Talk:LGBT/Archive 1

Archive 1 | Archive &rarr;

Sexual minority
It seems the article name must be "neutral".

Since only one name may be used, it can only have one form, and thus a representative form must be chosen. I argue LGBT is most representative of the acronyms.

We could find POVs which insist on a more thourough discernment of terms than "LGBTI" (such as "LGBTIQQA"), but the longer the acronym the less representative because of the greater possibility of variance ("LGBTQQIA", for example) and the lesser frequency of its use.

Thus I propose the article be moved to sexual minorities, as this article would include who is included as a sexual minority according to different POVs and thus a natural and ready place for the acronym discussion. Hyacinth 02:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I would argue that a sexual minorities page be developed that links to this one. They are inherently different terms. I've been out for 4 years and I don't know of any LGBT person that would identify as a sexual minority (even if it is accurate). Also, I don't know anyone who would look for information about LGBT people under that term. Alison9 03:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, LGB people are occasionally characterised as a "sexual minority" but whether some do so themselves, I don't know. Can't recall such a use, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Transgender, transsexual and intersex people and also certainly allies don't really fit under that umbrella, though. Also, this article explains what LGBT(?) is, not "sexual minoriy". Also, BDSM people for example are often labeled "sexual minority", which is an entirely different matter. -- AlexR 05:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Groups that challenge traditional gender structure - Revert - "sexual minorities" instead of "lgbti" is so wrong, it's insulting!)" AlexR, edit summary
 * Sexual minority means sexual in the full sense, sexuality and gender. Rather than being a term frequently used for self-identification, it has the advantage of being a description. Hyacinth 05:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And what was the point in copying the edit summary here? There is a reason, you know, I wrote it in the edit summary (of another article into the bargain) and not a comment. Anyway, very many both transsexual and intersex people already see a problem with these words because the "sex" part leads to so many misunderstandings, namely, that the "sex" is usually understood to be "the action" rather than "the equiptment". (And that's the second use of "sex", not gender!) "Transgender" was so widely addopted also the very same reason. And that very same misunderstanding leads to a lot of discrimination against T&I people already. So I really do not see the advantage of using a term that is seen as insulting by many and used as an insult by many. Apart from that, even if it were not insulting, it would confuse sex and gender, and these are two very different things, and a term that confuses them again is hardly a description.
 * I do assume, from your previous edits, that you are in good faith trying to find a solution to a problem (although I don't know what the problem is supposed to be), but really, this is not a good idea at all. The WP does not have to use self-descriptions, but there is certainly no reason to use terms that are inaccurate, understood to be insulting and used as insults, and which do not exactly promote understanding of the matter instead. -- AlexR 11:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please cite sources stating that "sexual minority" is "insulting", "inaccurate", or "used as an insult" as per NPOV, your own admission of ignorance, and against the following examples:


 * Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL): "the only youth service agency solely dedicated to meeting the needs of youth ages 13-21 in the metropolitan Washington, DC area who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex, as well as those questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity."
 * Jacksonville Area Sexual Minority Youth Network (JASMYN): "a youth services and advocacy organization that focuses specifically on youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or uncertain about their sexual orientation (or youth who become labeled as such because of their behavior or situations."
 * Richmond Organization for Sexual Minority Youth: "Richmond Organization for Sexual Minority Youth (ROSMY) is a non-profit agency that provides support services for Richmond area gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth 20 years of age and younger."
 * Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities (SCSM) "The Commission's role is to effectively address and present the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens of Seattle to the Mayor, City Council, and all City Departments."
 * Hyacinth 22:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but first, these groups appear to be your classical LGB groups who started adding a T only later, and keeping the "sexual minority" thing. (Many of those additions, it turned out, were purely cosmetical anyway, it is just at the moment something everybody does.) Second, why the aggressive tone? Until now your edits were neither aggressive nor so ... odd. I am rather surprised by your behaviour right now! And third, I admitted ignorance as to whether LGB people actually used it, not about the fact that I have never met a trans-person who did not feel that the lable was simply not applicable, to say the least. I also explained why it is used as an insult, because the label fires up the not exactly uncommon prejudice that trans* is somehow related to sexual preferences, or even that it is itself a sexual preference, which it is clearly not. Also, your statement that the "sexual" means both sex (the action) and gender is a triffle strange, there is a reason, you know, that people started using "gender", which was not used in the current sense until a few decades ago.
 * I also do not feel that right now there is any use in further debate, not when you behave like that. I do sincerely hope, though, that it is just a temporary problem. -- AlexR 23:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, "sexual minority" seems to be used after the inclusion of transgender and/or intersex people and issues in a group, such as SCSM, which "was formerly known as the Seattle Commission for Lesbians and Gays," but now, "address and present the concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered citizens of Seattle," and is named Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities.
 * Well, not being American I don't know, but either online or offline (thereby including US resitents) I have never met a transgender person nor an intersex one who does feel covered by "sexual minority" and most regard it as potentially insulting, and at best inaccurate. (Unless the happen to be also part of a sexual minority, like gay and lesbian trans- or intersex people. [AR]
 * "LGBT" is certainly offensive, probably insuling to some, such as intersex people or allies who feel intersex people are not transgendered and thus excluded, or people who feel transgendered people shouldn't be include, or people who hate acronyms. Simply because there are people who feel in similar ways about "sexual minority" does not then exclude its use, as it does not exclude the use of "LGBT".
 * LGBT is certainly not uncontroversial, but this article does nothing but explain what the acronym stands for. In fact, there are trans people who don't like the term because they don't want to have anything to do with LGB people, there are LGB people who don't like the T for the same or similar reasons, there are intersex people who want it to be LGBTI for obvious reasons (and LGBTI is included in the article, it is just rarer than LGBT, and now LGBTI redirects to LGBT), there are people (intersex and non-intersex) who argue that intersex alone is no reason to throw people in with LGBT people, there are intersex people who feel that the connection is offending, and I think that sentence became long enough. It is certainly expandable. [AR]
 * If you claim both that the term is rare and that you are ignorant of its possible use, I urge to to find out about it. I have provided examples of its use as self-identification and its use inclusive of transgender and intersex.
 * Yes, and I did not stop by to make a count of trans- and intersex people who find the term offensive or at the very least inaccurate, but until now my experience has been 100%. (And it was debated in various context with quite a few people, too.) [AR]
 * I do not find it "odd" or "a triffle strange" to assert the common knowledge and specific example that "sexual" is used to mean sexuality/intercourse/romance and gender/sex.
 * I do, because I know you are familiar with the distinction between sex and gender, even if still many people are not. And frankly, I am also certain that you are aware that references about sex (the equiptment) are rather often confused with sex (the action). If now a term would attempt to throw these matters (sex, sex and gender) into one term, by using the one that practically causes the most problems to trans- and also sometimes intersex people - well, it would not be a good idea. [AR]
 * This debate does seem to be at a standstill. However, since this issue will continue to come up as long as people propose or insist upon the inclusion or exclusion of letters, groups, or terms (in and outside of wikipedia), a "sexual minority" article will eventually be written, and for both this, that, and future article I suggest that you find sources to represent your assertions.
 * I already have them, but if you need to check them, try mentioning in any trans or intersex group that you consider them a "sexual minority". I think that would very much clarify the matter for you. In some groups, I recomment taking a body guard with you, though. [AR]
 * Given that this article appears to need its own page for interarticle clarification purposes, given your objections, and the standstill, I withdraw my proposal to redirect this page. Hyacinth 00:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea. But when you start writing Sexual minorites do make sure it is NPOV and mention that certainly not everybody agrees with this usage. -- AlexR 04:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It would seem then that this article should also "mention that certainly not everybody agrees with this usage," and not do "nothing but explain what the acronym stands for." Hyacinth 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hm, but the article already does that. Not that it cannot be improved (which article can), but that is there already (and was, in a short from, before your edit, too). -- AlexR 13:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There a may be a problem of inclusion accuracy with the term too: consider a post-transition heterosexual transperson; their inclusion in being a "sexual minority" depends strongly on what one defines a "sexual minority" to be. If one takes sexual to describe sex, then that person is not part of a sexual minority. If one takes sexual to describe physiology, then that person may not be considered part of a sexual minority, but intersexed people would be. If one uses the former definition of the act to determine sexual minority, then the inclusion of trans* and intersexed people of whatever operative becomes problematic for reasons already outlined by Alex above. Dysprosia 05:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Transgender or Transgendered?
This page says "transgender" and the LGBT categories say "transgendered". My impression is that "transgender" is preferred? Is that true? -- Samuel Wantman 01:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There's some debate over that, but as far as I can see, transgender was originaly coined as both noun and adjective, same as with transsexual. (Ever heard "transsexualed"? Me neither.) Transgendered has become more common only in the past few years, and is still behind on Google count. I personally can't stand it ;-) AlexR 01:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if a person can be "intersexed" (and that is grammatically correct) then why not "transgendered"? Granted, it was originally "transgender" for both, but language changes. BTW, the term was first invented in a support group in Minneapolis in the mid-1970s -- I was there. Unfortunately, I know of no printed published text that says this -- but I wanted you all to know that bit of history :) We began using it in a newsletter, and it spread from there.  (Annoymous transgendered person who added to the history paragraph April 24, 2006)


 * GLAAD says in its media guide 'The word transgender never needs the extraneous "ed" at the end of the word.' and I agree. I researched this and asked around years ago and found "transgender" to be the correct spelling. tdempsey 08:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sexual is an adjective, therfore you can describe someone as a transsexual person. Gender is a noun (see Merriam-Webster, therefore a person should be a transgendered person. Adding -ed gives us an adjective. If the common usage in the US is to drop the -ed, it wouldn't surprise me. It's kind of like iced tea becoming ice tea in the US. If it's wrong grammatically (and I may be mistaken here, feel free to challenge my logic), should we just go with the common (US) usage? The UK has, I believe, a sizeable T community. What is the common usage there? Zeromacnoo 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) I tend to find it easier to side step the exact definition and just leave it as Trans

Eli Manning
I've removed the reference to Eli Manning in the list of famous LGBT people for lack of proof (wishful thinking, someone?). Feel free to put it back if you can provide some sort of documentation. Pinball22 01:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding more detail
I feel that this article is an excellent one-stop-shop for people who are looking for a quick link from articles about the LGBTI community. As such, I'd like to expand this article with detailed sections on each sub-community with references to the definitive articles. This is in keeping with Wikipedia style for articles that have grown the other way (where a section is removed into another article, and summarized in the original), and I'll try not to stray from that mode.

