Talk:Sexuality and gender identity–based cultures/Archive 1

queer culture vs gay culture part 1
I object to "Queer" Culture being the main article. "Queer" is a much more politically laden word than "gay" these days. If anything, "Queer Culture" should redirect to "Gay Culture." Exploding Boy 15:35, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm real sorry for speaking the language I speak, and identifying the way I identify. And there's a fair crop of lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered and transexual people who'd be more than happy to explain to you the difference between Queer and gay culture. - Montrealais


 * I think the article should be moved to Queer culture. If we're talking about a modern living culture, we need to use the language used by the culture itself, and the term we use is queer. "sexual minority" sounds too technical. It's proper to say Deaf culture, not hearing impared culture. Same with Queer.--Sonjaaa 13:17, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Theoretically there could be both articles Queer culture and Gay culture, since they are different things, except that at least one would be a mostly redudant stub. I suggest both be sections of Sexual minority culture or Sexual minority cultures. I'm making that move now and creating sections for gay and queer culture.Hyacinth 18:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean that it's going to include information about S/M, polyamory, and other sexual minority cultures? - Montrealais


 * Thanks for the sarcastic, unhelpful, pointless response. I AM gay and I don't need anyone to explain the difference.  This page, the way it stands, is a mess.  Oscar Wilde, queer?  Sappho??  Exploding Boy 07:41, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this up, EB. I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I'll watch this page to see if I can help out as it evolves.  Moncrief 07:45, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) If you don't need anyone to explain the difference to you, does that mean that, since you favoured a redirect to "gay culture," you approve of the exclusion of Queers who are not gay?
 * 2) What do you mean, 'Oscar Wilde, queer?' He did a substantial amount of time for it, as I recall. Yes, Oscar Wilde is part of Queer culture, for heaven's sake. Why do you think the first Queer bookstore in the world was called Oscar Wilde? Why do you think the Queer literary festival in Montreal is called "Wilde about Sappho"?
 * 3) And I wasn't being sarcastic about the second part (S/M, etc.) Those are sexual minorities, too; some would argue for their inclusion in the Queer community; should we include them in this page? - Montrealais

Exploding Boy 23:40, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) "Queer" is acceptable to far fewer people than "gay."  I am not queer.  I am gay.
 * 2) "Queer" is far more political than "gay."
 * 3) It's acceptable for people to define themselves as queer, but not for others to do it for them.
 * 4) The concept didn't even exist in Sappho's time; she couldn't even be properly called gay.
 * 5) Basically the same goes for Oscar Wilde even though he was obviously much more recent.


 * 1) How nice for you. But you don't get to leave lesbians, bisexuals, transsexual and transgendered people, and otherwise-identifying Queers out for your terminological comfort.
 * 2) That's why I referred to them as "queer," not "Queer." Just because the concept didn't exist doesn't mean that the sexual orientation didn't, as you very well know.
 * 3) Is anyone planning to offer an opinion about the question I asked regarding other sexual minorities? - Montrealais

Exploding Boy 02:30, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) You're missing the point. It's not just that I don't identify as queer, it's that most homosexuals don't.  It's not a question of comfort, it's a question of choice.
 * 2) "queer" or "Queer," they're both more political than "gay."
 * 3) There's a difference between "q/Queer" and same-sex orientation, as you should know. It's simply invalid to describe people who were around before the '80s as "q/Queer" or even, in most cases, "gay," or sometimes even "homosexual."
 * 4) If you want anyone to talk to you, learn some manners. There's rarely reason to go on the attack on Wikipedia talk pages.


 * 1) You're missing the point. "Gay" is lovely if you want to identify that way (and I do), but it simply does not include bisexuals, trans* people, straight people who participate in the culture, or Queers who do not choose to otherwise define, nor arguably lesbians either -- even though all of the above participate in the culture described. That's the problem.
 * 2) Invalid how? "queer" denotes gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or transsexual; people of these sexual orientations and gender identities were present before the word was used, regardless of whether or not you choose to use the word. It's like saying that Alan Turing wasn't a computer scientist just because that term didn't exist when he was working.
 * 3) I have not attacked anyone, though I did express myself more sharply than the attack on the language I speak warranted, for which I apologize. I don't apologize for stating that "gay" is not an inclusive term, and I would still like an answer to my question. - Montrealais

I suggest you read Wikipedia's History of sexuality for a start. Exploding Boy 04:00, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * While to you, Montrealais, &quot;queer&quot; is an inclusive term that denotes bisexual and transgendered people, the fact is that it is not a commonly-accepted term among those people themselves. How many people who consider themselves bisexuals are comfortable calling themselves &quot;queer.&quot; Not many, I would reckon. &quot;Queer&quot; is not some magical term that encompasses married, closeted self-identified bisexuals with lesbians and gay men. &quot;Queer&quot; is a highly-controversial and politicized term that some non-heterosexuals have embraced and many haven't. Choosing &quot;queer&quot; as the default term for the entire gamut of people who have a &quot;different&quot; sexual orientation from the majority is not some sort of pre-determined obvious decision. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask that one should be able to acknowledge the controversial nature of the word and be able to engage in a discussion about its appropriateness. Moncrief 04:02, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, the article is still riddled with the word "Queer" despite the title being changed. Just pointing that out...  It's sort of striking now that the word "Queer" isn't in the title. Moncrief 04:07, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am engaging in a discussion about its appropriateness. I am expressing the position that "gay culture," at least, is unacceptable, as it does not include all the groups who participate in the culture referred to. "Sexual minority cultures" is unobjectionable on this ground, but I would like to know whether the intent is to add other sexual minorities to the article besides those based on sexual orientation or gender identity. --Montrealais


