Talk:LGBT rights in Jamaica

Current Law?

Does anyone have information regarding the dispute that the sodomy laws are not actually illegal, or at least not enforced. I see a lot of conflicting information. Does anyone have a link or copy of the official on-the-book laws regarding homosexuality? I don't see any unparaphrased citations of the sodomy law. VisaBlack (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Bans anal sex, not male homosexuality per say

Actually, Jamaican sodomy law makes no specific reference to male homosexuality. In fact, it does not specifically mention any kind of homosexuality. What Jamaican sodomy law does prohibit is anal sex, regardless of the gender of the people involved. In other words, all anal sex including heterosexual and also lesbians using anal dildos is illegal in Jamaica, while fellatio is as legal for homosexuals as for heterosexuals and penis-to-penis action is also legal.2.69.195.87 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pay attention here: Anal sex is not necessarily homosexual! Jamaican law prohibits buggery of ANY living creature, boys, girls, men, women, and animals. Jamaicans are not permitted to bugger their women, either. Nor their pets. The WP article also mentions "Sexual acts between women are legal", and this is where the Bill Clinton legal argument applies: affection between women is not sex for the simple legal reason that it's not possible to insert a penis into an orifice since there are no penises present. Santamoly (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words

Removed this text: "Jamaican churches have been accused of cherrypicking verses from the Bible condemning homosexuality, whilst turning a blind eye to others, such as those that deal with fornication, a practice not unknown on the island." 'have been accused' is unneccesarily vague, particularly without a citation, and anyway, this is an accusation that applies to any religious criticism of homosexuality, so I don't see why it's particular to the Jamaican case. Anyway, the same point is made with a citation and a reference to j-flag a few sentences later so it's unneccessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.239.6 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

The article is not neutral or objective. Many of the references presented are from LBGT websites. I think it needs to be reviewed. One example is a paragraph relating to the April 2006 attack on the "gay student" at the University of the West Indies. I have very close connections to the event and in all fairness to the University in neither the police report or the Local press was there mention of the perpetrator being a University Student.

Fix the text, don't add editorial comments to the text. Not that it makes any difference whether he was a student or not - the fact that he was threatened by a mob of university students is telling about the level of bigotry in the society. Guettarda 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the note in the text. However the assumption that the mob was there because the man was a homosexual is jumping to an unjustified conclusion. Jamaica has a hisotry of "mob justice" in which criminals that are discovered are attacked by members of the community, being seriously injured or killed. One recent incident occured on the campus of another University(University of Technology Jamaica) which is next to the University of the West Indies in which a group of men were attempting to steal a car and were discovered. The men were chased and one fell into an open pit. The mob prevented the man from leaving the pit and he subsequently drowned. Therefore chances are that the mob reaction would have been the same regardless of the man's sexual orientation. The fact is that Campus security had removed the man from Campus before for the same reason and it did not incite that reaction. As a result I believe that the story has been simply twisted to unnecessarily paint the country in a negative light and should be removed from the article. In general I feel the article lacks good sources as I have not been able to verify some of the examples in the local press or find them in any sources other than Gay associated press or opinion articles.Bertitude 09:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This country has this reputation for a reason. VisaBlack (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's a reason, tell us what it is, please. Otherwise you're just rumor-mongering. Santamoly (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Not NPOV

It should be obvious to all neutral readers that this article is heavily pro-homosexuality and pro-sodomy. Bearing in mind that such viewpoints are far from accepted or factual this makes the entire article strongly biased.

Bwahahahahaha! Shut up, retard.

