Talk:Queer/Archive 3

Rephrasing needed for the first sentence
I will vocalize this request because I'm so new to this that I cannot make the changes myself -which makes sense to me don't get me wrong- and due to the fact I identify as a queer person. May I add that this article is the reason why I decided to start participating in the Wikipedia project. I will be brief in my description and hope this will not translate as rude or something of the kind.

So the sentence in question is: Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender.

1. It lacks a term related to self-identification so it’s like it is implied that someone could call someone else queer even if they don’t identify as such themselves. I suppose this wouldn't be accurate unless it is used as a slur which is not our case here. Also, there are several people in the LGBT+ community who do not identify as queer, an example could be homonormative people. Let's not forget that in the LGBTQIA+ soup there is a Q that stands by itself, alongside the other letters.

2. I think that the term heterosexual should be removed because by default heterosexuals are not a sexual minority.

3. I think that the term cisgender should be removed as well because one, for example, can very easily be at the same time queer, bisexual and cis in the sense that their gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth.

Concluding I would rephrase this sentence towards this direction: Queer is an umbrella term used as a self-identifier related to sexual and/or gender minorities.

Perhaps I could add this definition which is short but I find it pretty decent so that it's clear where I stand concerning this term. Personally, I identify mainly with the last sentence. Maybe it could be considered as a reliable source because it is from https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary

Queer: One definition of queer is abnormal or strange. Historically, queer has been used as an epithet/slur against people whose gender, gender expression and/or sexuality do not conform to dominant expectations. Some people have reclaimed the word queer and self identify as such. For some, this reclamation is a celebration of not fitting into norms/being “abnormal.” Manifestations of oppression within gay and lesbian movements such as racism, sizeism, ableism, cissexism, transmisogyny as well as assimilation politics, resulted in many people being marginalized, thus, for some, queer is a radical and anti-assimilationist stance that captures multiple aspects of identities. PhantomPower48 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)PhantomPower48


 * It's not only a self-identifier, and most non-self-identifying use is not as a slur; e.g., there is an entire academic field called queer theory, and one called queer studies; the rest of the lead goes on to note that, and to mention those who dislike the term, so the opening sentence is OK as-is with regard to that. I do agree there is room for making the last part clearer, since as it is currently written, it could be interpreted the same way as e.g. "non-binary people are those who are not men or women", i.e. as saying people have to be not [the thing on the left side of the or] and also not [the thing on the right side of the or]. Perhaps it could be revised to "...who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender"? -sche (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that I should make the following clarification. I am strictly concerned on how the term queer is used by people and for people and not at all -at this point- in any other usage of it. This is why I believe the self-identification part is extremely important when we talk about the term queer. It is on purpose that I make no reference on how it is used elsewhere.