This all came up while editing Heteronormativity, where an editor there thought that LGBTI was not a good link, and needed to be expanded to individual links for several reasons, the most important being that coverage of transgender and intersex topics was mostly limited to simple links in this page.

I think they were right, and I'm just trying to make sure that that's not limiting any other edits on Wikipedia from now on. Please comment, thanks! -Harmil 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This change has now been made, but I'm still open to comment, of course. See the changes at -Harmil 19:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits to my work listed above: In general I would like to discuss the language that I used, and understand where and why it is insufficient so that I can adapt it as needed. I'm of the opinion that this article should see a lot more link traffic, but that puts it in the delicate spot of needing to be worded not just for those of us who are immersed in the culture, but for those who haven't. If changes are made without discussion, I have almost no hope of understanding their goal, and thus preserving their meaning over the long haul. -Harmil 01:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is the word "homosexual" not acceptable? We've linked to the discussion about the topic above, and it seems to make the point. "sexual orientation toward"? I'm not sure that works in English ("sexual orientation" isn't the same as "navigational orientation"... I don't think there's a directionality in that sense, just a set of criteria).
 * Compare Homosexuality and transgender for a discussion of the problems around this word. [AR]
 * There was a phrase removed about intersex being a recent term. Is it not a recent term, or was that removed for some other reason?
 * Not quite so recent; and the information was quite unnecessary, too, since we have far too many annoying people who whine that new "PC" words replave the good old ones. OED says first use of intersexual dates back to 1866, and obviously, by 1910-15 it became quite widely used. Not all that recent, I'd say. [AR]
 * Remember, though, that many people will understand a link to this article as a sign that it is some sort of unified community, which might be inappropriate in a given situation. Not only does by no means every LGBTI* person feel part of that community (and some are quite offended if one assumes they are), the issues can also be quite different - as they are when it comes to discussing heteronormativity, for example. -- AlexR 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't personally find the word homosexual offensive but if some consider it so it's best if we can rephrase around the word. I changed the change to "sexual orientation towards" and I think it it does make sense in english, if you have a look at the sexual orientation article it uses the same language - another example is from cardiff university which also uses similar language. On the other hand, if you can improve it, go for it! :P -- Joolz 02:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

physically ambiguous genitalia or biological sex
I changed that because it is a rather odd way of phrasing the matter. Not only are both terms pleonasms (since genitals are always phyisical, and sex usually understood to be "biological", too), sex also covers genitals. In other words, a completely pointless repetition. Also, the "or" might confuse readers. It's simply "ambiguous or mismatching sexual characteristics", and one can throw in a "physically" to make that one absolutely clear, but that is already pushing the amount of clarification that makes sense. -- AlexR 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but it's not as redundant as you're suggesting. For example, biological sex covers hormonal differneces that are only indirectly related to genitalia while genitalia would cover many conditions which are often addressed surgically at birth (and are a hot topic in the intersex world), but have nothing to do with the functional sex of the person (e.g. an over-sized clitoris). I'll agree that a re-wording is needed, but we need to address the spectrum of intersex conditions (and making sure that the change is gramatically correct and has working links would be good).


 * I see that your current edit uses the term "sexual characteristics". Two problems: 1) the page that links to is practically a stub and 2) that term does not cover hormonal differences. Thsus, you've removed an entire class of intersex person.... -Harmil 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Uhm, what makes you think that hormone levels are not a sexual characteristic? Of course they are, I eliminated nobody whomever. Also, yes, sexual characteristics is a stub which I only wrote this morning - because, much to my surprise, we really didn't have this article - we only had sex organs (which are often calles primary sexual characteristics) and secondary sexual characteristics but not a page that explained what plain sexual characteristics are.
 * As for sex - yes, well, sex also covers those genitalia, so what is the point of mentioning them again - and BTW, I am fully aware of the problems of surgical interventions done to intersex children.
 * And kindly be a bit less patronizing - it is not exactly as if I was clueless about these matters, and I certainly would not be caught making such rather surprising statements that people somehow can go from intersex to transgender (or vice versa) via surgery. Some intersex people - often, but not always because of a false sex assignment - fit the definition of transgender as well, but that does not mean they are first one and then the other, it means they are both, according to the definition; although many do self-identify only as intersex, while some primarily or exclusively self-identify as transgender. I am glad to explain things to you, but it would really improve the way we work together if you asked any questions before making questionable edits. -- AlexR 14:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hormones are not classically considered a sex characteristic, so much as a sex-linked system. If you feel that's not right, I'd gladly bow to an authoritative citation...
 * Uh, excuse me, but when did hormones get removed from the list? You might want to check the article on sex - which is determined, in humans, by chromosomes, gonads, hormone levels and sex organs. Now, if they got thrown out of that system recently, you might have to be the one who cites evidence for that. [AR]


 * Remember asking me to avoid being patronizing? Well, I sort of feel like the above, falls square into that category, and is not in the spirit of one editor speaking to another as a peer. I am making every attempt to discuss this with you rationally, but between the above comments and your characterizations of my comments as "stupid", "pointless" and various other comments, I don't feel that you're approaching any of this with an eye to productive discourse, so much as a personal game of one-upsmanship. That makes it very hard to communicate.


 * That said, let me try to respond. Hormones are a sex-linked system. They are a part of the biological sex of the individual, but they are not, strictly speaking either primary or secondary sexual characteristics. If you consider that a "pointless" distinction, then apparently you and I have been reading different biology texts. -Harmil 22:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing sex, the biological term with sex the interpersonal term. Biological sex has is the reason for having a clitoris, but if you said someone had an ambiguous bioligical sex, that would not include something like an oversized clitoris (since that does not modify the functional sex of the organism, human in this case).
 * Really, you should get a clue here - this is becoming ridiculous. The faq on the ISNA site would be a great help to you, as would be the relevant wikipedia articles. And yes, a clitoris that is considered "too large" is usually considered an intersex condition, especially since a clitoris grows larger than usual through unusual levels of testosterone in females, which is definitely an intersex condition. And how exactly am I confusing sex (the action) with sex (the equiptment) here? I really don't think I do that. [AR]


 * Once again, you are being insulting and using non-logic (insults) in your discourse, here. This is not helpful. The FAQ at the ISNA site is not a medical document. It also contains phrases such as "we at ISNA [classify as intersex] anyone born with what someone believes to be non-standard sexual anatomy." Vague definitions like this are simply not useful. We need to include both sex characteristics and other sex-linked biological functions, and I think we're done. Do you disagree with that statement? -Harmil 22:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As for being patronizing, I'm not. That is, I am making not attempt to be, so you can read my comments that way if you wish, or discuss these matters in the technical / medical light in which I am attempting to set them (in order to avoid putting any of my own POV bias into this article while improving it). I asked you into this discussion because I respect your input, and I still do. I am pleased to be able to bounce this terminology off of someone who obviously has some background in the matter. However, instead of joining in the conversation, you just replaced my comments. It's hardly surprising that I then wanted to discuss your edits. -Harmil 15:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not replaced any comments; the only thing I may have replaced are edits to the article -- which is something you will have to live with when you work on Wikipedia. It happens all the time, so what exactly are you complaining about? As for you attempting to discuss these matters in a technical/medical light, well, sorry, but I have to say that this means you have to get some technical/medical facts first. There seems to be a certain lack of them in your comments and edits. -- AlexR 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I had assumed I was being clear. Apparently this was not so. By "comments" I meant, "the text which you replaced, which we have been discussing here for several rounds of exchange now." I suppose I'll have to be more pedantic in my phrasing of these things in the future. -Harmil 22:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As a result of the above discussion, it becomes obvious to me that even someome who has been exposed to the GLBTI community can be quite unclear on topics such as primary sexual characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, and the sex hormones. This means that a casual reader is going to need more than a simple link to a stub to sort out the difference. I will attempt to expand on the language in order to further explain without turning this into a copy of the cited pages... a tightrope walk at best.... -Harmil 14:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, so your last edit makes it completely obvious that you are unwilling to let any edit stand that is not exactly as you want it to be, no matter how stupid the edit is. What exactly was the point of that? This article here cannot replace the respective articles it links to, nor should it. And your insitence that everything has to be your way or the highway, while at the same time you are showing a very deplorable willingness to even get a clue about the matters you insist on writing about makes me really wonder what the point is in talking to you at all. Needless to say, your latest edit is reverted, and for any further comment on the hormones matter I am waiting for a comment I asked an MD to make. Unlike you, I don't insist I know everything better. -- AlexR 15:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I had abandoned my prefered phrasing and gone with yours (expanded into the two classifications of sex characteristics, as they are more complete articles), and added one additional category, which you agree is part of the definition, but felt was implied. Other than as a point of pride, why do you object to the reference to sex hormones? -Harmil 16:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The dichotomy you are discussing here has its roots in the historical intolerance of science and medicine for 'true hermaphrodites.' While nature loves diversity, society hates it – especially medical society. Since the dawn of 'modern' medicine, we've been trying to prove that everyone belongs in one 'true' biological sex. Though this is not because that is a scientific or logical imperative, but because the idea that there might not be two 'true' or 'biological' sexes to which every individual can be neatly assigned really messes with your head unless you are both a scientist and pretty well versed in the trans or intersex community (and the memes of those communities.)


 * Its really a matter that science has refused to, up until very recently, think 'outside the box' of a binary gender system (at least with regards to humans. Its ok for some fish to have five genders, but not us!) However, the more we look at it, the more that sex seems to be less a categorical variable and more of a spectrum.


 * That said, from a biological standpoint male means: 'makes small gametes', and female means 'makes large gametes'. That it. Very unexciting.


 * However, thats not exactly what you were talking about. What you were discussing was what are the characteristics by which we try to assign people 'from a scientific standpoint' into one of two sexes. While the biological meaning is above, there are seven characteristics that I've seen noted several times as the ones which can be used to sort individuals: gonads, external genitalia, hormonal milieu, secondary sexual characteristics, gender identity, gender role, and chromosomes. Perhaps most importantly to the specific question at hand is are these seven characteristics independent variables?


 * The answer is yes, which is why they are the ones listed. That is, in particular, hormonal milieu, while usually predicting secondary sex characteristics, does not always. This is why its an independent variable that should be looked at when you are trying to determine from a 'biological perspective' where an organism is on the spectrum of sex. The prototypical example of this is CAIS. The individual with CAIS has XY chromosomes, a hormonal milieu that is decidedly masculine (producing testosterone from male gonads) but because of a defect in the testosterone receptor has female secondary sex characteristics (and external genitalia.)


