Category talk:LGBT and religion

subcat
Hi guys. I added homophobia as a subcat because it seems to be an issue here.Hal Cross 12:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexuality and _" naming scheme
I'm curious what other people think of the current naming scheme for specific religions - e.g., "Homosexuality and Unitarian Universalism". Since this category's name says "LGBT issues" rather than "Homosexuality", and since several of these articles do (and more could) include bi and trans issues, would it make sense to name these articles "LGBT issues and _", or "_ and LGBT persons"? --Alynna 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be "Sodomy and ..." since that was the historical problem. Seriously though, how about "Same-sex relations and ..." since "homosexuality" comes with more modern attachments than a vacuum cleaner, few of them appropriate to most of the arguments that religion has to make. Haiduc 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would favor "LGBT and" as historically LGBT issues were demonized together and (hopefully) nowadays are embraced in like ways. Benjiboi 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does "LGBT and Sikhism" make sense, or does it have to be "LGBT issues and Sikhism"? The latter sounds a little clumsy. What about "LGBT in Sikhism"?\
 * Dybryd 03:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "LGBT communities and ______" to me would come closest as it leaves the possibilities that different communities within the LGBT umbrella could be addressed as appropriate and it's non-POV as to what the article is about accept addressing that there are intersections. This also helps address issues that a gay group might have strong issues with Mormonism yet there is also LGBT Mormon groups and the histories are both evolving. Benjiboi 18:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, but much of the subject matter is going to be LGBT who are or were not part of any LGBT community, not so? Dybryd 22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain or example of what you mean. Benjiboi 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well...any LGBT who is part of a religious community that is hostile to their sexuality, which is a pretty large proportion of religious LGBT. Dybryd 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Then I counter with "LGBT people and ______" so they don't technically have to belong to any real or perceived community. Benjiboi 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Would "LGBT people and ______" (per Benjiboi) be acceptable to everyone? --Alynna 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the original post and rationale, could you name some articles that deal much with bi and trans issues? In the secondary literature, the most prevalent/common name for this topic does seem to be "homosexuality" and religion. Accordingly, it would seem to be a reasonable (if not PC) name for articles. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Referring to gay and lesbian people as homosexuals is now generally considered pejorative with the exception of academia which is in process of updating as appropriate. Lesbians have generally been treated as an add-on in regards to most research and writing on issues with trans and bisexual people routinely ignored. Thus Homosexuality and _____ is actually un-pc and problematic as dismissing issues that are intertwined with gender and sexuality.
 * Using sweeping generalities, gay men tend to "stick out" from the crowd and with those who don't accept LGBT people generally it is often gay men who get the attention, good or bad. Lesbians, generally, blend in a but more as two women draws less scrutiny as two men and bisexuals are pretty much invisible unless they draw attention to themselves. Trans people trend to fitting in as much as possible and generally avoid places that physical violence is a concern. These might not fully explain why much has been focussed on gay men but I think collectively it has had an impact. Benjiboi 12:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. Yes, I realize that it's considered pejorative. I haven't followed the WP debates on this matter. However, I gather that Wikipedia is less oriented to countering pejorative discourse and more committed to reflecting the prevalent discourse among the most reliable sources, which are academic. (Also, presumably much if not most of the religious policy/theological sources use "homosexuality" as well.) Thus, we see articles on many pejorative terms under the common (pejorative) name. As a result, I'd expect the article to explain the pejorative aspect of the terminology, but still use it for the article title and text. Thanks again. HG | Talk 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Another example is that negro used to be used extensively but I think you'll find that's gone out of favor as well. LGBT issues and research is quite new so terminology is still turning to less pejorative terminology. There's also generational concerns even within the LGBT communities with some blanching at queer as well even though there are queer studies courses. In any case Homosexuality and ____ dismisses separate but intertwined issues important to bisexual and transgender people and issues that affect any within the LGBT communities tend to have implications for all. I don't see leaving out parts of the LGBT community as an elegant, wise or long-term answer to wikipedia being a better resource. Benjiboi 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge categories?
It's not clear to me why there is both a Category:Homosexuality and religion as well as Category:LGBT issues and religion. I would think that the two categories should be merged. Yes, above I stated that the articles should probably be kept as "Homosexuality and ___" due to naming criteria. However, the category name could be considered on a different basis. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest a rename to LGBT people and religion then merge all and re-organize as needed. Benjiboi 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)