 * In the second paragraph queer identities are mentioned. Through point number 1, I simply suggest to reinforce this approach in the first sentence of this article since the term is used in this case as a reference to people. --PhantomPower48 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * While in some cases queer is used to refer only to people who identify as such, that’s not always the case. One could discuss queer people in history, for example. I don’t think the sources support limiting it to self-identification. I support the change to the latter part of the sentence proposed by sche.--Trystan (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting point. I hadn’t thought of the description part in a historical perspective but mostly as description of how the term is used currently. Don’t you think that the self-identification part is missing from the text though in general? Maybe it should be included in the definition part somewhere as well.
 * The second part of the sentence I think it is a much trickier one.
 * On the heterosexual part I do understand that there are people in the LGBT+ community who do not want to leave room for heterosexuals due to privileges they have experienced. Personally, I also understand that some heterosexuals are not necessarily heteronormative. They may have a different gender expression than the dominant one and for me they may claim the term queer. If it has been used for you as a slur and you want to claim it, I’d say go for it. So it just crossed my mind, what about changing heterosexual to heteronormative?
 * The cisgender part -again personally- I think it is a pretty straight forward one. To my understanding it is ok to identify with the gender you were assigned at birth and in the same time identify as queer because you have a fluid sexuality for instance. I'm not sure I get why this part is in the description.
 * I mean if both terms -heterosexual and cisgender- are there as historical references of how queer has been used I think it should be crystal clear they are there for this reason and that this does not describe it's current use. Since it is the first sentence of the article and it is in present tense it could be easily confused as a definition instead of being perceived as a description. This makes it even more important to fix. Still I don't see how cisgender has a place there because it is not a synonym of fulfilling gender stereotypes. So concluding, what about something more or less along those lines: Queer has been used as an umbrella term for sexual and/or gender minorities who were not heteronormative or cisgender-normative. Currently it used as a self-identifier or a slur... or perhaps Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and/or gender minorities which are not normative. It can be used as a self-identifier or a slur... --PhantomPower48 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not only a self-identifier or slur, though. Most current non-self-identifying use is not as a slur. It is commonly used neutrally or approbatively to identify people who are not heterosexual regardless of whether or not they are known to use the term themselves, especially when talking about groups and not individuals. People who use the term to describe other people would probably refrain from referring to a specific person individually as queer if that person actively objected to the term, but (that's true of many or most terms, and) the person will still routinely be included in e.g. a statistic about how many "queer people" are in a population. For example, [//www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a55093/most-of-americas-youth-arent-straight/ here's an article] that says a "study shows that only 48 percent of Americans from the ages of 13 to 20 identify as 'exclusively heterosexual,' meaning that the majority of young Americans are queer". The writers did not ask if the not-exclusively-heterosexual people in the study self-identified with the term "queer", they just used it descriptively. The discussion in the body, and in summary form in the other paragraphs of the lead, about how some (minority of?) people dislike the term (or think it shouldn't be used except as a self-identifier or slur) seems to adequately cover that dislike.
 * You're right that "it is ok to identify with the gender you were assigned at birth and in the same time identify as queer". The reason the lead mentions "cisgender" is that it's saying "queer" can refer to anyone who is "not [...] cisgender" as well as anyone who is "not heterosexual"; for example, a straight trans person could identify as queer. Some (many?) people only use the term to describe people who are "not heterosexual", and might be unfamiliar with the broader usage, which is one reason the lead should make it clearer, and the body also needs be updated to explain it—currently, the only occurrence of the word "cisgender" in the entire article is in the lead, which runs afoul of the guideline that the lead should summarize the body. ( And I should see if I can find enough clear citations to add the broader sense to our sibling project Wiktionary ...) IMO we should probably take a look at how other references define "queer" and see how much "weight" is given to the "not hetero, or not cis" versus the "not hetero" definition; it might (or might not) be appropriate to split the current first sentence into two sentences, one giving the "not heterosexual" definition and another explaining that broader usage also exists.
 * -sche (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * To clarify things I would like to ask separately about the two sentences I suggest in my last text.


 * 1. What about replacing the first sentence with Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and/or gender minorities which are not normative. Please see arguments above [i.e. cisgender is not a synonym of fulfilling gender stereotypes, cisnormative is. Or one can be a cisgender heterosexual but without having the gender expression expected by society (meaning they are not cisnormative). This example has been -historically and still is- valid. So since they could have been called out in the street queer aren't they entitled to claim the term as a self-identifier? They are as entitled to self-identify as queer as some transgender people absolutely hate to be called as such and totally don't identify with this term].