 * Give me an example of what you mean. Is this a rhetorical question to which you have an answer in mind already?  What do you think we should do? Moncrief 04:08, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Look at it this way. The S&M subculture is certainly a 'sexual minority culture', a very complex and interesting one, as is the polyamory culture. These aren't the same as what I'm referring to as Queer culture. I'd say if we want to call the article "sexual minority cultures," we need to include these, probably in their own sections. The question then becomes, What do we entitle the section on what-I-call-Queer-culture? Which is the exact question we had at the beginning, just w.r.t. the section title instead of the article. - Montrealais


 * I'm not sure I buy that S&M is a sexual-minority culture in the way I understand the term. Heterosexual people practice S&M.  I see you're interpreting "sexual minority" broadly to mean, I guess, "those sexual practices that aren't vanilla sex," but this isn't really within the scope, imo, of a "sexual minority."  S&M is a sexual practice that fewer than 50% of people engage in, but then so maybe is anal sex and double reverse women-on-top Dirty Sanchez or whatever obscure heterosexual sexual position you can name.  If you want to do a section specifically on the culture of S&M people, I don't see why it shouldn't be in this section though.  Not the sex part, but the actual culture that surrounds it, fine by me.  Moncrief 04:23, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * As you say, S&M isn't a sexual minority culture; it's a practice. But people who practise it do have a culture (the S&M culture) which is a sexual minority culture, and which, if we are to take the article title at face value, ought not to be excluded. Montrealais

Actually, I disagree. I think that S&M is a sexual minority culture, but I dispute lumping it under either "queer" or "gay." Exploding Boy 04:26, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * As do I. And you'll notice that when this article was entitled "Queer culture," it did not include material about any other sexual minorities. Montrealais


 * Agreed completely. But I think M.'s point is that this article isn't called "gay" or "queer" anything.  It's called "Sexual minority cultures."  With that in mind and if you think S&M is a SMC, how can we exclude it? Moncrief 04:27, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Precisely. I think as the article is entitled, we can't exclude it, and perhaps we shouldn't. The question then becomes, what do we entitle the part that's about what-I-call-Queer-culture, which was the subject of the article before its name was changed? - Montrealais


 * Do you dislike the term LGBT? I think it's kind of ugly myself, but at least it's neutral(ish).  Moncrief 04:40, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Meh. To me it's like calling Canada "British Columbia and Alberta and Saskatchewan and..." (or maybe BCASMOQNBNSPEINLYNWTN...) Also, I'd prefer LGBTQ. But be that as it may, perhaps that's the best compromise we could hope for. - Montrealais

Aside from a general lack of information in the article, the Queer culture section is problematic for historical reasons, and because it takes things generally attributed to gay culture (eg: pride parades) and lists them under queer culture. I will try to do some work on this page when I get a chance, but as it stands it's basically... nothing. Exploding Boy 04:43, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * See, this is exactly the problem. What do you mean that pride parades are gay, not queer, culture? Are pride parades not part of the culture of lesbians, bisexuals, and trans* people also? - Montrealais

Gay pride parades predate queer culture for one thing, and for another, when was the last time you heard any refer to a "queer pride parade" (I mean, outside wikipedia that is. I notice that the article here speaks only of "queer pride" and doesn't mention "gay" at all.) Exploding Boy 04:57, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes, gay pride parades antedate the widespread use of 'queer' in the modern sense. (I think it's arguable whether or not they antedate Queer culture.) That doesn't mean they're not part of Queer culture. A lot of Canadian culture antedates Canadian confederation.
 * 2) The non-inclusive terminology some people may use is not relevant to who participates and whose culture it belongs to. Pride parades, however called, are as relevant to lesbians, bisexuals, and trans* people as they are to gay men. - Montrealais

What do you mean by "trans*"? I would argue that gay pride is less relevant for bisexuals, transvestites (if you're including them), the transgendered and transsexuals. Occasionally, but not always, those groups participate in pride, but transvestites have their own culture (maybe), as do transsexuals. Is transgender even a big enough or important enough category? I don't know. By the way, I know it's not always the case, but by "gay" I mean both men and women. Exploding Boy 05:21, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) By trans* I mean transgendered, transsexual, and genderqueer. Which meaning of 'transvestite' are you using?
 * 2) I'm trying to think of a way to interpret "is transgender even a big enough or important enough category" that isn't insulting. Could you clarify, please?
 * 3) There is an important trans* contingent at Pride in this city every year.
 * 4) A lot of lesbians don't find it sufficiently inclusive to be lumped in with gay men. - Montrealais

