally, I don't really see the term fitting neatly into any of these categories. As well, the categories themselves aren't very self-intuitive. Gay and lesbian culture is relatively self-explanatory (presumably, articles relating to things specific to the gay community), but the other two are more vague in what they're meant to deal with. --Azkar 19:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can follow its being a member of any of these categories, considering that the term is used offensively from outside and non-offensively within the gay community in much the same way that the word 'nigger' is used. Maybe we should pause and sit down and think about where we all want this categorizational scheme to go. Myself, I think the three major categories work fairly well, and would maybe like to see a collection of subcats to help organize them. I can see, though, that separating trans culture from gay and lesbian culture is sometimes difficult, and may be offensive to some. How would the rest of you like to see the categories play out? -Seth Mahoney 21:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes lumping trans people with LGB people can also be offensive. Other times, it's just not applicable. I must admit that I've probably made inconsistent decisions on that score, but I thought I'd leave it up to people more familiar with trans issues to do any necessary cleanup. -- Beland 09:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're right. There's a really great contributor, AlexR, who has written and edited a lot of trans articles. Maybe we should seek some advice. -Seth Mahoney 00:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I also noticed that the vocabulary terms were a weak point in the new scheme. I wanted to create a new category just for slang terms, including offensive ones. Or maybe one just for offensive terms. "LGBT argot" is supposed to be only for terms that mostly only "in-group" people are supposed to use and understand. Ironically, I don't think most people know what "argot" means, either. I certainly didn't until I came across this category. Some of the terms are also "identity" terms, which is why they ended up in "Sexual orientation and identity". All of the "in" vocabulary terms could also be considered part of the culture, I guess, which is why some words ended up there. I guess this just shows why there should be a clear "words" category, perhaps a subcategory of culture, etc., and argot a subcategory of that? -- Beland 09:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To further confuse the issue, many in-words for the gay community are also pejoratives when used by non-members, so they should also go in "Sexual orientation and society". Maybe we should create a linguistic category, for all words used within and outside the community, and then subdivide it as appropriate (and if needed). -Seth Mahoney 00:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have created Category:LGBT terms. Help is needed to move or add the appropriate articles to it. -- Beland 03:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Gay travel destinations

I had set up a new category on WIkipedia yesterday— Category:Gay travel destinations— which had sparked a bit of discussion and eventually listing on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. It would be nice to be certain that there is adequate queer/gay/homosexual/GLBT discussion on this subject. Please consider adding to the discussion. Best regards. SFDan 07:09, 29 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LGBT is not "most common

It is Wikipedia policy to call things by THEIR MOST COMMON NAME. LGBT is not "most common". I'm American and have never seen the term til now (and NEVER EVER heard the term). It needs to be replaced with something not cryptic. Anything in the dictionary in common usage that roughly identifies the category will do. Non-heterosexual, Sexual identity, LGBT (aka Non-heterosexual),Sexuality and so forth. But this cryptic LGBT has got to go. 4.250.177.11 00:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you are weighing in anonymously, I'm not sure how heavily to count that. For what ever it's worth, I'm a 50-year-old straight guy, and the term is completely familiar to me, has been for at least a decade. And I don't know a more common term with the same breadth. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:06, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm Canadian, and I've seen the term used extensively in both American and Canadian media (LGBT-oriented, as well as mainstream). Like Jmabel, I can't think of any other term that's more widely used and recognized (in North America, at least), that covers the same range, and that remains neutral. --Azkar 15:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have seen LGBT more lately than GLBT and I believe it is an issue of the time we live in. I personally wish we pick one and stick with it. I vote for the current LGBT. There is also a search on Google and Yahoo! showing LGBT is more common than GBLT under Talk:LGBT. -- tdempsey 05:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "most common" equals "what I've heard of (the most)." There are a lot of "most common" stuff that I've never heard of; just because I personally haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't the "most common." Rugadh 22:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Love?