As it should be. Christianity is shit, and has ruined millions of innocent lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.23.211 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Further: This entire article is written from the following viewpoints:-

- There is a right to homosexuality (there is no such right under the law of Jamaica)
- Discrimination against homosexual persons is wrong 60.48.254.122 05:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not NPOV and have removed some of the more biased statements. I also reworded some so they reflect a detached NPOV stance. I have removed content about singers and music as the lyrics of songs are not relevant to the title of this article. Remember this article is about LGBT rights in Jamaica - not about any lack of rights they may have. 60.50.98.198 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

365 gay

Now lets get something straight here. They claim that police do not protect gay people and that polcie passively encourage violence towards gays, but they also claim in the paragraph before that a gay man was protected by riot police from a vicious mob.

So the police don't care about gays yet they send an entire squad of riot police to protect one gay man. I would question whether a straight man would ever get such protection from a mob in Jamaica.

I deleted the accusations because 365 gay is talking out of two sides of their mouth,there probably is some kind of mistreatment of gays in Jamaica, but I suggest that no more refernces be taken from that site because they are not credible. As such I will be deleting all material based on 365 gay.com 'evidence'

One last thing, why does the article seem to suggest Buju Banton is guilty of crimes that the court found him innocent of.

It's NPOV alright

The article makes statements that support the argument that discrimination against gay people exists in Jamaica. This is NPOV, just as an article making statements that support the argument that racial discrimination existed under apartheid in South Africa would be NPOV, if the structure of the argument was valid and all the supporting statements were verifiable. There is no 'pro-gay' point of view here, any more than an article describing apartheid could be called 'pro-black'. The mere act of decribing bigotry is not taking a side on an issue. If you want to call this article not NPOV, then provide evidence that the supporting statements are not true. Wandering Star 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Let's face it; many of the country's most popular songs celebrate and encourage murdering gay people.

Stick to the title

I have had to remove this section as it is certainly not NPOV and it is not on the topic of "LGBT rights in Jamaica". Please ensure that this article is focused upon rights and not discrimination or harassment. Please remember that Wikipedia cannot condone illegal acts, and that is what buggary remains in Jamaica. Suggesting that the law be changed or that the law is inadequate is pure politics and not encyclopedic.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Jamaicans face a high degree of societal opposition, violence, and legal sanctions. According to a survey on sexual orientation and human rights in the Americas published in December 2003, "In the Caribbean, Jamaica is by far the most dangerous place for sexual minorities, with frequent and often fatal attacks against gay men fostered by a popular culture that idolizes reggae and dancehall singers whose lyrics call for burning and killing gay men. Draconian laws against sexual activity between members of the same sex continue to be in force not only in Jamaica, but in most of the English-speaking Caribbean." According to Amnesty International, “the gay and lesbian community in Jamaica face extreme prejudice,” and “gay people in Jamaica, or those suspected of being gay, are routinely victims of ill-treatment and harassment by the police, and occasionally of torture.”

--218.111.25.78 06:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who have surveyed and assessed the situation for LGBT people in the region such as the World Policy Institute are the authorities for an article like this. Their study used a wide range of sources. Please do not remove them because you don't agree with them. This paragraph is neither suggesting the law be changed or condoning illegal acts. It is simply reporting what notable authorities have said on the topic, and providing sources for readers who wish to verify these claims. This is standard wikipedia practice.

As for the title "LGBT rights", I agree that it's not perfect. However, this is part of a series of articles with similar titles that are very much about both laws and public sentiment, and "discrimination and harassment" are in fact well within the scope of an article about LGBT rights. ntennis 07:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If it does not match the title, either the title must change, or the content must change. This is an encyclopedia and a reference text, not anyone's personal platform. How does the suggestion of splitting the article into two, one dealing with actual rights, and one dealing with harassment and discrimination sound?218.111.25.78 09:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you outline what you mean by "actual rights"? Reading the rights article, it seems pretty clear that harrassment and discrimination are potentially an abuse of rights. ntennis 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

References

NOT NPOV (2)