 * Though FWIW, I think describing someone's biological sex is right up there with check boxes for race. Its something that is less a categorical variable than people would like to believe. Its something that most people think can be easily determined. And its something that causes people who are 'in-between' the categorical variables no end of grief.


 * If you want a source for those seven variables, the two best I can suggest are “Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex” by Alice Dreger and “Evolutions Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People” by Joan Roughgarden. NickGorton 05:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up
Is anyone up for cleaning the LGBT category? It needs major work and I am interested in starting now.

tdempsey 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops - I have found the projects and discussions including LGBT notice board. tdempsey 16:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

GLBTQQIA merge notice
The LGBT notice board has already discussed this on numerous occasions. Wikipedia does not do separate articles for each possible permutation of the queer community's group acronym; we have one article at LGBT, and all alternative orders of the letters redirect to that. If you don't like it, you can always propose that we move LGBT to a more inclusive title, but there will still only be one article, with all other acronyms redirecting to that one. The LGBT article does already discuss the use of extended acronyms and the variable order of the letters. Bearcat 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

relationship to other groups
This article as it currently stands could use some more on the current and historical relationships with other groups that cover similar, or overlapping ground. For example, the interests of lesbian feminism clearly overlap at least in part with those of the LGBT movement, and in some cases people simultaneously identify with both, but there is a complex and often controversial relationship there. In addition, queer theory is sometimes taken to be an important theoretical underpinning, but that's also controversial. (I'm not adding anything myself because I only know of the relationships; I don't know much detail about them.) --Delirium 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Anti-LGBT community LGBT people
Even though they have been greatly improved, the last two paragraphs in the 'Controversy' section of the LGBT article are no longer entirely neutral. They give the impression that all people who are against a distinctive LGBT community are against equal rights under the law and social acceptance for LGBT people, which is simply not true. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to make this section more neutral? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.214.17.198 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC).


 * While I would admit that in their current form those 2 paragraphs don't paint the Anti-LGBTs in the same light as LGBTs, I think that is rather the purpose of the descriptions, so that doesn't really stray outside of NPOV.
 * As far as I understand the term, "Anti-LGBTs" are those L,G,B, and T people who are 'actively positioned aginst the existence of the LGB/T community', and mustn't be confused with those L,G,B, and T people who merely rarely/never interact with the community, but are ambivalent or positive about it's existence. And in at least the UK, Anti-LGBTs do genuinely in the majority believe in social darwinism and consider liberation and equality of social minorities is pointless or an interferance in 'the natural order of things'.
 * Maybe it could do with some clarification and caveats to circumvent misreading. Myfanwy 10:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think those are the only possible positions. There are also anti-LGBTs who object to lumping L, G, B, and Ts together into one coherent group (for example, some of the lesbian feminists mentioned above). --Delirium 19:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Geographical scope
This article seems to apply mainly to North America, and to a much lesser extent some other countries such as New Zealand and Australia. Can anyone expand it with a more global view? Da Masta 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Most common or standard
I thought GLBT was the standard order of the letters. It's the one I usually see. To be honest, I've never seen LGBT outside of Wikipedia. -Branddobbe 17:41, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

It's all in the eye of the author, really. GLBT is definitely the most popular but I've seen pretty much every permutation of the letters that can be built (including F, for friendly, A, for "allied", and/or Q, for questioning (or queer)). It makes a rather interesting alphabet soup. --Chirstyn 17:28, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to claim that one order is the majority and another is not, but I'll list myself here as somebody that's more familiar with the "LGBT" ordering in RL. To be sure, I've seen both. (For the sake of the following debate, let me also note that I've come to queer culture in the past 5 years or less, and almost entirely in the USA.) -- Toby Bartels 20:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that GLBT made more sense. The word "gay" is the most significant because in its broader sense it includes lesbians. Lesbian is more specific, because it refers only to gay females. Bisexual comes after gay/lesbian because it is the gay/lesbian part of a bisexual person's sexuality that makes them distinct from the majority of society and part of the group that the acronym intends to capture. Transgender comes last because it is the least common by incidence and because it's a slightly different group.


 * Actually last time I spent time in circles where such acronyms were prevalent the it had become: GLBTIQ. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning. No wonder people are looking for generic terms like "queer" and "rainbow" Ben Arnold 01:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen both in real life, but am generally more familiar with LGBT. I think some people prefer LGBT because it doesn't give the men (G) primacy over everyone else, but I couldn't swear to that. The magazine Anything That Moves coined the acronym FABGLITTER (Fetish, Allies, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Intersexed, Transgender, Transsexual Engendering Revolution), which I love but don't think we can actually use on Wikipedia. Bearcat 14:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In a class I took at school about GLBT Social Movements our professor told us that certain areas of the country (United States - I don't know about other countries) use GLBT and in other regions LGBT is more common. Of course I can't remember which regions she said used what, and I can't find those notes, but that's just what I remember. --David 01:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that LGBT might be used mainly because it seems to flow better when you say it than GLBT. Also, i think to order the letters in the order of numbers of members of each of the groups is narrow-minded. Because there are more lesbians than bisexuals mean they get to come first? I don't think that that should be the way to decide, but if that is the order that everyone understands, and has no mal-intent behind it then i think it works fine Davepealing 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It used to be just gay or lesbian then became GL and later GLB and GLBT with politically L placed first to help address that the gay community is not just men as GLBT opponents play on the stereotypes that gay issues are just men trying to have sex with and as well as children. Most people reading this know better but the stereotypes persist and use still perpetuated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.27.148 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

US vs others?
Google says


 * GLBT 621,000
 * LGBT 495,000

In .uk, LGBT is far more common


 * LGBT 18,900
 * GLBT 4,270

other results


 * GLBT: .us
 * LGBT: .au .ca
 * even: .nz

So it looks like it may be a US versus the world thing.

Morwen - Talk 20:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I ran this search today on Google and found:


 * LGBT 1,710,000
 * GLBT 1,290,000


 * Yahoo! is showing:


 * LGBT 2,450,000
 * GLBT 1,520,000


 * tdempsey 08:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keeping in mind that LGBT is a stock symbol, here's today:


 * LGBT 1,580,000
 * GLBT 1,260,000
 * LGBTI 72,500
 * GLBTI 40,700
 * FABGLITTER 1,070

PubMed and libraries

 * PubMed is showing:


 * LGBT 45
 * GLBT 17

Librarians also favour LGBT:

(es_uomikim 11:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

Old vs new?
Lets look at it another way besides most and least common. I would argue the GL(B) is an older configuration and that more people and organizations are moving towards LGBT. Here's my approximate timeline:


 * 1) Gay and lesbian
 * 2) Gay, lesbian, and bisexual
 * 3) GLB
 * 4) LGB
 * 5) LGBT
 * 6) etc

Hyacinth 20:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Australia
I think the most common version you see in Australia these days is GLBTI, but that may just be ignorance of lesbian publications! It has one advantage over LGBTI - you can pronounce it. You do occasionally see GLBTIQ as well.

Realistically I think these usages are going to vary widely and won’t necessarily follow any neo-Darwinian trajectory towards ultimate correctness as hinted at above. Life’s generally messier than that.

Queer still retains its Queer-Nation-ish meaning in some circles here, but in the gay press I wonder if it means anything more than gay sometimes. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence
Sorry to be petty, but I think the article begins with a rather badly worded sentence: "LGBT (or GLBT, or Rainbow people) is an initialism used as a collective term to refer to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people."

Firstly, it implies that "Rainbow People" is an initialism, which it clearly isn't. So, that's either got to be re-worded, or the "rainbow people" reference removed... I personally have never heard the term before, but if it is common, I'm cool with it staying in a better worded sentence. Secondly, should the T stand for "trans" or "transgender"? Both of them are umbrella terms, but most trans people I've met prefer trans... ok so that's not a very representative sample, but still. I know the National Union of Students (UK) LGBT campaign, and most UK student LGBT groups prefer trans. What's the case elsewhere? Saluton 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I for one definitely prefer "LGBT". As well as being far more common in the UK than "GLBT", it flows off the tongue better and doesn't give the impression of being in order of how marginalised they are. Saluton 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See what you think of the way I've modified it. (Feel free to make further changes.) -Aleta 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try at changing it, however, it does feel a little bit tacked on now. Would anyone object if we removed the term altogether? I too have never heard of it before (frankly I can think of few things worse than being called a "rainbow person") and there are also many other terms refering to LGBTs and none fo these are mentioned (nor arguably should they be in the introduction to the article). I'll leave it for a few days in case anyone holds the term dear and then remove it and wait to see if I'm struck down by lightning. Intesvensk


 * I've never heard of it outside this article either, but then I was allowing for the possibility that it is commonly used in another anglophone country, but just not in the UK. I guess that it should be fine to remove unless someone can come up with proof in the next few days of said use. --Myfanwy 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - trying to find some reference for "rainbow people" (I, too, have never heard the term elsewhere) - I found this LGBT-in-anime page which defines nijijin as "literally 'rainbow person'; refers to people who gather under the rainbow gay pride flag". I don't know yet if that's the main context of the term. If I find anything else useful, I'll post it here.  If this is it, though, we should drop the mention of the term. -Aleta 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey hey. Thanks for trying to find out about this. I agree though, it is looking like this is something that should be nowhere near the introduction of the article. I mean, in Sweden gay people are sometimes referred to as tvecksam handleder (lit. doubtful wrists) but it is a vaguely interesting side note to the topic at best. Lets give it another day and delete if we don't find anything more. Intesvensk


 * Ok, I have deleted it. If anyone has any problems with it then feel free to put it back (preferably with a source as I would love to know where on Earth people use the term in everyday speech) Intesvensk 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples
I'm considering the inclusion of examples in the article, such as the description used by the Triangle Program of Toronto, which bills itself as "Canada's only classroom for LGBTTI2QQAP youth." I don't know whether such examples merit their own section, should exist only as footnote references, or should not be included at all. 72.244.207.209 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed
"The broad spectrum of LGBT groups has been expanded further in many cases, recently a resident of Manchester, Joe Parrott, has started an LGBT online gaming network that has proven very popular since its creation in 2009. The group joins together players of Counter-Strike, World of Warcraft and primarily Dark Age of Camelot, and has monthly meetings at Gay venues across the north."