 * 2. Maybe add one sentence just after the first including the info that queer can be used as a self-identifier. As mentioned above I find that this is something dangerously missing from this wiki page and I believe it should be included in the description part somehow. One suggestion would be It can be used as a self-identifier or a slur... [the three dots imply that there could be more information added to this sentence like as -sche mentions previously the differentiation of the use between individuals and groups of people]. Another suggestion could simply be Amongst other things, queer can be used as a self-identifier. Also please let's keep in mind all those individuals who do not identify with this umbrella term i.e. (some?) homonormative people, some transgender people e.t.c. -PhantomPower48 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A couple of points regarding wording, based on grammar or logic: Oh, now I see that -sche interpeted it as "either not A or not B", which is more likely what you meant. Mathglot (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd avoid "is a term for sexual and/or gender minorities who are X" (or "not X") because (as I see it) it applies to individuals, not groups like "minorities". You can never be sure if every member of some minority you name will identify that way.
 * I'd be careful of the construction "who were not heteronormative or cisgender-normative", or more generally any construction of the type "not A or B", because of an inherent grammar/logic trap there, involving ambiguity based on how you parse the phrase; i.e., is it, "either (not A), or B", or is it, "Neither A nor B", or something else?
 * Regarding your ...gender minorities which are not normative (and begging the "individual/group" issue for the moment) is this what you really meant? Some trans* folk are heteronormative, for example. Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mathglot: (I'm sure you understand this, but for the record) "either not A or not B" is not just how I interpret it; see the section directly above this one. (It's also common sense that the lead is not saying queer people have to be "both not heterosexual and also not cisgender", since the various people and groups named as queer in the body of the article include cisgender people.) However, the body needs to substantiate/document the use of queer to refer to people who are heterosexual but not cisgender (e.g. straight trans woman), in order for the "cisgender" clause to stay in the lead... I'll try to find time to research and add something about that. -sche (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @PhantomPower48: Regarding "Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and/or gender minorities which are not normative": this is inaccurate, to the extent that practitioners of BDSM (or polyamory, or any of a number of other things) constitute a sexual minority which is not normative, but are not inherently queer. AFAIK, the term refers to people who are not heterosexual (or who are not cisgender), not just to anyone who is not normative, except in limited and not-widely-accepted uses which the article already mentions (uses in reference to Queer heterosexuality and the like). Also, "queer" is not limited to referring to members of the aforementioned categories who are not normative; in uses like the one I quoted above ("the majority of young Americans are queer") the population referred to undoubtedly includes some "normative"/assimilationist/nonradical people. If one were to go into enough detail to write an accurate set of sentences, one would write something roughly along the lines of...the rest of the lead that is already present, which already notes who uses it with connotations of radical vs assimilationist, and who objects to it and why, and that it sometimes refers to non-LGBT people. Regarding the statement that "queer" does refer to cisgender heterosexual people sometimes... this is sort-of mentioned when the lead mentions "those who think the term should apply only to LGBT people - not to any and all sexual minorities", but it should probably be mentioned directly (not just "in the negative"). Whether it should be mentioned in the first sentence, I'm not sure. Possibly the lead sentence needs to be split into several sentences to mention the three(?) main different definitions, though I suppose the first sentence could still cover them all if expanded to something like "Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender, or simply who are not normative." This would need reliable sources, of course; I'll see what I can find. -sche (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The first sentence "Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual and cisgender" is to me highly problematic, as I myself regard myself as predominantly queer heterosexual and erratically cis. Perhaps the problem already starts at the umbrella? --Xact (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We go by the WP:Due weight of sources, and I don't see any issue with the wording. We don't use our personal experience to write content, and besides, if your heterosexuality and cisgenderness are not absolute, I don't see the contradiction anyway. Crossroads -talk- 19:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Exactly! But we all use ourselves as referencepoints to some degree, in judgements of tast and value. Perhaps it is merely me who don't find it a contradiction in terms to be both cisgender, predominantly heterosexual and queer, if I'm not alone, it should be evident that the first sentence, as emblematic as it is, is not satisfactory, rather displeasing, indeed. I'm not writing content, simply arguing for a better, not yet produced emblematic opening of this entry.--Xact (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Among dictionaries: Among encyclopedias: Among other books: From this, I gather than the lead should mention definitions C (as it does) and B (as proposed in the section above this one), but mention of A (too dated, superseded) and D (too uncommon and disputed) are probably best left to the body. -sche (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The narrowest definition of the word, "gay or lesbian", is the only one given by Cambridge and Collins. It is also given as a distinct definition alongside other definitions by the American Heritage Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, and Oxforddictionaries.com. I will refer to this as "sense A".
 * No dictionary I found defined the term as "non-heterosexual" (without also including "...or non-cisgender"), but I will refer to this as "sense B".
 * A sense roughly matching the one our lead gives ("not heterosexual, or not cisgender", or roughly "LGBT") is given in the American Heritage Dictionary and MacMillan. I will refer to this as "sense C".
 * The broadest, "non-normative"-based definition is given by Oxforddictionaries.com ("relating to a sexual or gender identity that does not correspond to established ideas of sexuality and gender, especially heterosexual norms") I will call this "sense D".
 * Dictionary.com also gives a strange definition, "relating to a sexual orientation or gender identity that falls outside the heterosexual mainstream or the gender binary", which might be intended to mean sense C or even D but which, as written, would weirdly include bisexuals and non-binary people but not (straight) trans men or trans women.
 * Merriam-Webster does worse, splitting the word into several subsenses which, if taken together, roughly cover the scope of the term, but which are over-specific as definitions, generally being hyponyms, not synonyms: one subsense is "transgender", another is "relating to [...] sexual or romantic attraction that is not limited to people of a particular gender identity or sexual orientation", which would seem to make a straight man "queer" if he was attracted, in an entirely heteronormative way, to a woman who happened to be bi.
 * Jodi O'Brien's 2009 Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, volume 1, says it refers to "sexualities that do not fit into society's assumptions of feminine or masculine heterosexuality" and later says "queer is often used as an umbrella term to denote sexual identity within a particular community", which would be sense B, except that her next sentence is "a queer community may be made up of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and so on", which is sense C.
 * Sarah Prager's 2017 Queer, There, and Everywhere uses the same definition as our lead, "'queer' means anyone not totally straight or not totally cisgender" (sense C).
 * Lee Airton's 219 Gender: Your Guide uses the narrower 'non-straight only' definition, saying "queer means, quite simply, non-heterosexual, or not straight" (sense B).