I am removing the recently added parent category Category:Love. Category containment like that is an is-a relationship. Clearly, much of what is under the present category has nothing to do with love. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Um. What? Exploding Boy 19:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Just for example, none of the following subcategories belong under Category:Love:
  • Boy George
  • Gay and lesbian historians
  • Gay icons
  • Gender (actually, a very dubious inclusion in LGBT, if anything it should be the other way around)
  • Hate crimes
  • LGBT athletes
  • Queer theory
  • Transgender people and behavior
I could go on, but I think my point is clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

New Categories

LGBT may not be specific enough to be useful. In particular the article North American Man/Boy Love Association is classified as an LGBT organization. It could also be classified as an LGBT rights organization. Purhaps some new categories or a new structure is needed. May the can of worms open. --Gbleem 18:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are three groups that might all be put in the same category --Gbleem 21:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC) :

Why would DPA or PIE be appropriate for such a category? They are non-gender-specific and thus really have no reason to be in the LGBT category. NAMBLA, which is gender-specfic, does. Corax 23:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Take LGBT category out of Culture?

I propose to remove LGBT as a subcategory of Culture. I don't think most of the material refers to culture. Any comments?Wuzzy 23:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty?

Should Pederasty be a subcategory of LGBT? --DrBat 23:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Its certainly a question worth exploring. My initial reaction is to say that LGBT identities are thoroughly contemporary, and they are constructed in such a way as to exclude pederastic relationships, and that therefore Category:Pederasty should not be a subcategory of Category:LGBT, even though there are definitely historical connections. Any other thoughts? -Seth Mahoney 04:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not a subcategory. In particular, a pederast can be a heterosexual. Second, I agree with Seth Mahoney that the contemporary social construction of LGBT identity has nothing in particular to do with pederasty. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Seth's arguments, pederastic relationships are included in the gamut of legitimate same sex relationships in most jurisdictions (in the US, in Vermont for example, a sixteen year old boy can legally be in a love relationship with a twenty six year old man, same in London, England, and in many, indeed most, other countries). A recent British TV serial on gay life (I forget the name, but perhaps someone here can help me) featured a fifteen year old boy in relationship with an older man (the age of the boy was jacked up to eighteen when the movie was borught to the US). Thus contemporary identities visibly and openly include such relationships. To say nothing of historical connections. As a matter of fact, the person deleting the "Pederasty" category from "LGBT" forgot to delete other pederastic reference which somehow found their way into that category, such as the images "European age of male..." and "Von Gloeden - Boy wi...", as well as the articles "Bisexuality," "Homosexuality," "Queer theory," "Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people," "Lesbian," and many others which it would be tedious to recount here. All this goes to show that the amputation of pederasty from LGBT topics is not possible without the removal of material seern as key to LGBT history and experience.
As for Jmabel's repeated attempts to construe pederasty as a heterosexual occupation, while I do not contest that it may be used by some, somewhere, in that sense (we have already had this discussion) it is not the normal, accepted sense of the term and such use would be regarded as inaccurate, uninformed and odd by people familiar with the topic. Men who get it on with sixteen year old girls are usually not called pederasts, they are called other things. I am sorry but the distinction you are looking for does not exist. Haiduc 02:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything you've said here (and especially regarding supposed heterosexual pederasty). The only thing I wonder about is whether the current construction of LGBT has room for pederasty. It seems to me, initially, and admittedly coming from a thoroughly American and contemporary POV, that it doesn't, given the (again, this is probably stronger in the US than in many other places) fairly strong move by LGBT communities, individuals, and spokespersons to, as you say, amputate this (and others, too) aspect of homosexuality. That's not, of course, to say that it shouldn't, but that given the way LGBT, especially white, middle class LGBT (oh jeez - now I'm not only being Americacentric, but bordering on racism and classism - oh well: The fact remains that in the US white, middle class gay people are the