This would seem to belong more properly to LGBT organizations, if it is notable enough for inclusion. Eponymous (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tautology
"The acronym LGBT has become mainstream as a self-designation and has been adopted by the majority of LGBT community centers and LGBT media".

So we are saying that "LGBT" is used in the "LGBT community" and by "LGBT media". Presumably, the "LGBT community", for lack of any other definition, amounts to "those people who self-identify as 'LGBT'". This is just meaningless.

Also, the term being "mainstream" within the "LGBT community" is not sufficient for using it in Wikipedia's voice without attribution, because Wikipedia isn't part of the "LGBT media" and is required to use the most common terminology in English as a whole.

Improper use of a 1990s neologism across Wikipedia leads to absurdities like "LGBT rights by country or territory". Please take a second to reflect on the introductory sentence, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) related laws vary greatly by country or territory".

This is nonsense. The article is not aware of any single law on bisexuality. There are laws on homosexuality, sometimes these laws distinguish between male and female homosexuality, and there are presumably some laws on "transgender", i.e. legal change of sex, a topic entirely separate from laws on homosexuality. Lumping this together isn't just absurd, it's also a violation of WP:SYNTH.

We need an article on Homosexuality laws. The proper encyclopedic term for male homosexuality is "male homosexuality", that for female homosexuality is "female homosexuality". Our articles should not be written in slang, even if it is the slang of the subculture under discussion.

I realize this will be difficult to fix, as I assume 90% of people interested in writing these articles are apparently members of this subculture, while another 9% are homophobic trolls. Nevertheless I hope that even involved editors can take a step back and appreciate this call for encyclopedicity. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous idea. Homosexuality laws it's absurd title and, definitely, is not encyclopedic term. No serious reasons to changes. Ron 1987 15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "homosexuality laws" is an "absurd title" and "not encyclopedic"? As opposed to "LGBT laws"? Any sort of rationale to back up this random claim? If you bother to peruse google books, you will find that "homosexuality laws" gives you 588 hits, while "LGBT laws" gives you 15, the earliest dating to 1998.
 * I would say this is a "serious reason" for a change under WP:UE, and you would seem to need to present excellent evidence to argue for a preference of the more obscure term. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "homosexuality laws" is perfectly appropriate. In fact throughout history, most laws aimed at curbing homesexual activity have almost always been exclusively applicable to gay men. The standard form prohibition on homosexual activity is a ban on sodomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * " The article is not aware of any single law on bisexuality. There are laws on homosexuality" - I think you'll find that if a bisexual person is having a same-sex relationship, they'll be caught by the laws just the same as homosexual people. (And if you're going to say there isn't a law against being bisexual but not having same-sex acts, the same applies to homosexuality too - so that's an argument against your suggested title. The article refers to gay and bisexual "related laws" which is entirely correct - the laws relate to both gay and bisexual people.)


 * No one is claiming that laws have treated gay men and gay women the same, but they are close enough to cover in the same article. There is also a reasonable amount of cross-over with transgender issues. And since that article is basically a table, it seems destructive to just rip out one column for a separate article.


 * It is unclear if you object to the initialism, or the covering in the same article. Would you object if it was "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender rights by country or territory"? Mdwh (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your first point ("there isn't a law against being bisexual but [against] same-sex acts, the same applies to homosexuality") is equivocation. The laws only address behavior; homosexual-, bisexual-, heterosexual- and asexual-oriented people can all be directly affected by them. So if "gay and bisexual laws" makes sense because gay and bisexual people are both affected by them, then what is the justification for exluding non-homosexual and non-bisexual people who can also be affected by the laws? Nay, the laws on homosexuality regulate homosexual behavior, and that's all that can be said about them.


 * Laws concerning male and female homosexuality overlap in many areas, as same-sex marriage, military service, adoption, discrimination, etc. But in other areas they do not, as sodomy laws and legal ages of consent. So covering male and female homosexuality in a single article is tenable. But where do homosexuality and transgenderism overlap? Transgenderism overlaps with other things; homosexuality overlaps with other things. To what purpose does conflating homosexuality and transgenderism serve? In my view, it serves no usability or function. It's simply ignorant at best and slanderous at worst.


 * Another point is that it is naïve to think the gay or LGBT community represent all homosexuals. If they did, designations like "men who have sex with men" wouldn't be necessary. But I recognize "gay" as a neutral synonym for "homosexual" is also tenable. Nonetheless, I don't self-identify as "gay" personally for the reason I don't self-identify as "atheist": both terms have political and social overtones I don't want to associate myself with.


 * I've addressed this issue at Talk:LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory and at Talk:LGBT_themes_in_mythology. 75.132.142.26 (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

LGBT or GLBT is an initialism....
I put "or GLBT" in because that's what usually happened in articles with alternative names. The reason for the last removal was "fixing template on page" which I don't understand. Why shouldn't it say "or GLBT"? Short life (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Variant
There is now a new variant, "LGBTQI2-S", translating as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered/queer/intersexed/2-spirited. gsearch gives only 27 uses, but a main use is at the Homelessness Resource Center, and is used at a site run by "A program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services". I think this should be mentioned. (but this is getting somewhat ridiculous)(Mercurywoodrose)76.245.45.179 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous homosexuality is put in the same category as transgenderism and intersexuality. This is extremely bigoted and anti-homosexual. It's saying if you're homosexual, you're necessarily gender-atypical. What could be more bigoted than that? The Right says homosexual men are not moral men; the Left says homosexual men are not real men. What's the point of giving me my dignity as a person only to deny me my dignity as a man? Why can't people understand that "it's your choice of lifestyle" is an infinitely more tolerant statement than "you're a congenital mental hermaphrodite who can't help being a non-normal (i.e., non-heterosexual) man and so shouldn't be legally and socially thwarted from pursuing your compulsion"? 75.132.142.26 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "the Left says homosexual men are not real men." I stopped here. You mad? Most of left is feminist and most of branches of Feminism says that gender roles are a social construction i.e. there is not "real men" and "real women" and there is not something that is more "masculine" and something that is more "feminine" in all cultures across History and world, every human being is what they really are. You seem to have a heterosexist point of view towards our transgender brothers/sisters/what-they-are-and-want-to-be-called. Lguipontes (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you're in 99% of probability an anonymous troll but anyway... >Why can't people understand that "it's your choice of lifestyle" is an infinitely more tolerant statement than "you're a congenital mental hermaphrodite who can't help being a non-normal (i.e., non-heterosexual) man and so shouldn't be legally and socially thwarted from pursuing your compulsion"?< Do you want my opinion as a bisexual who fell in love with another boy at his first time when he was 7 years old (IQ says I'm almost genius)? Fuck what people think (actually, this one have to be the maximum in the heart and in the mind of every sane and self-loving non-heterosexual in a blatantly and violently heterosexist culture). In Brazil, where I live, if everybody had knowledge about sexual orientations as science demonstrates it in your society (biologically motivated), millions of homophobes would shut up. From religious to far right. Millions of homophobes could never have existed, from bullies who make little boys kill themselves to white power skinheads. In the hearts of all confuse parents, truth, hope and deep love could persevere instead of really sad hate and denial feelings that leads some to honor killings and other to physical and psychological abuse. Yeah, Science can prove that we're here since Upper Paleolithic, 9000 years before Bible (and some parts of History too, Portuguese wrote about Indigenous Brazilian "profanely and alarmingly common sodomy"). But it has to become mainstream there, to get notice here and help 8-11% (we are that numerous, I suppose) of our 200 million inhabitants. No, more than that, because the entire Latin American reality is more or less the same. Stronger conservative christianity (and if you ask me, more hypocritical, the way that only some of you native Anglophones can see) is not very helpful, they deny everything by the "gay agenda" myth and other ridiculous stereotypes. There are Christian public figures who are used to compare non-heterosexual acceptance to ten steps toward bestiality and pedophilia acceptance. As you can see, "choice of lifestyle" leads to 387982738928920387290020092373209302378 more social and psychological damage than "congenital mental hermaphrodite who can't help being a non-normal (i.e., non-heterosexual) man and so shouldn't be legally and socially thwarted from pursuing your compulsion" as consensus. I dream everyday with the latter. Lguipontes (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * someday perhaps categories won't be needed for anyone AvocadosTheorem (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * put them in alpha order, to be fair, you get biglqt or "big loquat". is this significant?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2013
This website should be removed from the external links - * GayLGBT.com

There is no real content.

Instead a good growing UK resource would be * LGBT.co.uk

87.114.234.161 (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I have removed the excessive links per WP:ELNO. Most of the links did not add information that couldn't be covered in the article. Others were broad, unfocused collections of non-encyclopedic information; DMOZ directory is very 1995; a single student organization; a non-authoritative Power Point presentation, etc. Wikipedia is not a link farm. I've also declined to add the link that you recommendedit seems to be a news aggregator/blog, of which there are many, many on the web. If we are going to add such a site, there should be a discussion and we should choose the one with the best editorial oversight and meaningful content. - MrX 13:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

GSRM
I don't edit wikipedia enough to be allowed to add an edit directly to the page. I think that GSRM should be included with GSM as an initialism that additionally includes people with diverse relationship structures. There are descriptions of the term at Queer@UofM and FTM transcribed Therunaround (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"er.g."
This unusual abbreviation (not one I have come across before, and certainly not one in common usage) appears in the 'Variants' section of the article: "MSM" (er.g. [sic] "men who have sex with men"). Could the editors please review its use, and amend as appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeybear (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Solosexuality
Currently, solosexuality automatically redirects to autoeroticism. I could be wrong, but I've always imagined that there is a difference between the two, since the latter appears to refer specifically to physical acts, whereas "solosexuality" sounds somewhat similar to asexuality, i.e. as a way of life including feelings, self-sufficiency, etc, and should perhaps therefore be included in the scope of LGBT topics, as well a in the LGBT symbols, etc. (Leading on from this, then, a new solosexuality article should perhaps be created...?) BigSteve (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GSD is not common
The GSD initialism is not common so I feel it shouldn't be in the lead or bolded. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a POV term that not only is not recognized, even amongst actual Transgender groups, but excludes other groups already included in LGBT. Assume all attempts to include it are vandalism and remove immediately. 106.69.40.146 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Harlequin