 * Thanks for pulling all that together. Based on those sources, I would support limiting the lead to sense C and keeping all the others for discussion in the body of the article. The rest of the article uses sense C, so in setting out the lead definition that identifies the article's topic and scope, I don't see the advantage to bringing up sense B just to move away from it.--Trystan (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Admittedly, the article in fact didn't mention "[not] cisgender" as being part of the definition ever again outside that one sentence in the lead, except by implication from including the 'T' in several mentions of 'LGBT', but I've now updated the "Definitions" section to fix that by mentioning senses A, B, and C. Sense D is currently implied (as if assuming people already know it) in the text of the last bullet point of the "Controversy" section, but should be made explicit (I may take a crack at that later). -sche (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you -sche for all this research. I think it would be worth to have some reliable sources to backup the first sentence of the description and that's something missing for now. Personally, I am more aligned with the Oxforddictionaries.com approach and Sarah Prager's (sense D and C respectively) because they seem to me more contemporary. I will do some research myself on the self-identifier part since I consider it extremely important as well as the polyamory and bdsm approach that was mentioned. I think nowadays some polyamorous people and/or belonging in the bdsm community they could very easily claim the term queer for themselves, even if this wouldn't be the case 50 years ago. Anyway, will be back as soon as possible.
 * Note: I think it's obvious that english is not my first language so I wanted to make sure that it's clear that I'm not here to play games with words, my interest is in the essence. -PhantomPower48 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Early use section - structural issues
There are a few structural/presentation issues with the 'Origins and early use' section. The first is that the section starts off with some content which isn't in any subsection, which I recall Flyer pointing out can be a problem for people who click through to the body from the TOC and expect the first subsection to be where the content starts. A bigger issue is that instead of presenting a chronological account of how usage evolved (which AFAICT is how other RS cover it), we segregate all instances of use as a pejorative into one subsection and then instances of self-ID into a different subsection, with the result that the prose goes from the 1890s to the early 1900s to the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, only to then (upon reaching the next subsection) jump back in time to the (1900s and then) 1930s and 1940s. I may have a go at WP:BOLDly, WP:SOFIXIT-ly) re-sorting the content into chronological order later. -sche (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Changing the definition of a Word that has for centuries meant what it meant to fit neo-political movement is just plain wrong
As the title states, to change the definition of a word from what it originally meant for centuries, to what it is now, somehow and specifically including LGBT community, which originally meant "odd", and "Unusual" to encompass "A umbrella term for sexual gender minorities who are not heterosexual or not cisgender", is an act of political / historical and cultural re-writing and recent hijacking which wikipedia should combat and not allow. Just because America in the recent 30 years has had a growing LGBT movement demanding political and cultural reforms and because the word "queer" has been overused within slang language to define a "Not a heterosexual" person to the degree of normalizing the word, should not change its original meaning for "Queer" ie, primarily defined as "odd / strange" which is a word that can also be used for inanimate objects. The word itself does not in any way define anyone by their sex or Gender. The word itself ( Originally ) never had a malignant connotation. This 'Evolution' of the word 'Queer', should be retracted to what it was, and the obvious politically / culturally motivated revisionism of words and its meaning, for example from its original meaning to the article page starting with : "Is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not.. etc" Absolutely not, and this change is a recent one, its ridiculous, and request it to be further edited to what its originally, and neutrally meant. Biomax20 (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been here long enough to know WP:NOTFORUM. We're not a dictionary, which is where you'd find that meaning.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then whats the purpose of this article? To redefine a established word to fit a neo-movement narrative? Propaganda? Sure doesnt sound very encyclopedic. Biomax20 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To describe a new meaning to a word and its  context. We describe all movements. Again, please stop using this as a forum to express your dislike for the subject.   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Same as every article - to relay what WP:Reliable sources say with WP:Due weight. If you have evidence that that is not being done, then present that. Otherwise there is nothing to properly discuss here. Crossroads -talk- 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh were going to be emotional, abusive and slamming down dictats and warnings now that someone opposes a clear hijacking and concerted effort to change status quo normalcy to something different, even when academia is involved.