ones doing a damn lot of the constructing, at least in official discourse), identities are constructed (again, US and contemporary POV here) in opposition to pederasty seems to defy such an inclusion. But I'm definitely open to other perspectives. -Smahoney 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The article on Pederasty says that this term refers to male-male relationships only. If there are other uses, the article should be updated, citing sources for such claims. Regardless, this is clearly the primary meaning. The article also makes it clear that old man/young man relationships are institutionalized in some cultures to the current day, so classification in "LGBT history" is not comprehensive. I'm re-establishing the link to put this clearly LGBT topic in the logical place to find it. -- Beland 20:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A now, a bit of a rant about the question, "I wonder about is whether the current construction of LGBT has room for pederasty". Clearly, a lot of LGBT people want to bury the stereotype that gay men prefer underage boys. Some people seem to want to pretend that large age differentials in male-male relationships don't sometimes occur in the modern world, for poltical convenience. Sensible people, I think, accept the reality and either disapprove of it or don't. But this notion that what it means to be "gay" is completely arbitrary is nonsense. A man in a pederastic relationship is no less homosexual than a man who practices polygamy is any less heterosexual because of it. -- Beland 20:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That's true, if we take 'gay' and 'homosexual' to refer only to men who have sex with men, but this definition is as problematic as ever. 'Gay' is a contemporary, primarily Western construction (and this does not mean that it is arbitrary) that contains a cluster of notions, which intersect class, race, age, and a whole host of other identity positions, and any definition which ignores those or pretends that limits to that identity don't exist is unnecessarily reductionist. I definitely think that it is a mistake, given the current state of the world, to say that a pederast is a kind of gay person. That said, it is also a mistake to ignore the historical connections between gay identities and pederasty. 'Homosexual' is a psychological term that has a, sometimes distinct from that of pederasty, but sometimes not, history of being used to pathologize same-sex desire. 'LGBT', on the other hand, is a largely political construction, and to pretend that the political concerns that have gone to make up that particular identity cluster don't matter is just ignoring what that particular term means. All that said, my question wasn't rhetorical - I do really wonder whether the current construction of LGBT has room for pederasty. I'm interested in discussion here, although I'd prefer it wasn't quite as polemic as the paragraph immediately preceding this one. Anyway, here are my main points:
1. I'd prefer this discussion refer to 'LGBT' and 'pederasty' specifically, not 'gay' or 'homosexual' (I know 'LGBT', as an acronym, includes 'gay' under the second letter, in name at least, but its political history separates it from the term 'gay', which I tend to think is in some ways more general).
2. The history of 'LGBT' is one of including and excluding certain groups. It is, primarily, a Western, white, middle class construction, and therefore, to some degree, contains and exemplifies Western, white, middle class values. This cannot be ignored.
3. People who identify as LGBT, generally, have moved to exclude pederasty, admittedly primarily for political reasons, but I'm not sure that that fact changes the way that LGBT people self-define.
4. To pretend that 'LGBT' covers times and cultures in which such a construction is completely foreign (as would happen if we resurrect Category:LGBT Ancient Greeks, which would be somewhat justified if Category:Pederasty were made a subcat) is to pretend away the very meaning of the term.
5. This debate may point to a problem with the category itself - if the category were Category:Same-sex desire or something, there would be no debate. Maybe that means we should replace this category, or create a parent for it that includes Category:LGBT (of course) and Category:Pederasty (and, probably, others).
-Smahoney 22:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Beland is right when he says that many in the community want to sanitize pederasty into non-existence. The only reason they have not succeeded is that it is about as easy as cutting off your own head. Two conclusive counterarguments - I do not know of anyone in the gay community militating to raise the age of consent to eighteen in those places (most everywhere, as I already mentioned) where minors are enfranchised to enter into erotic relationships with adults. But such relationships are simply legal pederastic relationships. What Seth is pointing to when he cites LGBT exclusion of pederasty are presumably instances of separation of LGBT political goals from those promoting underage sex. But underage sex is not of the essence of pederasty, quod erat demonstratum previously.