As previously discussed this article is not NPOV. Further, ntennis, has removed most of the changes which were made to make it more NPOV. Rights are things you have, not things you do not have. As such unless you change the title to 'LGBT rights not in Jamaica' all reference to any rights which are absent must be removed. This is an encylopedia and not somewhere for you to make a political point. 60.48.32.147 09:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the tag there and make some changes to the lead section. The statements of human rights groups is relevant. i'll move them to their own section rather than in the lead. ntennis 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that people have never been deprived of rights? What then happened during slavery? Or apartheid? Are youb saying the Nazis didn't deprive anyone of rights? Yes, rights are things a person may have taken away from them. Therefore, the title is accurate, and NPOV. Wandering Star 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It Certainly is Objective

The title LGBT Rights in Jamaica can refer to both rights and the lack thereof. As for the police stnace on gays in Jamaica I would expect there to be occasional exceptions to the general rule. We must also remember that it was a mob a of college students who attacked the gay man, while college students tend to take the most liberal approaches to human rights in their respective countries.

Additionally the article cites more than just LGBT new sources. It also cites reports by Amnesty International as well as an article by TIME magazine. As for the point about mobs' murdering criminals, a few decades ago it was not uncommon in the United States for mobs to murder criminals, at the same time it was not uncommon for mobs to attack and kill people of African descent; does this mean that it was not racist for a mob to target people of African descent?

Gareth Henry

Why isn't Gareth Henry mentioned at all in this article? For that matter, why doesn't he have his own article? Some resources: http://www.thestar.com/SpecialSections/article/445061 ~ http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/02/14/gareth-henry.html ~ http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Fleeing_for_my_life-4387.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Traver (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What about the T?

This article is called LGBT rights in Jamaica, but absolutely no reference to the status of transgender individuals in Jamaica is given outside the opening line. This is in serious need of correction. --92.39.193.94 (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I await your edits on the subject then, which will be very welcome. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV means we need balance so when I add a ref'd piece defending the Rastafari viewpoint I do not expect to see it deleted and the same ref changed to justify yet more Rasta bashing, we need to have a balanced article which this still isnt and just only accepting pro LGBT isnt going to make it so either. I am on the pojnt of tagging this article for NPOV, see WP:NPOV. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote

I also deleted a quote which we do not have permission to use so do not revert back to it as it could be construed as a copyvio. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Two Rastas

Claiming 2 Rastas support gay rights is blatant original research without a source to verify the veracity of this highly dubious claim. I trust it will not be re-inserted without a cast iron ref to back up the claim. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As usual AfricaTanz is refusing to engage in talk page discussion as if he is above such things, though no editor has the right to edit war while refusing to engage in talk page discussions. I have removed the claim that two Rastas (from Jamaica) support gay rights, please do not return without a source. All challenged material needs sourcing on wikipedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

AfricaTanz, calling Rastas bigoted while refusing to engage in talk page discussion makes me think you arent a serious editor, I wish you would prove me wrong. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't engage with you because of your abusive history directed towards me, on my talk page and elsewhere. Do you want the diffs? Change your ways and I will change how I handle you. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You are just trolling here, AfricaTanz, learn to co-operate with other editors and stop talking rubbish, leaving a note on your talk page isnt abusive but your response to it was. If you want to say 2 Rastas you will need to source that, we cant have your unsourced claims in the encyclopedia♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Mass reverting

Mass reverting form an editor who refuses to engage in talk page discussion is unhelpful, I am left with the impression AfricaTanz thinks he owns this article, but he doesnt, nobody owns any articles on wikipedia. And taking great chunks out of articles and pasting them here is a copyvio. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

We have at least one editor regularly here who thinks Rastas are bigots and keeps reverting the claim that some Rastas support gay rights, inserting the highly POV and unsourced claim that only two do. I cannot believe that AfricaTanz believes in that we need to have balanced article between the beliefs of Rastas and those of LGBT ppl, we arent here to support LGBT but to write a balanced article. I hope AfricaTanz either relents on his POV pushing or contributes to this talk page to resolve this dispute. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