 * Stop abusing whatever powers you have, this talk page is a public discussion area. If YOU dont like MY opposition to the ridiculous changes to meaning, may i recommend you go do something else with your life? "please stop using this as a forum to express your dislike for the subject." Excuse me? What are you supposed to be? Information Gestapo? Do you own this public forum? This is not a personal dislike, this is rational opposition and I will not be silenced. Biomax20 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Biomax20, I came here to find info on the word queer and was instead exposed to a groups new interpretation of a very old word. As well, Biomax20 doesn't sound upset to me, or pov, with the exception of the justifiable upset they feel seeing a word be hijacked and it's meaning and history erased. This is wikipedia, please stick to facts and not what small amounts of the population/groups wish the facts were. 2001:569:BC37:1E00:5C09:7C31:670B:1D07 (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It is not primarily designed as an information source about words, but about concepts. To put it another way, the topic of this article is not "all possible meanings of the word queer", but one specific concept expressed by that word: "an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender". The article summarizes what reliable sources say on that subject. What you and Biomax20 are objecting to is the evolution of language that we are just neutrally recording; Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs.--Trystan (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @IP, Im sorry but this is completely nonsensical. The article explains very well the original meanings of the word, as well as its newer meanings. Language is not something static, frozen in time forever, quite the opposite. Anyway, did you guys heard that they are trying to change the meaning of Bluetooth, a danish king, into some sort of "wireless technology" ??? 😱😱😱 don't they know that words should stick to their original meaning FOREVER?. -   (talk)  14:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What a load of cumulus! Of course, cumulus once referred to a type of cloud, but people shouldn't cling on to an old meaning when it has become a synonym for 'b*ll*cks'.  This is not a dictionary.  A bit tough on the meteorologists who wish to cling to the old meaning of the word in their rarified metaphorical atmosphere, but language moves on. (Anyone who doesn't understand the very serious point being made here is not of sufficient linguistic or analytical capability to engage with an encyclopaedia, even one such as Wikipedia).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.5.99 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Flux originally meant diarrhea, while leeches (the animal) got their name because they were used by leeches, a word used for centuries to mean doctor. Awe originally meant fear or dread -- witness the word awful. Fantastic derives from a French borrowing meaning imaginary or make-believe. Meat originally meant any solid food that could be eaten and included bread and hay for the livestock; when it came to be used specifically for edible animal flesh, the broad word was replaced by victuals, a word that has since dropped out of the language entirely. Languages are living things, and like all living things, they change and evolve. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 05:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral self-identifier?
Even in contexts in which the word is intended to be a positive self-identifier, it isn't a neutral self-identifier judging by my own experience of actual offence as someone too young for the pejorative sense to have been 'acceptable' (though it never was) and too old for the later reclamation to have reduced the level of offence that the word's use therefore has for me. It is definitely and certainly not neutral when, as demonstrated by a television programme just now, it has caused me offence, caused me deep infuriation that I couldn't stop myself having at its use, that caused me to puff and pant and feel anxious even twenty minutes afterwards and my heart to feel very bad as part of the anxiety caused by the use of the word in self-description by someone shown on the programme. I would not at all call that "neutral" - it absolutely and emphatically was not, as it caused me such reaction. It may also be intended to be positive but that specific use, which happened to cause me offence, was therefore not positive but is negative whenever something causing me offence (and does so regardless of context but just by the fact of how offensive the word is due to its connotations that developed for me in my childhood). It is offensive (regardless of what people intend) - it is not neutral or positive regardless of what the intention is as it is the *effect*, on me, not the intention, which matters as to whether I was caused offence or not and, as the use on the programme caused me offence, it is therefore offensive even if it wasn't supposed to be. As something offensive, when used on that occasion at least, it therefore cannot be neutral (it clearly has not been experienced in that way) and it isn't positive when someone is caused offence by something aspaa (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm sorry that you had this experience today, and that your experience of this word hasn't been positive. This article has a section about criticism of the use of the word as an identifier, and if you know of reliable sources that could be added, feel free to be bold and add them or mention them here if you'd like. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Question
I obviously mean, that the article is unclear and needs specific examples.