Dead Link
I am new at editing and was hoping for some help from someone more advanced. I found a dead link for ref #43: Smith, S. E. (17 September 2010). "Separate But Equal Is Still Unequal". Retrieved 2010-11-27. Could someone help provide a new reference here? Thanks. JLand13 (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request (the very 1st sentence of the article)
In the very first sentence of the article there is a punctuation error. There should be no comma between bisexual and transgender. That's how it is now. A screenshot with the error. 178.94.102.44 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - Serial commas are allowed (see MOS:SERIAL), as long as they are used consistently in the article.- MrX 00:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no Q?
I'm curious as to why the "Q" in the acronym is left out, both in the title and in the article. I don't really see why it wouldn't be there. Maybe someone could explain to me the reasoning behind this? GoGatorMeds (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * GoGatorMeds, there is no Q, as in LGBTQ, because of the WP:Common name policy. "LGBT" is the WP:Common name for this topic, and so the article title should be at that title. Significant alternative titles should be mentioned in the WP:Lead (introduction), and/or in a section lower in the article, per the WP:Alternative title policy, and that is what the article does. The "Q" is in the lead, and lower in the article, along with other variants. What should also be in the lead (and bolded there) is "GLBT," since that is the second most common title for this topic (as noted lower in the article). It was removed twice from the lead in 2012 when an IP attempted to add it, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, thank you for clearing that confusion up for me. GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * GoGatorMeds, you're not new to editing Wikipedia, are you? Looking at your contributions, you are familiar to me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No I am not, I think that I have heard the acronym with the Q more often than not, personally, which is why I was originally confused. But now that I know that is merely a personal experience, and it's more widely used among the general public without the Q, I understand why it is used this way on the page. Thank you again.GoGatorMeds (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Acronym or abbreviation
Dear esteemed members of the Wikipedia community, acronyms are abbreviations you can pronounce like a word (NATO, UNESCO). LGBT certainly doesn't come into this category so "acronym" should be changed to "abbreviation" throughout. You wouldn't want the Encyclopaedia Britannica people coming in and laughing! Many thanks. 95.172.64.57 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct (m-w definition here). I'll fix it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * While I don't mind the changes made in this regard (concerning acronyms vs. initialisms), the Acronym article (which includes WP:Reliable sources) is clear that we don't have to be strict on this matter. It's also why initialism currently redirects to the Acronym article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

LGBT domestic violence
Nothing on LGBT domestic violence.--Penbat (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't seem to belong on this page as it's not about LGBT specifically. There is, however, a section at Domestic_violence.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  19:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this article is about the initialism/term LGBT. The LGBT community article is significantly more about the people and what they face. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * About that – I know it's probably been brought up on the LGBT page before, but wouldn't a title change to "LGBT (term)" – or something along those lines – help clarify the issue? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Because, per WP:Disambiguation, we do not disambiguate unless there is a need to do so.


 * Also, because this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

GSM/GRSM and MOGAI
Hey! Reading through the article I find it worrisome that the terms GSM and GSRM are mentioned without informing on how it has generally been abandoned when it was discovered that it was claimed by a paedophile. Personally I would rather have more focus on the term MOGAI as it is way more inclusive than LGBT ever will be. It is also worth mentioning the controversy around whether paedophilia is a sexual orientation or a fetish, although again most people I've seen has agreed that it is nothing but a fetish, or even an illness, and therefore would not be included in the MOGAI acronym. 88.88.224.3 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion of paedophilia as a sexual orientation is mentioned here, on the "Pedophilia" (U.S. spelling) article – that seems the right place for it. Perhaps a mention on the homosexuality, paederasty or whatever articles, but not on the LGBT article: it seems irrelevant to the topic. And, as of yet, I can't find any reliable sources that claim GSM/GSRM have been coined by a paedophile (do correct me if I am wrong on that though), and I don't think either term gained enough popularity to be "abandoned".
 * That being said, I do think MOGAI needs to be clarified/discussed more, but WP:SOAPBOX needs to be kept in mind here (no advocacy), as well as to how notable the term is. I think other editors will probably be more qualified to add information on that than me. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This article claims "the man who coined the term in the 1960s, Swedish psychiatrist and medical doctor Lars Ullerstam, wrote about sexual minorities in a manner that included pedophiles and other sex criminals". Lars Ullerstam appears to have coined the phrase "sexual minorities" and this might have been in his book, The Erotic Minorities . However, using Google Books, I've searched for the terms "GSM", "GSRM", "sexual minorities", "gender minorities" and none seem to have been used in The Erotic Minorities. I can't find any other reliable sources which talk about Ullerstam or the etymology of the terms "GSM" or "GRSM". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Add H for heterosexual
Why not? If heterosexuals (what a weird word) want to be part of everybody ... why not. I'd like to be included as an h. Benvhoff (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contains no new ideas: everything in this article should be based on reliable sources to show the information is verifiable and true. If there are any reliable sources you can cite that use "h" for "heterosexual" somewhere in an acronym, please feel free to add the information to the article (with references). However, if there aren't any, we cannot include this in the article. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, heterosexuals are included in the acronym, as "a" can also stand for "(straight) allies". (Although this has been controversial in the asexual community as it is sometimes considered asexual erasure, but here isn't the place to discuss that...) This is mentioned in the article ("Variants" section), as it is used in reliable sources. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"A for Allies"
Under the controversy section, it definitely should be brought up that the inclusion of "A for Allies" is pretty frowned upon, especially because it ends up erasing the A being for Asexual and also because while allies are allies of the community, they are not outright members. It is something that some groups do use in their abbreviations but it's definitely garnered some criticism. That said, there are a fair few people who are in favor of keeping it I just think it should be mentioned. Just google the topic and plenty of stuff comes up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.187.142 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

>> I believe "ally" should not be included in the definition of the acronym, since, as the user above stated, its inclusion is commonly frowned upon and it is not a sexual or gender identity. The A stands for "asexual." A separate comment on the controversy of including "ally" in the acronym can be added. -mmmmomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmmomo (talk • contribs)
 * We need to go by what reliable sources say. According to sources, A can stand for either ally or asexual.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although I totally understand the criticism of allies being under the "a" (and agree with it, personally), there seems to be no reliable sources discussing the issue, therefore including it would be WP:ADVOCACY. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Link to List of LGBT African Americans in See Also
There has been some edit warring over whether this category should receive a link in the See Also section. Given that this is a category rather than an article, I think it's clear that guidelines do not support its inclusion (see WP:SEEALSO and WP:EMBED). An actual list, if someone cares to create one, would be more appropriate given the guidelines. Additionally, the see also section on this page has quite a few links already, and I'm not in favor of adding more unless we can include some of the existing links in the article itself. If we included every LGBT-related article in the See Also section, it would take up more space than the article itself.

Pinging all those who have added this or reverted: ~ RobTalk 17:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the discussion; I don't really have much to add. Categories aren't included in the see also section and even if they were, I'd object to this particular category's inclusion. The see also section is already overcrowded (do we really need to include Racism in the LGBT community, for instance?); less is more.
 * For the record, the proper way to link that category is not with a URl, but with the code  (which produces Category:LGBT African Americans). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the person adding the URL was doing so as a newbie and in good faith, but I removed the link, and another on a U.S. page, LGBT rights in the United States, while adding a replacement link on that U.S. focused page. There is a page that could be linked to on U.S. pages instead of the category: African-American culture and sexual orientation. It could do with some work and broader scope, but it's a start perhaps. Trankuility (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would be in favour of keeping Racism in the LGBT community in the See also section. A discussion on notable social issues within LGBT is also more than relevant here, so long as the scope is global. Trankuility (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be very odd to have Category:LGBT African Americans, even actual article lists such as List of LGBT Jews aren't mentioned (and nor should they IMO).
 * I don't really think that a List of LGBT African Americans is really appropriate for Wikipedia as there are so many issues regarding sexuality of African Americans: are those "on the down-low" who are MSM considered gay or straight? I suppose this is the same with a "List of LGBT X" pages in general.
 * However, if anyone is to make that category, I'd suggest looking at Talk:List of LGBT Jews and the deletion discussions on that talk page to prevent any similar issues occurring again.
 * I do think that Racism in the LGBT community should be considered in the "See also", as that and the issue of homophobia in ethnic minority communities (which I would possibly replace "Racism in the LGBT community" with, as that seems to be talked about more) are controversial issues which really need to be addressed in a neutral manner on Wikipedia, and also to prevent visitors to the LGBT page adding information regarding these two topics. However, this could just be personal bias, but I thought I'd mention it. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Initialisms "LGBTIH", "GS(R)M" and "GSD" in lead
Surely these less commonly used terms can be moved further down in the article? Zumoarirodoka (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * With regard to moving things down, be sure that you are not repeating things that are already covered lower. LGBTIH (used in India to encompass the hijra third gender identity and the related subculture), GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities") and GSD (Gender and Sexual Diversity) are already covered lower. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It still seems odd to have these terms in the lead section, anyhow. I have now removed them, if anyone has any objections to the changes I have made, please let me know. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Homophobia in ethnic minority communities link
, hours ago, I saw your removal of this link from the WP:See also section, but I waited to see if anyone would revert you and/or object to the removal at this talk page. I don't understand your removal of that link. Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of "Homophobia in FOOBAR" articles... why only link that one?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the link to the See also section as Racism in the LGBT community was also linked. However, I have no objection to this removal, as the See also section does seem somewhat overcrowded. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 16:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm... I guess we already have a similar article in the LGBT Rights Opposition page that is also linked, so part of my reason was to avoid redundancy.Tenor12 (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's worth inclusion in the see also section, given how crowded that section already is. One of these days, I might have a go at incorporating some of those links into the article. ~ RobTalk 03:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015
In the section called "Variants", the sexuality, "panssexual" should be spelled "pansexual".

The sentence is, "The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, panssexual)..." Tyleroakleyyye (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ ~ RobTalk 18:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on LGBT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140802233731/http://www.health.gov.au/lgbtistrategy to http://www.health.gov.au/lgbtistrategy
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927113556/http://www.marksimpson.com/pages/anti_gay.html to http://www.marksimpson.com/pages/anti_gay.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Changes reviewed by at 09:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

The "A" stands for...
So... why are there no mentions of aromantics and agenders at all, even though the A applies to them as much as it does to asexuals?

198.161.51.70 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources typically don't include aromantic or agender when defining the A, unfortunately. We go by what those sources say.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

1985 trans inclusion

 * the initialism LGB, which itself started replacing the term gay when in reference to the LGBT community

Should we say this for sure? While I can buy that trans people got called gay, I'm not sure I buy that the LGB community accepted trans prior to this being reflected in the addition of T to the initialism.