8 yr old ref and the present tense

We cannot use an 8 yr old ref to claim something is currently happening. I am not sure why AfricaTanz feels that this is the case and that he thus needed to revert my switching this to the past tense but if he wants to sue the present tense he needs to find a more up to date ref. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Tolerance album

What is the objection to naming the Tolerance album, the first pro gay album. The ref supports this name and I am baffled as to why AfricaTanz removed this info. Perhaps he would care to explain himself here. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

He has to answer my question below first :). Just kidding. Please answer both, this one first of course. --Malerooster (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

H*ly crap. Just saw all the stuff above. Guess my question is now 5th? in line, and probably the least "important" or consequencial. --Malerooster (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking

I removed some links that were repeated. I did it again without noticing that they had been readded. If there is a good reason to go against MOS fine, make the case here. Just saying its a long difficult article to follow or such doesn't seem to cut it. Thoughts? --Malerooster (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Manual of Style, which is just a guideline (not policy), allows repeat linking when beneficial to our readers. Refer to my edit summary, which contains a link that will allow you to verify. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice of you to read selective portions of that policy. Try reading the whole sentence, after what you quoted above. --Malerooster (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is sarcasm something you do regularly on Wikipedia? Should we see what the community thinks about that? The MOS is just a guideline. Here's the full sentence for your reading convenience: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." But perhaps you would like to join the long list of editors who have been blocked and/or sanctioned for attempting to impose their own pet interpretation of the MOS, while at the same time insisting it was "policy". AfricaTanz (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi AfricaTanz, sarcasm is a wicked tool to quote my former headmaster, but I still enjoy using it. The sentence I was referring to was :Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. my bolding for emphasis. I have no desire to edit war over something as trivial and MOSish as this and would hope you wouldn't either because it can be a sign of ownership. I will not be editing that article again. I would encourage you to use the article's talk page for the other issues that have come up since they seem to be more substantive. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I changed my mind, since I did remove some links that are already linked. Oh well, --Malerooster (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not the first to become an edit warrior to impose his or her pet interpretation of the Manual of style, which is a mere guideline. Is it worth getting blocked over? Think about it. AfricaTanz (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the MOS in this case and this one, can you please say why here rather than just revert? Thank you --Malerooster (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

AfricaTanz, would you be willing to let, say 3, other editors give their opinion and we go with what they say? --Malerooster (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with malerooster ehre, not sure why AfricaTanz thinks those who disagree with him will get blocked, though♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Significant development: First Pride Parade will be held

I was reading today (8/4/2015) that Jamaica will have their first-ever Pride Parade. I think this merits inclusion in the article somewhere. I'm not exactly sure if it's ongoing or an upcoming event. Tenor12 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT rights in Jamaica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715190948/http://rjrnewsonline.com/news/politics/new-nation-coalition-party-launched to http://rjrnewsonline.com/news/politics/new-nation-coalition-party-launched

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT rights in Jamaica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131104203308/http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Sexual_Stigma_and_Sympathy__Attitudes_Toward_Persons_Living_with_HIV_in_Jamaica.pdf to http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Sexual_Stigma_and_Sympathy__Attitudes_Toward_Persons_Living_with_HIV_in_Jamaica.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits

This page is good and comprehensive, but it doesn't contain much toward the transgender community. Furthermore, it caters to a biased point of view.

Hello! Great job with all of your revisions to this article so far! Your article is very comprehensive and talks about many different aspect of LGBT rights in Jamaica. Your addition of "Health and Wellness" and "Transgender individual" sections were very good. Moving forward, I think your page could benefit from adding a few more pictures and making sure everything is property cited. Great work!! Courtwang (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Jamaica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120903222159/http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16161 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16161