For example, say that "The term queer is an umbrella term that includes all sexual minorities, but is added to acronym LGBTIQ, to included others, ... such as asexual, pansexual, panromantic, etcetera." Something like these specific examples would help the article be clearer and more informative. 71.47.254.61 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The article is indeed unclear. The lede immediately jumps into the sort of jargon that the non LGBTQ+ 'community' throw their hands up at and they then conclude that the word 'confused' is the best description.89.241.28.88 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Resurrecting Mens Issues Wikiproject by rating this article
Hello- I believe that Queer men need more representation on the men's issues Wikiproject, hence I am rating it

Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Flagrant" appearances
In response to your revert of my caption edit, page 13 of the given source mentions the start of "the labeling and self-identification of men as 'queer' only around the middle of the twentieth century; before then, most men were so labeled only... by assuming the sexual and other cultural roles ascribed to women." It goes on about how that label was applied to "fairies" or effeminate men before that time. Am I misreading this? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that passage on page 13 is a bit perplexing. Elsewhere in the book, where it talks about queer and fairy identities in more detail, it sets out a clear distinction between masculine queers and effeminate fairies:
 * "But queer did not presume that the men it denoted were effeminate, for many queers were repelled by the style of the fairy and his loss of manly status, and almost all were careful to distinguish themselves from such men. They might use queer to refer to any man who was not 'normal,' but they usually applied terms such as fairy... only to those men who dressed or behaved in what they considered to be a flamboyantly effeminate manner. They were careful to draw such distinctions in part because the dominant culture failed to do so." (at 16)
 * "Many queer-identified men were appalled by the dominant public image of homosexuals created by the audacious behavior of fairies on the streets, of course. Not surprisingly, some of them were aghast at the 'flagrant' displays at the balls." (at 298)--Trystan (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, this makes more sense. So can we add maybe we can edit the caption to be a bit clearer: Many queer-identified men distanced themselves from the "flagrant" public image of gay men as effeminate "fairies". Something like that anyway? Wolfdog (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.--Trystan (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021
For you to point out in the top section that the majority of gays still view the word queer as a slur and offensive and it's a more vocal minority of gay people who identify themselves by the term. Most gay people still find it offensive, including me. I'm anti censorship, people should be aloud to say what they want, bit I can be offended by it. Not all gay people identify as 'queer', wierd gay people who give normal gay people a bad name do. That's my opinion I don't want that added as it's not a fact, but this entire article gives the impression that all gay people support this, when a majority do not, and that is a fact. 2A00:23C6:F73B:2A01:A8A6:3FD7:E7A2:41F4 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please discuss this, and provide sources for the majority of gays still view the word queer as a slur and offensive and it's a more vocal minority of gay people who identify themselves by the term. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cwalker96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Improving the line "homosexual people who identify as queer" and updating sources for "queer heterosexuality"
@User:Mathglot: Thanks for your continued help as I learn the ropes!

I've found a more recent and well-written piece on the topic of whether straight/cis/allosexual people can identify as queer and I'm about to make new suggested updates to the "queer heterosexuality" section. This more recent source talks about "LGBTQ+" people rather than "homosexual" people so I'm going to change that sentence in the lead to "LGBTQ people" rather than "homosexual people who identify as queer." I double-checked Mortimer and there's only one isolated instance of "homosexual" anywhere in that article; the author is not saying "necessarily homosexual people" -- Mortimer uses "gay" almost everywhere else.

