Talk:2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States

Low Grade Sources
After looking at all 224 of the present sources, All but 10 of them come from low grade news sources (ie, news sources which regularly post incorrect or misleading articles). One of the 10 remaining is a twitter tweet, and the rest are mostly court cases. Does it worry anyone else that such an incredible amount of this page is reliant on such organizations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.59.118.255 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The sources in the article are not low grade sources. I recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedias reliable sourcing guidelines. You can also refer to the list of perennial sources which list most regularly used organizations for sourcing and consensus about their reliable use. Raladic (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Florida 24-hour wait period
I am a transgender woman living in Florida, and believe the following section of this article is inaccurate:

"In August 2022, the state of Florida voted to require any trans adult seeking gender affirming healthcare to receive approval from the Florida Board of Medicine at least 24 hours in advance."

I have encountered no such requirement during my treatment. It appears that the 24 hour waiting period was proposed, but never signed into law nor did the Florida Board of Medicine update their requirements to include this provision. 2600:8807:C61B:3200:6FD7:7C60:F7BE:7481 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * no source, no addition Pyraminxsolver (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

British anti-LGBT
I'm wondering, and feel free to chime in, to what extent this article should involve content on the similar anti-LGBT push in the rest of the English-speaking world, the UK being the most prominent example. While yes, we both have borders and our own legislatures, the level of influence the digital age has given the two in stoking anti-LGBT hatred for each other is not inconsiderable. That is, when anti-LGBT rhetoric is being pushed in the US, those pushing it will frequently cite British media pieces and British court cases, and vise versa. Thoughts? Snokalok (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There is enough US only news that already fills this topic here, so I don’t think mixing it in would help (as tie article is already long enough as it is), but you are free to start an article about British (or European, since there’s some other countries in Europe that are also heavily moving in that direction) anti-LGBT movements and link it in the See also here. Raladic (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's a very strong connection between this social movement and the analogous one that began earlier in the UK, but it should only be brought up in the context of sources which directly make a case for the two being linked, or at least directly compare them, otherwise bringing it up would amount to original synthesis, in my opinion. 207.164.2.98 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Xtra Mag and LGBTQnation
Blueshirtz

This is an article about a fascist movement targeting an oppressed minority group. Saying we shouldn’t cite sources that side with that group would be like saying we shouldn’t cite sources that side with Jews regarding the Holocaust, or side with Native Americans about the trail of tears.

The neutral point between no bigotry and yes bigotry is not, nor ever should it be, some degree of bigotry. Snokalok (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * BlueShirtz
 * caps Snokalok (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If this Wikipedia page defines the "2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States" as a "fascist movement targeting an oppressed minority group" then this article is in violation of this website's mission to provide a neutral viewpoint. Aside from the accusations of pro-LGBT supporters, there is no evidence that this movement is "fascist."
 * Wikipedia is a website that is only supposed to cite sources that have been defined as reliable, for an article about an American social and political movement those may include ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post just to list a few. Unlike those sources, Xtra Magazine is a publication that was founded "...to advance the struggle for sexual liberation" and LGBTQ Nation is a publication that has "...a pro-LGBTQ point of view..." This is also why sources that support the anti-LGBT movement, such as The Daily Wire for example, would not be allowed as cited sources.
 * To write this article with the perspective that this movement is "fascist" or comparable to the Trail of Tears or the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust is a dishonest and biased analysis from a pro-LGBT perspective. There are many Americans who believe that there are only two genders, that children should not be allowed to attend drag shows, that certain books in libraries are too obscene and shouldn't be available, or that it is unfair for transgender athletes to compete in the sport of the gender they identify with.
 * This movement is a divisive issue in the United States, with many supporters and challengers. Regardless of the personal opinions of editors, this article needs to comply with the rules of the website by maintaining a neutral point of view, which is not pro-LGBT nor anti-LGBT. BlueShirtz (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While The Daily Wire is considered generally unreliable, it is not because it supports any particular movement. "Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified". Even sources that are "biased" may be included as long as they are considered reliable, but may require attribution, which is generally determined by community consensus and WP:NPOV...DN (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Even sources that are "biased" may be included" Wikipedia policy on biased sources is that they are acceptable: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Whether Xtra Magazine is a reliable source is another question. Dimadick (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, the neutral point between yes bigotry and no bigotry is not some amount of bigotry, it’s no bigotry. Snokalok (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is written in this article that the "2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States" is a "bigoted" movement then this article is not neutral. There are pro-LGBT supporters who may make that accusation, but stating a contested assertion like that as a fact in a Wikipedia article is failing to meet a neutral point of view. BlueShirtz (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you hearing yourself right now? Genuine question Snokalok (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just, okay, by your logic, should we be rewriting our article on slavery because enough people down in places like TN and FL have started saying that they think slavery was actually good? Does more people in a country coming to support the obviously bigoted position, make it not bigoted by virtue of gaining support? Snokalok (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article should be unbiased and factual. Stating that "The 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States is a bigoted movement" is biased and not factual. It could be stated, if there are sources to support it, that there have been pro-LGBT supporters who accuse this movement of bigotry, but you cannot state that accusation as a fact in an online encyclopedia.
 * In reference to your comparison, the slavery in the United States article is a well-written example of this. It does not state opinions as facts, it does not state facts as opinions, and it uses nonjudgmental language. By following those standards, it complies with Wikipedia's rule of maintaining a neutral point of view as this article should too. BlueShirtz (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit removes considerable amount of seemingly cited material from the lead and body, alleging WP:OR
There are a lot of citations included here for an WP:OR claim...