The cited ref:
 * Acronyms, initialisms & abbreviations dictionary, Volume 1, Part 1. Gale Research Co., 1985, ISBN 978-0-8103-0683-7. Factsheet five, Issues 32–36, Mike Gunderloy, 1989

Does it specifically say this about trans?

Perhaps we should link LGB community until there is proof and do a redirect to pre-trans history. 64.228.90.87 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement of little value in the lede should be removed.
Last sentence in lede:"Whether or not LGBT people openly identify themselves may depend on whether they live in a discriminatory environment, as well as on the status of LGBT rights where they live." is rubbish. An individual's decision to "openly identify" depends on all sorts of things. HOW is it useful to claim it "may depend" on [where they live]? It may depend on their parents attitude, their bosses attitude, their job, their goals, their confidence, or whether identifying would put them in significant physical risk. The lede is pretty poorly written; for instance it's claimed that the "initialism is intended..." which is more nonsense. What is being claimed ? that anyone using the phrase intends to emphasize such-and-such? That it just not true. LGBT refers to a category of people, communities, groups, organizations, or political, medical, economic, entertainment, recreational, etc. etc. issues or interests or places. In my opionion, it would be better to mention whether or not a LGBT community usually exists when the social/cultural/legal environment is agreeable and in how much of the world is there "strong" cultural, economic, institutional, or legal discrimination against LGBT peoples. It would be useful to mention the number of countries that make LGBT (sexual, dress) behavior illegal.72.172.10.197 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

80s ref improve

 * Acronyms, initialisms & abbreviations dictionary, Volume 1, Part 1. Gale Research Co., 1985, ISBN 978-0-8103-0683-7.

Factsheet five, Issues 32–36, Mike Gunderloy, 1989

More specifics to help are good, like we could say on page 72 it says "arguing the need for more LGB perspective in the organization".

Bit confused on dates... a volume came out in 85 and fact sheets for it were compiled in 89?

Anyone know how to do a news/book search on google and arrange results from oldest to newest? Curious when GLB started use. I found a 2005 site but figure it's not first.

First use of BGL? Figure must be some alph order nuts like me out there. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

For GLBT:
 * http://www.uic.edu/depts/quic/resources/listserv_index.html says GLBT and last updated 16 July 1999.
 * 7 October 1999 archvie uses GLBT says created 23 September 1998

For GLB:
 * 7 June 1997 archive uses GLB and says last updated 19 February 1997
 * 12 May 1996 archive uses GLB.
 * 1988: Newsletter from Association of American Law Schools. Section on Gay and Lesbian Legal Issues page 71 references "GLB students" and "GLB issues"
 * 1987: Directory of Little Magazines & Small Presses, Volume 32 page 1014 references "GLB Publishers" but not sure of context.
 * 1982: The Homosexual Network references a "GLB Caucus" on page 631's organizational index.
 * 1981: Theories of women's studies II uses (GLB) parenthesis on pages 133/135/139 though not sure of context.
 * 1975: Houston GLBT Political Caucus was formed though not sure if it was called that at time.

How's that for backtrace? Doesn't this show GLB predates LGB based on references? 64.228.90.87 (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW many uses would have been unpublished or even in newspapers, flyers, etc. It would be best to show a researcher who has looked at the usage and state what they have found. Dayaware (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015
Not all who include the I are intersex themselves or even advocates but prefer to be more inclusive. The sentence can be shortened as follows:

The article says: Some intersex people who want to be included in LGBT groups suggest an extended initialism LGBTI

It should say: Those who wish to include intersex people use LGBTI.

Dayaware (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sentence to be removed
Several times now I've tried to remove a superfluous statement. It's the second sentence about what some, unnamed Roman Catholic commentators think.

In response to years of lobbying from users and LGBT groups to eliminate discrimination, the online social networking service Facebook, in February 2014, widened its choice of gender variants for users. However, this decision was criticized by various Roman Catholic commentators.

There is zero evidence Roman Catholic commentators are experts in the history or nomenclature of LGBT or LGBT culture. Who cares what they think? The Facebook decision was lauded by countless named authorities and commentators across a religious spectrum yet we don't include their opinions. There is no reason to include the second sentence but I'm sick of dealing with one editor to get it removed and they are unwilling to defend its inclusion besides that it has been there a while.

Please remove it to improve the article. Dayaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayaware (talk • contribs) 11:25, 30 November 2015
 * I completely agree that adding Roman Catholic criticism specifically gives undue weight to that viewpoint and it always struck me as odd as to why so many editors appeared to be in favour of its inclusion in the past. However, considering the opposition this move received from anti-LGBT commentators of all faiths, I think personally that a sentence should be included for criticism. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2016
96.2.246.83 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggest link to LGBT aging page
I just thought I'd throw out a suggestion to link this page in some way to the LGBT ageing page--perhaps just via the "see also" section? As a person with a (now-deceased) elderly, estranged lesbian relative who ended up moving across the country to escape (the worst) bigotry, I thought this was a useful topic/resource to link to, perhaps. :) Thanks. Indubitablydoubtful (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Proper Acronym?
What is the appropriate acronym to be used? Is it GLBT or LGBT? This is an organization which promotes sexual equality among persons of varying sexual orientations or life-styles. The term “Gay Rights” is more pure to the notion of equal acceptance and tolerance of persons with differing sexual orientations than “Lesbianism.” The notion of “Lesbianism” encompasses a wide range of political beliefs ranging from equal acceptance of homosexuality in society (which most reasonable people support) to the promotion of lesbian over all other forms of sexual relationships. There is considerable conflict between many tenets of Lesbianism and other groups of the GLBT movement. For instance Lesbianism often adopts a radical feminist conception of gender. This view holds that gender is entirely socially constructed. The very existence of transsexuals conflicts with this holding. In 2000 the Vancouver Rape Relief Society, a pro-Lesbianism and feminist organization, successfully sought judicial review of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the society discriminated against a transsexual female (See Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society). On the other hand, gay men have not been known to be political active in areas of gender segregation, extreme misogyny or hostility toward transsexual individuals. Traditionally the acronym has been GLBT. The GLBT movement was focused on the acceptance of sexual diversity. Other political interests should not be subsumed by the GLBT movement, lest the hostilities toward those extrinsic political ideologies hinder the otherwise legitimate and widely supported movement toward sexual diversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses "LGBT" rather than "GLBT" because "LGBT" is the more common form, not for any ideological reason. With regard to the above, most people who identify as lesbians are not involved in any kind of "lesbianism movement".  It's just the most common English term for homosexual women. --Alynna (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As a gay man, I say it is a political acronym. I have no connection to lesbians and transconfused. Why am I being lumped in with these people but for political reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEAE:7740:D040:A535:EB9E:64ED (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Are there any sources suggesting LGBT is more common? While I've heard both, GLBT is more common where I live (and in Google results). --50.131.152.251 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed the same thing on the Google Battle engine (not scientific, but an effective measure of commonality), with 14 million for GLBT versus under a million for LBGT. Should there be mention of the origin of the letter ordering perhaps and how it switched?  http://www.googlebattle.com/?domain=glbt+&domain2=lbgt&submit=Go%21 161.7.94.136 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In Canada most universities have a "GLBT" centre. The acronym seems uncontroversial. Perhaps a fair solution would be HBT (Homesexual, Bisexual and Transexual)? This acronym seems more pure to the movement. The movement is nothing more than the acceptance of sexual diversity in society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Should your proposed acronym gain enough traction to be notable, it can be added to Wikipedia. --Alynna (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If the proper historical reference is supposed to be included & used, historically, "GLBT" is the term referenced originally. LGBT is a somewhat recent change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.188.145 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, I'm including some URLs to pages which discuss the topic of GLBT vs. LGBT
 * http://nlgjareact.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lgbt-vs-glbt-metro-weekly-decides/
 * http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/574774
 * http://jenyockney.blogspot.com/2009/04/glbt-or-lgbt.html
 * http://glbtcommunity.com/
 * http://www.diversityabroad.com/sexual-orientation-abroad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.188.145 (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

GLBT is a mainstream term. It is used by organizations such as Carleton University, University of Victoria, University of Toronto, United Church of Canada, Ottawa Police Service, Public Service Alliance of Canada and many other organizations. One need only Google "GLBT" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billturner1983 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Little Wording Issue
Call me nit-picky, but I came across a phrase in the History section that is a bit POV: "..the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion." This sounds as though it is a quote that needs textual attribution, which is why I declined to make any corrections myself, but what I do know is that the article should not make such judgments on its own. Mrathel (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree2602:304:CEAE:7740:D040:A535:EB9E:64ED (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

LGBTQ2
This appears to be the term the CBC is going with these days, as well as the term Justin Trudeau is using. I just added a DAB to here from LGBTQ2. I'm nothing like a subject expert—could someone add an appropriately sourced mention to the article? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Split earlier incarnations
Shouldn't something like LGB be its own article? Before the 90s the initialism existed without the T and the community wasn't necessarily accepting of transgender individuals. I think that deserves its own article. We may well see this moved to LGBTQ in a decade and similarly, LGBT's existence without the Q should get its own discussion. Ranze (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:Content fork, no, it shouldn't be its own article, and I do not see how it would work to have both a LGB ad LGBT article. We usually do not split articles because of an alternative name that the topic has. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article
Hello, I am a student and I plan to soon start working on creating an article entitled "domestic violence in same-sex relationships." I believe this article fits under the interests of this group, and I would be very open to any suggestions or help in creating and bettering the article. Kmwebber (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber

Additional intersex material
Trankuility, regarding this and this, it's just that I find the recently added content somewhat off-topic. I am all for adding information about why intersex people may or may not want to be included in the LGBT category, but that's not what you added. And we do have a "Criticism of the term" section for including information about why some people disagree with being categorized as LGBT; so the article doesn't simply state "some agree and some don't."