The phrase "homosexual people who identify as queer" could feel anachronistic or even offensive to some readers, and it's not a phrase that is true to the source, which is why changing it feels so important to me. Very happy to chat more about this if you disagree or if my edits aren't sufficiently sourced! Thanks again. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , After the long explanation at your TP, I don't have the time right now (hopefully later?) to look into your specific changes. Just a brief comment for now: we don't avoid possibly offensive language at Wikipedia (see WP:NOTCENSORED), neither do we engage in gratuitously contentious or offensive terms (see MOS:LABEL + WP:OM); once again, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES applies. I know, understand, and am sympathetic to the desire to remove homosexual especially as a modifier for people, but be aware that whereas you're of course right wrt to how the term may be viewed when used casually (especially by non-allies), the term is still widely used in academic scholarship with no special animus (see examples) but strictly with a desire for precision, so you have to draw a distinction when assessing how homosexual is being used in a source, and how best to summarize the material here for a general readership. Anyway, Mortimer is a weak and non-academic source, and something better is needed. Mathglot (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , To clarify, I have no issue with the word "homosexual"; that's not what's at play here (as evidenced by the fact that I just rewrote a whole page about homosexuality in the DSM, which appropriately uses the word "homosexual" a whole lot). Sorry for not taking the time to more clearly explain the problems with the phrase "homosexual people who identify as queer." The issue here is actually one of accuracy (and precision). Saying "homosexual people who identify as queer" is equivalent to saying "transsexual people who identify as non-binary" or "Hispanic people who identify as Chicanx" -- "homosexual" is not an umbrella term for all non-straight people (at least not in this context), but that's the implication in this phrasing. As you noted, Mortimer is a weak source and my guess is the author didn't take the time to learn how best to talk about the full spectrum of LGBTQ people, so they used "gay" as a catch-all and, in one instance, "homosexual." That was sloppy and inaccurate, and this lack of precision was made worse by the phrasing "who identify as" (which does not come from Mortimer). That phrasing implies that queer people are *actually* homosexual, but just choose to call themselves queer. Following the protocol you helpfully guided me to understand, I've found a better source (still not academic but more well-researched and more recent), and edited that lead sentence in a way that aligns with that new source. I hope this helps explain things better; as before, apologies for not taking the time to more fully explain myself before. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022
209.222.170.87 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC) I wanna edit
 * 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 may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021
Mention genderqueer-ness somewhere in the section Intersex and Queer Identities. Grandma got ran over by a reindeer (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thata is good 50.115.71.18 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism
I think we should add a section of criticism of this term or even why it was added to LGBT and how many gay men and lesbian women are against it being used officially rather than a side term just like chicks to be used instead of women officially 169.255.185.25 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell the article already covers opposition to the reappropriation of the term. Is there anything specific you feel is missing?  Madeline  ( part of me ) 20:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Source
 Bluerasberry  (talk)  22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/10/queer-or-gay-slur-debate/

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2023
It might be more accurate to have the first sentence of the article go like:

“Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or cisgender; in a broader context, it defines those who suffer inequality in terms of sex, gender, pronoun and orientation.”

Forwhy: Being cis-het doesn’t guarantee not being queer. Some topics not covered by “not being heterosexual or cisgender” but covered by “those who suffer inequality in terms of sex, gender, pronoun and orientation”: •intersex people •Not a ‘strange’ gender identity but a ‘strange’ gender expression. ‘Unusual’ gender expressions such as various behaviors, mannerisms, roles, interests, and appearances. Like a feminine boy who doesn’t call himself trans or gay. •People who want to be called ‘unexpected’ pronouns even though they describe themselves as cisgender-heterosexual. •A person who is heterosexual and biromantic or a person who is heterosexual and panromantic basically any person who is heterosexual but not heteroromantic • There are three aspects to sexual or romantic orientation: identity, attraction, behavior. These three may differ due to various legal restrictions, social pressures or embarrassments. Although someone defines themselves as hetero. and behaves in this direction, the attraction they feel may be different. Although someone defines himself as hetero. the attraction they feel and the behaviors they hide may be different. … •So on and on Semiherdil5 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! You are currently requesting a re-write for the first sentence in the lede of an article. This topic area is contentious for many people. As such, there is a high liklihood that there are editors who may contest this edit and desire a discussion to generate consensus due to the prominence of this edit's placement.


 * For this reason, it is my belief that it would be better to attempt to have such a discussion now rather than make this edit through the edit request process.


 * If you are confident in your edit, once you meet the autoconfirmed criteria, you can make the edit yourself boldy, though make sure to follow the recommended process in the event it is challenged by another editor.


 * Cheers, and happy editing! — Sirdog (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2023
Change "desires" under "other usages" to "identity." This enforces "Queer" as an identiy, rather than a set of feelings. Zoggy woggies (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing it to "identity" wouldn't work, because it is contrasting that usage to referring to "identity or community". However, it is not clear on what "an objective fact describing a person's desires" is intended to mean, so I have removed that portion of the sentence.--Trystan (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Diminutive term
A relatively small syntax correction, but nonetheless an important one.