Second argument against the viability of separation: look, for example, at the people in Category:Gay writers. Shall I extract a few, quickly? Here: Jacques d'Adelsward-Fersen, William S. Burroughs, # Lord Alfred Douglas, Federico García Lorca, Stefan George, André Gide, Allen Ginsberg, Larry Kramer, John Lauritsen, John Henry Mackay, W. Somerset Maugham, Roger Peyrefitte, Arthur Rimbaud . . . That is just off the top of my head, I probably missed a lot, and did not even get into the other page of the category.

Finally, an anecdote. A friend of mine who used to live in SF recounted how he used to walk with his boyfriend, a young-looking Asian college student, through the Castro, only to get dirty looks from the older residents for being so obviously older than his boyf. So they decided to walk a few paces apart, and now the same residents started hitting on his boyf.

Cat LGBT is imperfect, but perhaps less imperfect than any alternatives I can think of at the present moment. Haiduc 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both you and Beland. I also agree that there's often a certain hypocrisy going on in the LGBT community regarding age differences in relationships (and, of course, among heterosexuals). What I'm saying is that that desire to both rewrite history and erase a significant enough section of the gay population (I'm drawing a line here between 'gay' and 'LGBT') suggests that LGBT, while more inclusive in some ways, is much, much less inclusive in others, which is why I suggested a higher-level category to contain both Category:LGBT and Category:Pederasty (I'd also like to see pre-LGBT categories moved there). But, you know, I'm not especially committed to it if no one else is. -Smahoney 05:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It is ironic, if we look at the evolution of LGBT as an ever more inclusive tag - first it was just "gay" and then - wait a second! - how about the lesbians? Then the bisexuals got in there somehow, and finally, you can't very well leave out the trannies, let's be really inclusive. But how did it happen then that LGBT is now less inclusive than the "gay" it incoporates?! I just can't buy it. It is a futile writhing to escape the unescapable. The sad thing is that the gay community has bought into the slur (the Wikipedia documented slur!) that love of the young is tantamount to love of the too-young. Love of the young is fundamental to gay experience - and blameless if kept within the bounds of the law and of ethical behavior. Apparently much of the rest of the world understands that - why do you think that the laws in Europe and many other places empower youths in their mid-teens to enter into relationships with adults? These laws are not relics, oversights or mistakes. People are not that stupid. And speaking of that, is it merely coincidental that the level of intellectual discourse is depressed in countries with high ages of consent, like the US and the Arab countries? I wonder. Haiduc 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The "level of intellectual discourse is depressed in … the US and the Arab countries"? I take offense at that as an American, and would equally take offense if I were an Arab. When you say things like that, it makes it very hard for me to take you seriously on other topics, such as the one at hand here: the thirteenth strike of the clock casts doubt on the other twelve. - Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, the level of intellectual discourse has never been higher. As for offense, who are you to be offended, and who am I to give offense?! Haiduc 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Pederasty refers to TEENS, not children.

A 13 year old boy has pubic hair, erections, and is fully capable of having orgasms. He is able to consent, and there is no reason why he cannot be taught the ways of sex by an older man. While NAMBLA may be gone, many still feel strongly about this issue in the LGBT community


Pederasty category

...is located somewhere on this page. Remove it. Skinnyweed 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that demands aren't generally received well. You might also note the conversation immediately above this one. -Smahoney 21:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's absurd. You might as well include other forms of pedophilia with "heterosexuality" if they're going to pull this stunt.

Ric Flair

... I may be missing something, but WHY is Ric Flair of all people listed in this category? He dosn't always dress as it, but I'm fairly sure he's heterosexual.

Also, I've been looking for the bisexual userbox, and haven't been able to find it. Where is it? PumeleonT 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it. PumeleonT 06:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Organizing

Does anyone have any idea where to start organizing the morass of LGBT categories? One way that I don't think would work is to start with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender - there are too many cats, articles, etc that span all four. So what are some other taxonomies that might work? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the way we already have, to begin with? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's quite a jumble. Take a look at the category list on the Portal page, for example - in my opinion, it's not very organized. And there are lots of articles that are in multiple categories where simplification would help. For instance, what's the difference between Category:Gay writers and Category:Queer writers?
And there have been several calls for re-organization, including one from you on the WP:LGBT talk page :)
But maybe you're right and the current overall structure is sufficient - I haven't studied it enough to form an opinion. Mostly I'm just looking for input from different people to see what their thoughts are as to what needs to be done.
As a side note, Google reports 98 categories when I searched for "site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:Category (intitle:Gay OR intitle:Lesbian OR intitle:Bisexual OR intitle:Transgender OR intitle:Transexual OR intitle:Transsexual OR intitle:Queer OR intitle:homosexual) -intitle:talk -intitle:wikipedians". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm for reorganisation, after I discovered that no-one knew about List of transgendered sports people because NO-ONE had bothered to cat it appropriately. I'm just not really sure of how to go about it, I've been recategorising ti as I go along, but I don't know about the big picture. I've always imagined queer writer are those who either identify as queer or write about queer theory. Would you rather merge them? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There does not appear to be such an article as List of transgendered sports people. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered sportspeople -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:LGBT/Archive_1&oldid=384520296"