But again, I'm not going to remove what you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, looking at the previous text, I see that you did add information about why intersex people may or may not want to be included in the LGBT category. I thought that was already in the article (some of it was). For that section, what I question is the inclusion of the content that comes after it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. To summarize as I see it, this is not an issue of some people arguing against being categorized as LGBT, it is an issue of many of those people not being LGBT in the first place. It is analogous to discussions that contrast LGB and LGBT. Incidentslly, statements on LGB and on transgender inclusion in LGBT would benefit with being consolidated. Some of this appears in the section on variants, other parts of that debate are in the section on criticism. Trankuility (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that the Variants section (and its subsections) should simply be about variants, and the "Criticism of the term" section should be about, well, criticism of the term (how the term is applied, who it is applied to, etc.). As for intersex people not being LGBT, I understand what you mean, but some intersex people identify as LGBT; they include themselves as part of the LGBT community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well yes, some intersex people are included in LGBT, in the same way that those trans people who are also LGB are included in LGB. Trankuility (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * [ WP:Edit conflict ]: The Transgender inclusion section is only about variants at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that splitting variants from discussion of rationales (criticism) of those variants is helpful. But I'm not going to change any other sections without consensus. Trankuility (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * [Another edit conflict]: Trankuility, do you have any sources about heterosexual intersex people identifying as LGBT? Years ago, I remember reading one or more sources stating that some intersex people identify as being part of the LGBT community regardless of their sexual orientation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no such sources about heterosexual, non-transgender intersex people identifying as LGBT, sorry. This is partly why the new material is relevant to this page. It is possible such people existed, though the existence of a larger intersex movement and the establishment of LGBTI may have changed expectations. Trankuility (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

What is LGBTQO?
I saw this in one of the advice columns and created a redirect, though I was not able to find what it meant.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Capacity to edit request 11 November 2016
I am teaching Politics of Gender and Sexuality through Wiki Edu and would like edit access for this page for classroom demonstration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosterbur (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM" acronym meaning: Thoughts?
As the article stands, the sources given say that the acronym stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexual, asexual, gender-fuck, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism", however, I'm just questioning the "flexual" label. Do they mean a "flexible" sexuality instead (i.e. heteroflexible/homoflexible)? And should the wording in this sentence of the article be changed to reflect that difference? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it's been almost a month and I've had no reply to this, I've stuck a tag over "flexual", as the article does not clarify what "flexual" means, as it stands. Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but I haven't got a clue what "flexual" means... – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really want an acronym referring to the LGBTQIAP+ community with "f," "a," and "g" right next to each other.Tenor12 (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That was exactly what I was thinking. (On an unrelated note, you use the same abbreviation I use for the non-heterosexual community!) NeutralWikipedia (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Isn't it a little ironic if there's the word 'fag' when we're reffering to the LGBT community in a good way?

LyricsThatSing (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT. 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/20160914152729/http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf to http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017
I am part of the Lgbt community, and i would like to add some content to this page. will you allow me to do that DanDaMan13 (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2017
Include the initialism "LGBTQA" in the list, the "A" added to include Asexuals. CBurrows (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which list do you mean? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The section LGBT includes discussion of possible "A" inclusion but the article defines LGBT, Not all possible variants of LGBT+.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

LGBT China and Lithuania on the LGBT rights map
The map shows incorrect information and colour on the LGBT rights maps both China and Lithuania doesn't have Laws restricting freedom of expression and association.

China : The laws in china Censored any sexual behaviour on web or TVs, chinafilminsider.com/china-tightens-censorship-of-online-dramas/ 2.) according to the national law in China there's no LAW in  restricting LGBT freedom of expression in public.

Lithuania : in mid-May, Lithuania’s foreign minister announced that his government had granted visas to two Chechens who “suffered persecution because of their sexual orientation.” And last week, Joël Deumier, president of the French gay rights group SOS Homophobie, said a Chechen refugee had arrived in France. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/world/europe/chechnya-gays-refugees.html

There is no way that Lithuania has law restricting LGBT freedom of expression, especially Lithuania is part of the European Union. Please can someone change the colour of both countries, this is Misleading people who read the LGBT rights page. Thank you

So how is this Jadeadam731724 (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no map associated with this article, as far as I can see. I think you may be referring to the map at LGBT rights by country or territory. If so, you could bring it up at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory, particularly if you find any erroneous information in Lithuania's entry there. The image itself is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, so it's probably best to request changes to the image at the relevant Commons talk page. Be prepared to cite reliable sources if you're requesting a change (you may find some helpful sources at LGBT rights in Lithuania), and note the 2014 thread about Lithuania on that Commons talk page. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   14:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Quing
I cannot fing the word "quing" in the article, yet it is redirected here. What am I missing? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless someone comes up with something viable soon, such as the word being added (sourced) to the article, I'll nominate the redirect for deletion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Supported. You're not missing anything (except maybe the website www.quing.eu, which makes this a one-off term with no general, or even minority, usage).  The redirect should be deleted. Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

QTPOC
Why does this initialism redirect here? I can find nothing in this article which helps clarify what it means. Walkersam (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit summary for its creation has the meaning, and a google search immediately turns it up as well, but this is the wrong target article for it. Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

US-centric and severely lacking "History" section
So the History section is obviously connected to the LGBT history and Timeline of LGBT history articles, to which they correctly link in a "Main article:"-way. As described in WP:SUMMARY this section should be a summary of those two articles. But while those articles give a worldwide perspective that starts in the prehistory and goes on throughout the centuries, this section starts in the 1960 United States because before the sexual revolution there was no good word for it yet that gained wide acceptance in the United States. It goes on about Daughters of Bilitis, the popularity of the term in the US, the Stonewall Riots, the GLAAD and Facebook which all have the same thing in common: they were in either the late 20th or early 21st century United States. I'm sure this section can be improved to include more from those pages. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Read Template:Globalize. This article is about the term LGBT. The History section in this article is U.S.-centric because the term LGBT (how it evolved and so on) is U.S.-centric. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You're kind of both right. Bataaf is not wrong in sensing a problem in the article, but in part, the wrong problem is being identified.  Flyer is not wrong in reverting and pointing out that this is not the LGBT history article, this is the history of the term LGBT, which was created in the U.S., so it's to be expected that the article will be heavily about that.  However, that doesn't address the unidentified problem, which is not one of globalization, but rather one of maintaining focus on what the article is actually about.  That, in turn, may be the tip of a larger iceberg.


 * This article is clearly about the term, but in my opinion what's going on here, is that various well-meaning editors have edited the #History section in such a way as to muddy the waters, so that that section is no longer just about the term anymore, but a mish-mash of content partly about the terminology, and partly about LGBT History, which already has its own article. So rather than tagging the History section (or the article) with Globalize for being too US-centric, instead it might be tagged Unfocused.


 * In particular, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th paragraphs of the History section (¶3. "As lesbians forged...", ¶4. "Lesbians who held...", ¶5. "After the elation...", ¶8. "In response to years...") are not clearly about the term anymore, or not at all about it, but more about early the history of the coalescing movement. These paragraphs do not belong here, and should be removed entirely, sources and all (possibly merged to LGBT History if there's any unique information or sources worth porting) and replaced with one or two sentences alluding to the different communities coming together (or not) in the early days, and how that affected the evolution of the term.


 * In addition, as Bataaf implies, the Main links at the top of the section linking to LGBT History as a "Main" article are confusing, because it isn't primarily about terminology, that one should be removed, and simply linked to somewhere as a wikilink. The other Main article clearly is about terminology, and can stay.


 * Now, as to how things got this way, I think it was likely understandable confusion on the part of editors (new or not) who, faced with an article entitled LGBT, can be forgiven for thinking it's about LGBT history, even though the lead says that it's only about the term. After all, the Transgender article is not about the term, although that article (properly) has a terminology section in it.  Per WP:AT, The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles, but that is somewhat violated here, as by principle of least astonishment, one might expect the article at LGBT to be about the movement and its history, however that content slot has already been taken by LGBT History.  So, the iceberg, if there is one, is that the article may be misnamed.


 * As to how to remedy this, I think there are some uncontroversial remedies we could start with, but others would require some discussion, and any renaming of the article would clearly require an Rfc and is likely to be contentious. Here are some points to do, or discuss:
 * As far as the low-hanging fruit, I believe it would be uncontroversial to add an About hat-note at the top saying, This page is about the term. For the history of the LGBT movement, see LGBT history..
 * Although MOS:SECTIONS says that headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article I think this is an exception to the rule, and the History section should be renamed History of the term. If the article were entitled LGBT Terminology this would not be necessary, but as it isn't, I feel that this change would benefit the article and avoid future problems with focus in this section. (It's interesting to note that two other sections already do this:  #Criticism of the term and #Alternative terms, which to me, is an implicit recognition of the actual problem here.)
 * The links and  should be removed from the History section as misleading, and tending to blur focus. (Could become wikilinks instead.)
 * The Unfocused template doesn't currently support a  param, otherwise I'd recommend placing it at the top of the History section, with an appropriate "reason" param.  Possibly we could place it at the top of the article, but with a hatnote serving the purpose, I don't think it would be necessary.
 * The paragraphs of the History section identified above should be removed/merged, per above. This is a significant change and will require consensus but I believe it is necessary, as leaving them in will encourage further blurring of the focus of this article until it's indistinguishable from LGBT History or ends up as some kind of hybrid.
 * I looked at Category:Initialisms and Category:Acronyms and there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for whether these articles are about the term, the concept, or both; mostly the latter, it seems. Some examples: FIFA, UNICEF, AARP, SPQR, FAQ, G.I. (military). Probably WP:AT should address this.
 * The title "LGBT" is not typical, in being solely about the term and not about the concept. It could be argued that the article should be renamed. LGBT Terminology doesn't seem right, as that could encompass dozens of terms, which perhaps explains why it's not called that.  A descriptive title could be used, such as Evolution of the term LGBT, and I'm not sure why I don't like that, maybe too long or awkward?   As Category:Words points out, normally a WP article is about a concept, not about a word, but there are exceptions: Safeword, Esemplastic, Philomath but none of these have the currency of "LGBT" nor are about a topic so voluminous as to require a size or content split to an article about the word from a broader article. In any case, this would clearly require extensive discussion and probably an Rfc.
 * Of these, only #1 and 2 seem pretty uncontroversial, so I'm going to go ahead and do those. Would be interested in hearing comments about the remaining points. I'd like to do #3, but that seems slightly more controversial, so wanted your feedback first.  However, I don't think we should try to seriously tackle #7 here, as it's too big a topic; at the least, one would have to spawn a new section for that discussion. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)  updated by Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Mathglot, an article about a term is going to include some information regarding the history of the term. And in the case of LGBT history, some non-term information may be needed for context. I don't see that any split or rename is needed. When it comes to drastic changes to the article, I suggest you start a new section proposing that. Since this article is WP:GA, care should also be taken in that regard, but I'm not convinced that this article is still WP:GA-level. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not advocating a split; in my view, that's already happened functionally speaking, since this page is already a subpage of LGBT History as far as a knowledge hierarchy of the over-arching topic is concerned. Not renaming would certainly be easier, and I'd be in favor of not renaming if we can achieve and maintain the desirable objective of maintaining focus in this article, and we just need to take care that the topic of this article is recognized for what it is, namely, the term, and not a general history of LGBT. My concern is that the focus will blur over time, as it has already begun to do, and become less and less about the term, as more general history about the movement gets added to the history section due to the atypical title, but I think we can contain that short of a rename if we're lucky. Nevertheless, we should recognize that the title of this article flouts the conventions of WP:AT somewhat, as it fails WP:PRECISION in not unambiguously defin[ing] the topical scope of the article, the way, for example, that the title "LGBT History" does do.
 * I would say it's not GA now due to lack of focus, but attention to #5 would help fix that. Naturally, some history of the movement is required to explain the evolution of the term. Notice, for example, how tight and focused the  when the article was nominated.  By the time of the, there was additional backing information but it was still concentrated on the development of the term as a reflection of the development of the shifting group identities.  Imho, that's started to blur by the time of.
 * And in one way, the History section is deficient, in not discussing the real disagreements that existed at the time about including or excluding Transgender from the term, not least of which was that it was not a sexual orientation, whereas L, G, and B all were so that including T was an expansion in another direction, and then the political strife about excluding 'T' due to the desire to pass ENDA in the U.S. Congress.
 * Finally, referring back to Bataaf's original complaint: although the second paragraph of the lead mentions that the term was "adopted" in the United States, it makes no mention of the fact that the evolution of the term happened largely in the United States as prime mover, and it should say so. Other countries more or less adopted U.S. terminology. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