The use of the term ' several'  in the paragraph relating to "Criticism" has a diminutive effect. A synonym for this word in this context would be ' few' which is misleading.

Indeed, the article then goes on to say that use of the word queer "marks a social and political divide in the LGBT community" which is no small thing.

I therefore propose changing this word to ' many' as it better communicates that this is an issue of greater significance and controversy within the LGBT community:

"many people and organizations, both LGBT and non-LGBT, object to some or all uses of the word for various reasons."

For context, there are far more people who identify using the more traditional terms gay, lesbian or bisexual than queer – see official UK Census 2021:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualorientationenglandandwales/census2021

(NB: I've not corrected the misspelling of the word 'organisations ' as I know this is also a controversial issue; one I'm not touching with a barge-pole!) Greg (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In the absence of good sourcing on the point, I think some would be the most neutral term to use here.--Trystan (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

proposed changes in lede
I propose to change the lede as follows:

Queer is a slur used against LGBT people. Originally meaning strange or peculiar, queer came to be used pejoratively against LGBT people in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, LGBT activists, such as the members of defunct Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more purportedly assimilationist branches of the LGBT community.

@Trystan you mention sources but the section you reverted had sources I added classifying the term queer as a slur specifically referring to LGBT people. Tdmurlock (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your proposed edits would be a fundamental change to the topic of the article, which is queer as a reclaimed umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so not all possible meanings of the word queer are included in that scope. The article discusses other meanings in "Origins and early use" because those meanings are relevant to understanding how the meaning that is the subject of this article evolved, but they are distinct topics. If sources warrant it, Queer (slur) could be created as a separate article; I would suggest going through the WP:AFC process.
 * The comment about sources in my edit summary was referring to the earlier edit to the lead I was also rolling back.--Trystan (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason queer has been reclaimed by some LGBT people in the first place points to the fact that the term queer is indeed a slur. The first sentence of the wikipedia page for the n-word says outright that it "is a racial slur used against black people". The fact that some individuals choose to reclaim the n-word, or that some LGBT people choose to reclaim the term queer, does not mean that those words aren't slurs. In fact, it's evidence of the opposite, these terms are reclaimed specifically because they are slurs. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the term nigger is that while it has been reclaimed by some black people, it is still overwhelmingly used as a racial slur. As a term it has not been reclaimed to anywhere near the degree that queer has by LGBTQ+ people, nor do those who have reclaimed the term use it as part of their identity in the same way that queer people do.
 * A more apt comparison here would be the terms faggot and tranny. Both have been reclaimed to some degree by parts of the LGBTQ+ community, as you will find individuals who use the term as part of their identity, however both terms are still seen predominantly as a pejorative slur within the wider community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Trystan here. Article leads follow their bodies, as the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article's content. Significantly more of the article's content is about the 40 year old reclamation of the term by queer people, and its modern non-pejorative usage by many LGBTQ+ individuals and allies. We already appropriately summarise in the lead the origins of the term as a pejorative in a manner and length appropriate to the content about that history in the article body.
 * On a potential Queer (slur) spin-off, I'd be concerned about it becoming a WP:POVFORK. I don't think contemporary sources really discuss the term in isolation from its modern non-pejorative usage. I'm open to being convinced otherwise though, if the sourcing truly supports it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree a Queer (slur) spin-off would make no sense. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the sourcing likely isn't there to support an article on queer as a slur, but wanted to raise it as a a possible option that could be explored. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of available sources are on queer as a reclaimed umbrella term, which is reflected in the structure of this article.--Trystan (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * being fair, even sources that cheerlead queer as a reclaimed umbrella term often go into how the term is controversial specifically because it originated as a slur. GLAAD's Media Reference Guide specifically acknowledges that the term Queer "is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBTQ community" . Tdmurlock (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is so common in sources. Our article matching the approach in such sources seems like a good thing to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It already is reflected in the article with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The "Early pejorative use" and "Criticism" sections in particular go into it in-depth. The other sections of the article reflect the large volume of sources that explore other aspects of the topic.--Trystan (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I get how my comment could be misconstrued. I agree entirely with you that our article already matches the approach taken by many high-quality articles. I don't think it needs to be radically changed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was a bit reactive there! Substantially changing the scope of the article is a perennial issue, so it is easy to jump to conclusions. Happy to consider constructive proposals for change.--Trystan (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)