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Jamaica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205075922/http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080521/lead/lead3.html to http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080521/lead/lead3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906085529/http://www.aidsfreeworld.org/Our-Issues/Homophobia/~/media/Files/Homophobia/NATIONAL%20SURVEY%20OF%20ATTITUDES%20AND%20PERCEPTIONS%20OF%20JAMAICANS%20TOWARDS%20SAME%20SEX%20RELATIONSHIPS.pdf to http://www.aidsfreeworld.org/Our-Issues/Homophobia/~/media/Files/Homophobia/NATIONAL%20SURVEY%20OF%20ATTITUDES%20AND%20PERCEPTIONS%20OF%20JAMAICANS%20TOWARDS%20SAME%20SEX%20RELATIONSHIPS.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621204307/http://www.jflag.org/programmes/parliamentary_sub.htm to http://www.jflag.org/programmes/parliamentary_sub.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Moneyspender's edits

Moneyspender, where are your sources that female SS is illegal? That vigilante attacks are common, and common today, not just that one or two murders (perhaps not even vigilante attacks) occurred 6 years ago, which is all your blog said? You need actual sources to support what you write, especially when there are POV concerns. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I quoted a Guardian article, one I came across when I was revising the coverage of the Caribbean in the SSM maps, that notes that Jamaica got labeled the most homophobic country on Earth in 2006 (though that was probably not even true at the time, though maybe it was for the Americas), that violence was rife 6 years later, but that things had improved quite a bit by 6 years after that. That seemed like a good summary. I also removed the politician's complaint/excuses, as politicians' claims that they're misuderstood mean almost nothing.

If you add claims about the degree of homophobia, vigilantism, etc. in Jamaica, -- and for all I know, such stuff is still rampant -- I will expect your sources to postdate the 2018 Guardian article. There's been a fair bit of coverage of Jamaica in the past year, so such things should not be difficult to find. But please read WP:RS -- a rant in a blog is not an encyclopedic source to base an edit on. — kwami (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Gender section

The Headline "Gender" makes little sense. It should be something alone the lines of "explanations for homophobia in Jamaica". While most of the article accurately depicts and explains the terrible situation for the lgbt in Jamaica, parts of the "Gender" section involve some rather bold speculation. That homophobia in Jamaica is a product of "hypermasculinity" can be realistic in some situations but makes little sense in others. You could argue the inverse: "Hypermasculinity is a product of homophobia." and it would make a lot more sense. That a male dominated culture would be automatically "homophobic" is obviously not true and based on homophobic ideas. There always have been male dominated cultures, yet not all of them are homophobic. Also, it's ignoring that a lot of gay culture could easily be called "hypermasculine" and that there is "hyperfemine" lesbian culture. Declaring "hypermasculinity" the reason for homophobia is somewhat reproducing the homophobic stereotype of gays being typically "effeminate" and lesbians beeing "butch". Both exists but is generally an unrealistic stereotype. As far as i know Jamaicans are NOT just hateful towards "effeminate men" or "butch women" but against all and any gay men and lesbian women. While it shouldn't be dismissed entirely, this kind of explanation is partly based in homophobia and straw-man-feminism. The reasons for homophobia in Jamaica are easily and well explained through religion, and colonial history. Occam's razor. And why call this section "Gender"? This seems like an infiltration of a good article to promote a model of explanation that is "en vogue" but doesn't fit very well here.

Slaveowners

This is a good article and my comments here are hoped to make it a tiny bit better rather than criticise it. I am a bit sceptical about this part:

"recounts were made of the island's British occupants engaging in sodomy, which may correlate with the fact that the first colonists were mostly men. The slave communities in Jamaica and the rest of the British Caribbean were made up of men and women from West Africa, the men being more sought after by slave owners.[8]"

I have read the source cited in full and it does not seem to me to support the statement. In particular, the reference notes that more or less the whole white slave-owning community (I include support workers here) were male but as this article itself implies, many slaves were female. The idea that male slaves were more likely to be singled out for sex (i.e. rape) than female slaves is unsupported and in any case seems unlikely. I would like to edit this but will wait to see if anyone else has a view first. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)