LGBTQ+
I can't find any mentions of the commonly used '+' part of the acronym. Should this be added, or is there a reason that it is not included? Inkybinky3 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I don't really think this is needed, as the most common and well-known form is LGBT. LyricsThatSing (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC) LyricsThatSing (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As a reply to my words said above, LGBTQ is more common than LGBTQ+

The truth is everybody is     going to hurt you,    you just have to find someone  worth suffering for    LyricsThatSing (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I say follow your heart but be honest even if you are experimenting. Bicurious22 (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing title to LGBTQ+
LGBT is old and no longer used, I propose adding on the rest of the letters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B128:3522:9DAF:9111:8A59:A22C (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See Talk:LGBT elsewhere on this page.  General Ization  Talk   12:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For an initialism that's "no longer used", 111 million Google hits are a lot. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   21:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Only a relatively small faction are comfortable about being called queer. Most think it's not appropriate, and not helpful to anyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the 'Q' in LGBTQ is sometimes said to stand for "questioning". But what about 'I'—sometimes it's LGBTQI+. I've also seen an 'A' in there, too: LGBTQIA+. Where does it end, with half the alphabet? It's entirely possible that one of these longer constructions will become the de facto standard. When that is demonstrably the case, it may be time for this article to be retitled. We're a long way off from that yet. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. If I wanted to be cooler than Thou, I'd say you left out a few, because even LGBTQQIAA is a few years old now, and some people want 'P' in there at the end, and I wouldn't say they're necessarily wrong about that.  But the thing is, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading one, as we are an encyclopedia.  We don't yet know what neologisms are flash-in-the-pan vogue words that will only see life on Urban Dictionary for a while before dying out, and which ones will stand the test of time.  Until it's clear how all these terms shake out, the expression is LGBT, and we'll need reliable sources to alter that.  I would totally support raising this question again in a year, because things can sometimes move pretty quickly on these terminology issues.  But this one hasn't stabilized on a clear successor to "LGBT".  Yet. Mathglot (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * SergeWoodzing, right call (imho), but wrong reason. None of this is about "most people."  There are tons of people who are comfortable being called "queer" (that I know personally) and that's in fact how they refer to themselves.  The fact that 99% of the world is not comfortable being called queer is entirely true, but missing the point. The point of the initialism is inclusiveness, not that everyone identifies with every one of those orientations and identitities, because we obviously don't.  Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary comment to me. I never mentioned anything that can be taken as an allegation that nobody likes being called queer or calling h-self that. Lots of people do. I've been on the planet too. Of the many people I know, internationally, US, UK, all over, who identify with a homo/bi/transsexual interest and/or activity, most do not want to be called queer, and most do not call other people that, and most do not find the term inclusive of anyone or anything. It has not at all, for example worked out well in translation to other languages, of which I speak 6. Many very strongly object to the trend. That's what I meant. If that wasn't clear, to the degree that it ruffled feathers, I sincerely apologize.
 * If my opinion in itself is what you're after, it would be that it is the opposite of inclusiveness to force upon any group of people terminology to which large numbers object.
 * Now as far as WP goes, we need to find out what prevails in most neutral & reliable sources, sources which report on terminology without promoting or attacking it. That's all that matters, as I'm sure you know. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All I can say is, you are completely mistaken about the connotation of the word and its usage today. The term with the "Q" in it, i.e. "LGBTQ" is inclusive of queers. There are many, many queer people in the world.  If you don't know any, or don't wish to use the word 'queer' because *you* (mistakenly) think it's offensive, or because you think the majority thinks it's offensive and you're channeling an imaginary majority, then that's fine&mdash;I don't think anybody will care one little jot if you avoid saying it.  Finally, congrats on your six languages; other Wikipedias can do whatever they like, but this is English Wikipedia, and so your comment about translation of "queer" has absolutely zero to do with the topic of discussion, which (let's not forget) is about changing the article title (on English Wikpedia) to LGBTQ+.  Which you are opposed to, so there's again something we agree on.  Isn't it great ending on a positive note?  Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. Nobody has agreed with the OP, so there's really no reason to be having a lengthy discussion (with or without patronizing asides about one another's supposedly antiquated outlooks). If anyone cares to continue this in user space, I do have a thing or two to say. In the meantime, can we mark this "resolved"? Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   14:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The condescending, belligerent tone and abject ridicule is what gets me. So very very tiresome, besides adding absolutely nothing of value to this or any other discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Saying that the term LGBT is "old and no longer used" is simply inaccurate. In areas where the language is changing the fastest in this regard (probably college campuses and activist organizations) this may be true, but general usage is much broader than that. Books are a trailing indicator, but show how the terms are being used now on a much broader front, and what I see is LGBT being used about ten times more frequently than LGBTQ, with usage of the latter term increasing more rapidly than usage of the former. If that trend continues unabated, then LGBTQ will one day overtake LGBT in general usage, but we're not at that point yet. In particular, how the term is used on college campuses may be a sign of what's coming, but Wikipedia itself is a trailing indicator not a crystal ball, and needs to support claims based on reliable secondary sources, not on the latest buzz. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"The term is used also in some other countries, particularly those which languages use the initialism, such as Argentina, France, and Turkey."
What a fucking moronic sentence. Fix it.80.146.191.154 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I fucking fixed it. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And I fucking improved it. (IP actually deserves credit for the catch, if not for the manner of reporting it, .  )  Could still use further improvement, particularly in finding a solid reference.  Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017
QUILTBAG acronym—incomplete definition. The reason for this edit should be obvious.

Please change: "There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer)." to: "There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, undecided, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer)." ADKINSKB (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per the source listed: Enter QUILTBAG. QU is for queer and questioning, I for intersex, L for Lesbian, T for transgender and transsexual and Two-Spirit, B for bisexual, A for asexual and ally, and G for gay and genderqueer. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"other variants" section
Section needs to be edited, right? There are a lot of community disagreements about whether or not asexual and intersex people are inherently LGBT, with members of those communities sometimes asking to be excluded. Especially wrt intersex people, who feel that biology should not coerce them into identifying as trans. Here's a source This page should be updated to reflect the disagreement around those issues, rather than just assume inclusion. Apremonition (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What specific wording changes would you propose? Rivertorch   FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   18:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Apremonition, see Intersex inclusion section that comes right before the "Other variants" section. Disagreement about intersex inclusion is there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer's Edit
Student 1: Bryannie Bach Bryanniebach (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Bryanniebach
 * Lead section: concise, detailed, broad
 * Clear section: great outline, especially inserting the critism towards the end, yet still including other terms
 * Balance coverage: great usuage of information
 * Neutral content: neautral, while providing evidence to backup information
 * Reliable sources: some links were linked to other Wikipedia articles, which I am not sure if it is reliable if the third parties sources are not reliable
 * Strengths: images add to the article
 * Weaknesses: expand more on the Variants section (the subcategories)


 * Bryanniebach, I see that you are a WP:Student editor. Do you plan on editing the article? As for your review, what links are linked to other Wikipedia articles? I take it that you don't mean wikilinks. Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources on Wikipedia; they are not WP:Reliable sources. As for expanding the Variants section, what do you mean? Do you simply mean adding more variants, even though there are more than enough already, or do you mean adding context and other information that doesn't consist of more variants? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The description of the article: (genero filisofico sobre cuestiones de la existencia humana) is very confusing
Why is this the description of LGBT??? Somepersonwholivesinahouse (talk) 6:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll need to be more specific  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
The lead section does show the importance of the topic, then goes right into the history. I do see how this is a history article, but the view is skewed slightly positively and does address people who have disagreed on the topic. The sections are very well balanced, giving a little more length to the history, and less to the other sections explaining is a great way to organize. I do think that there are a lot of quotes in the article that could instead be summarized. Maybe combining the Other Variants section with the Alternative Terms section would allow for expansion in this category. I would also like to see how this term differs around the world and when it sparked up, since others on the Talk page have been discussing how it is used as a different variation in Canada. Terir (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)terir

Request for adding Photo
This photo (officially released by US Navy) shows two lesbian females belonging to US Navy kissing on meeting after a long time. It needs to be put in LGBT article to show -firstly, how US Govt is becoming acceptable to idea of LGBT, even in a rigid organization like military, and secondly, to show public display of affection done by LGBT can be considered acceptable in Western societies. 106.219.196.137 (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly short article about a broad topic, and I'm not sure where it would go or that it would be an especially apt illustration. For the record, you've requested the same image be added to Lesbian. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   18:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Since this article is a term article, I don't see a need for the image at this particular article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Flyer's comments about the LGBT article. You could try asking if it would be more acceptable at Sexual orientation and military service, Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military, Don't ask, don't tell, or LGBT rights in the United States. By suggesting that list, I'm not implying a priori that I'd be automatically in favor of any of those, I'm just suggesting that they might be more appropriate articles to pose your question about. Rather than ask multiple times, you could try the project talk page at WT:LGBT. Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)