Talk:Gay panic defense/Archive 2

James Miller Gay Panic Defense?
I was looking into these cases, and I can't find any direct evidence of James Miller using the Gay Panic Defense- according to his attorney, the claim was that the victim attacked him with a bottle, and James stabbed him in self defense. Unless someone can find a reliable source, I believe James Miller should be removed from the list, or amended to indicate that, despite popular belief, James Miller did not engage in the gay panic defense, though he may have successfully used his victim's alleged homosexuality in order to other his victim.

66.102.84.93 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:NOTTRUTH. Perhaps it can be edited a bit in a manner similar to the Joseph Biedermann entry pointing out that he's been accused of using the gay panic defense without us making any judgement as to the accuracy of that claim.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Colorado Addition
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/07/13/colorado-gay-panic-defense-ban/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_content=fb-denverpost&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3_fQtpaQ8fb67niVSu1m3HoIEgnbcHaSzAmL8QFp94S1dH1QExAC_hn6s

The state of CO has passed this legislation. I have no idea how to update a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perezti (talk • contribs) 03:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

History section
I added the new #History section. There is a ton more information about this out there (including in refs already used, as well as many others). It wasn't my intention to leave it as brief as it is, and in fact the subsection #Temporary insanity defense is only a sentence long, not normally enough material to have its own header. I was planning on expanding this considerably, but have been called away for other things, so may not be available to expand this just now. I'm hoping other editors will take this up and make a decent section out of this; if not, I hope to be back at some point in the future to attend to it. The History section is well worth expanding. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Trans-panic defence
There's a potentially useful list at the tables in this article. The tables describe each event as a murder, regardless of the outcome. Each event should be assessed to see if RS at large consider it to be a use of the tras-panic defence. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

Article naming
Should this really be titled Gay panic defense when it covers the "trans panic defense" just as much? A general name would probably be more appropriate here. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A big reason for "trans panic" is that the person fears that finding a trans person attractive means that they themselves are gay. --Khajidha (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

States are slowly moving to ban the homophobic ‘gay panic’ defence

 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gay-panic-defence-new-mexico-hate-crime-b1819747.html

John Cummings (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Who uses the defense
Yesterday, someone said he'd be changing this article because it's biased against men. I think he's wrong because the given cites say it's usually straight cis men who use this defense. Please tell me what cis gay man, cis lesbian, straight woman or trans person is doing this to gay men or trans women? Cis gay men are into men. So, unless they're closeted or in deep denial, I guess, they don't do this to other gay men. They don't do it to trans women. Cis lesbians aren't doing it to gay men because they aren't into men, and I've found no news reports that they've done it to trans women. I've found no news reports that straight women do this to lesbians or trans men. Trans women aren't doing it to gay men or other trans women. So now wikipedia is falsely claiming that everybody uses this defense. Please change it. It's of contextual significance to say who uses the defense, lest wikipedia misleads. 5.35.166.169 (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Further information link
since you insist: I think it makes sense here to indicate that we're linking to a section in the article on insanity defense, instead of an article on "temporary insanity". Since these usually link to articles, we're implying that we have an entire article on "temporary insanity", when in fact we have a three sentence section. Since these topics are closely linked, there's a good chance that the reader here has already read insanity defense and would therefore choose to avoid clicking the link, should they know that it goes to that article. If it seemed like "temporary insanity" was a good target for expansion into an article, leaving this would be reasonable - but there's hardly any information to begin a split, nor does it look like anyone is interested in doing such a thing. Therefore, I think we should link directly to the relevant section on insanity defense, making said destination clear to readers.

Also, please observe WP:NOTBROKEN before citing it: (emphasis mine) I think it was clear that my change was not cosmetic, and instead was intended to change the visible text of the link. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)