Talk:Gay wage gap

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 December 2018 and 20 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amolina02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2019 and 1 September 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ayamarie231.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability
Not sure this is a viable topic. Maybe something to be incorporated into a bigger one. Valetude (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources say gay men earn more. This would logically follow since they graduate college at higher rates.  I think this article is trash.
 * https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP-108.pdf
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/soej.12233
 * 2601:47:4100:A75:F534:3FA2:3FE7:4DC6 (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent comparisons (neutrality issues)
This article is a mess of inconsistent comparisons. It's routine when discussing the wage gap between men and women to use median figures and not adjust for comparable experience and work, largely because you're adjusting away sources of structural inequality when you simply compare "comparable work" without accounting for the unequal access to comparable work. Yet, this article mostly uses these fraught "comparable work" comparisons to argue that gay men even earn more in some circumstances ("United States" section), as if it's true in a general sense. These types of "comparable work" comparisons are then juggled inconsistently and without distinction against comparisons of medians without such adjustments, such as in the section where wages of lesbians are compared with straight and gay men's.

If the type of analysis primarily in this article were applied to the men/women wage gap, there would barely appear to be a gap because the cause of the gap is over 90% in opportunities, not getting the same wage for the same work.

This whole article should be rewritten from scratch to use similar standards to the ones used for examining gender pay gaps. 2607:F598:B032:FC00:0:0:0:5D1 (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The name?
This article mentions a few times the trans wage gap, but the article itself is called gay (i.e., homosexual) wage gap.

Unsure of a good solution, but it seems strange nevertheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFHK3579 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. Moving to "LGBTQ wage gap" might be more appropriate? Superraptor123 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconding a move. I'll see if I can request a move. -- User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Confusing and seemingly contradictory language
It seems to me that multiple points in this article are confusingly written, unclear on the methodology and scope of statements, and possibly the victim of intentionally contradictory editing. I don't have time to review the editing history at the moment, but even in the first paragraph there appear to be multiple assertions without appropriate sourcing or indication of their scope, and even seem openly contradictory in their grammar and layout. It is stated that gay couples make 10% more on average, but a source is not cited. I assume it is based on the same source in the section on the wage gap in the US, but if so that locality of the data should be stated, especially since sections on other countries in the article contradict this. Additionally the claim that lesbians make more (presumably than a heterosexual couple) is not sourced. In fact the grammatical structure of the sentence implies at some point it was written that one group made more, while the other made less.

To be honest I think this article either needs much more care or should be removed. In it's current state it disregards the heavy amount of nuance in the topic, and it's poor construction exasterbates the problem of oversimplification in discussing it. 2600:1007:B03D:E549:E481:DE8F:BF2:6711 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @2600:1007:B03D:E549:E481:DE8F:BF2:6711 This response was left by me. I did not realize I was not logged in. Wagenenr (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)