(from the lead)

Major figures in the movement include Florida governor Ron DeSantis, former Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson, podcast host and activist Matt Walsh,  far-right Twitter account Libs of TikTok operator, Chaya Raichik,  and Elon Musk, business magnate and owner of Twitter.

(from the body)

Notable Figures (section)


 * Tucker Carlson, political commentator and former Fox News host


 * Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida and 2024 presidential candidate


 * Marjorie Taylor Greene, U.S. representative from Georgia who has introduced several bills targeting the LGBT community and spread anti-LGBT conspiracy theories


 * Michael Knowles, political commentator and contributor to The Daily Wire


 * James A. Lindsay, author and cultural critic known for slurring LGBT individuals as 'groomers'


 * Elon Musk, business magnate and owner of Twitter


 * Chaya Raichik, founder of the far-right Twitter account Libs of TikTok 


 * Christopher Rufo, right-wing activist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who has campaigned against the inclusion of LGBT issues in schools


 * Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States


 * Matt Walsh, podcast host and activist known for his campaigns against transgender healthcare and for presenting the documentary What Is a Woman?

While I haven't had time to look at each citation individually, these types of large edits usually raise some red flags. Pinging for further discussion. DN (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * that was only recently added by an IP (1, 2) and, again, is original research unless these sources directly state that these people are "notable figures of the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States" --FMSky (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I see, so there was no consensus prior to inclusion. However, in the spirit of WP:TALKDONTREVERT, let's look at some examples. Starting with the citations for government officials like Marjorie Taylor Greene ("Marjorie Taylor Greene introduces bill to make gender-affirming care for transgender youth a felony") and Ron DeSantis ("DeSantis's attacks on LGBTQ people through the public education system--his "Don't Say Gay" legislation, now in effect--has already gained him national notoriety"). They seem to confirm anti-LGBT legislation by these two. The lead reads...
 * "The 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States is an ongoing conservative political backlash most notably from Republican lawmakers and congressional leaders, against LGBT people which has included bathroom use restrictions, bans on gender-affirming care, anti-LGBT curriculum laws, laws against drag performances, book bans, boycotts, and conspiracy theories around grooming."
 * So, these two notable figures not only seem to meet the required parameters, they are also cited, which means it is not WP:OR, at least as far as I can tell. DN (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Those sources also don't call them "notable figures" in the movement... However them introducing anti lgtb legislation is notable and can and should definitely be included FMSky (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hair Splitting. They are notable and undoubtedly anti-LGBTQ figures. Saikyoryu (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with bringing back the list, and I'd like to propose also listing organizations like Genspect and Gays Against Groomers Snokalok (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think an amended list would be more productive. Keep in mind, the lead states it's focus is on "lawmakers and congressional leaders" against LGBT people. IMO it would be better to keep it simple and focused on the "leaders" of the movement, ie the representatives elected by the constituency of anti-LGBTQ+ voters. While many of these representatives may be republican, I think any representative, republican or democrat, that pushes legislation against LGBTQ+ may qualify, IMO. DN (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So far this would include MTG, DeSantis and Trump IMO. DN (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then that raises another question - why are we focusing on lawmakers and congressional leaders? It's not they who created or led this panic, it's figures like Chris Rufo and Chaya Raichik Snokalok (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If your aim is to remove them, I would point to existing reliable sources as reasons why they are DUE. If you wish to keep Rufo and Raichek, it would seem that you should find consensus to change the lead, which would again require citations to support said change. I am open to your ideas, but reliable citations always come first. Agreed? Cheers. DN (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024
I suggest changing the description of the missouri trans restrictions order to that it would require a screening for autism instead of barring people with autism as nothing in the order says it would be disqualifying https://www.axios.com/2023/04/13/missouri-ag-gender-affirming-care https://autisticadvocacy.org/2023/03/asan-condemns-restrictions-on-gender-affirming-care/ I also suggest adding that the order was dropped after the may 11th court date https://www.axios.com/2023/05/17/missouri-transgender-order-gender-affirming-care-ban Transvampire (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 15:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_States i would suggest using the description of the missouri order found on the the transgender rights in the united states wikipedia page Transvampire (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Short description: "political backlash"?
I don't think harrassment, doxxing, and murders of people for existing, as well as the stripping of basic human rights of those people by vile politicians, count as mere "political backlash". I don't have the proper, actually neutral wording in mind, or I would've changed it boldly.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There's literally no mention of "murders" or "doxxing" on the whole article. I believe you're victimizing yourself. 2800:200:E630:106E:FC41:8D7F:7D06:56CC (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The "Violence" section references a murder. Jruderman (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)