Transgender usually refers to people who exhibit characteristics of opposite sex behaviour or appearance. Basically girls who look boyish and vice versa. As for your comments on the word "gay," I realise that, yet the use of the word gay to refer to both men and women is still both standard and common. I was simply clarifying. In my city I don't recall ever seeing a transsexual group represented in the pride parade. Transsexuals are usually not homosexual. Exploding Boy 05:37, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't know why you're telling me this, because it's not something I asked, but actually, in my experience, that's not what transgender usually refers to. That's not even a meaning of "transgender" I'm familiar with.
 * The transgendered organizations I associate with, and the majority of material on transgender I've read, define it as someone who does not identify or does not present as the gender they were assigned at birth. Most of the transgendered people I know who present and identify as male would firmly object to being described as "a girl who looks boyish."
 * By contrast, as someone assigned male at birth and who identifies and presents as male, but who has received prejudice due to my deviation from gender-normative behaviour, I identify as genderqueer, not transgendered.
 * 2) I do not believe that the use of the term "gay" understood to specifically include women is as common as you believe it is. This is not a new thing; groups have been using terms like "gay and lesbian" for about two decades now.
 * 3) I know that transsexuals are usually not homosexual, which is why another word besides "gay" is needed to include them. - Montrealais

This conversation is becoming tiresome. I "told you this" because you found what I'd written objectionable. What you describe is transsexualism. However, I was speaking strictly. I'm aware that some people use "transgender" as a catch-all term, though I don't think that's particularly useful. As for the word gay, it is still very commonly used inclusively though as I said, not always. I was simply informing you that that's the way I was using it.

I see no good reason to continue this debate; it's not really relavent to the article because, so far, the article contains little or no actual information. Instead of bickering about unimportant things here, why not work on the article and let's take it up again when it's expanded. Exploding Boy 06:03, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, no, what I describe is not transsexualism. Transsexualism is usually understood as transition to and full identification to the opposite gender to the gender-of-rearing, usually including physical reassignment procedures such as hormones and surgery. That is, it refers to the binary, which transgender does not necessarily. Transgender may include but is not restricted to transsexualism.
 * I agree with you that we ought to be working on the article, but it would be nice to decide how we are going to refer to the section on what-I-call-Queer culture before we do so. - Montrealais

on what the article is about
(* I have moved this section up because this conversation doesn't seem to be ongoing, while the other one does. Exploding Boy 06:26, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC))

Is this article supposed to be about history, or today's culture? The current content seems to suggest the former? I'm confused. Dysprosia 07:42, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you point out what you're referring to, specifically? (Of course, without history there's no culture.) - Montr&eacute;alais 07:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No wait, I was confused abotu that actually.... *grumbles* hang on a sec... Dysprosia 07:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I've got it now :) Dysprosia 08:01, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

on the name of the article
Call it queer culture. I'm not debating its existence, only what's included therein. Exploding Boy 06:11, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, for heaven's sake -- if the word Queer for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans* is acceptable to you, I don't understand why this page was moved in the first place.
 * Anyway, now that it's here, I've taken a stab. Take a look at it. - Montrealais

I think it's very good so far... but what happened to the queer culture section? Weren't you arguing that there was in fact such a thing? Exploding Boy 06:55, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was, and you let it be known originally that you didn't like the word, so I named the section "Sexual orientation and gender identity" instead. - Montrealais

No :) I objected to "Queer Culture" being the main article (redirect from "Gay Culture"). I think there probably is something called "queer culture," I just think it's not necessarily the same as "gay culture."  Anyway, the article's looking good so far. Exploding Boy 07:00, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see. I look at gay men's culture as being part of Queer culture, though also distinguishable from it. Would it have been acceptable to have this article at Queer culture with the main part of the article describing the culture that LGBT people have in common, but with clear subsections for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans* people, which are or could be expanded upon, as is presently the case? - Montr&eacute;alais 07:04, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO, queer is more than gay. and i have heard such expression (queer culture), but it's my first time to hear gay culture or Sexual minority cultures... --Yacht 07:09, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's my position, too. I identify very strongly with Queer culture as a whole, somewhat less so with those aspects of it that are specific to gay men. - Montrealais


 * How can this be the first time you've heard the phrase gay culture? Moncrief 07:12, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I've heard the word 'culture' preceded by 'Queer' more often than 'gay,' too. - Montr&eacute;alais 07:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you limit yourself to magazines and websites that cater exclusively to the gay community (or certain segments thereof)? Because you won't find the New York Times, People magazine, the New Republic, "Entertainment Tonight", CNN.com, the Guardian, The Globe and Mail, etc etc etc etc referring to "queer culture" more often than "gay culture."  Moncrief 07:19, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I rarely find these media reporting on Queer or gay culture as such, at all (as opposed to the latest TV show with amusing gay people that's been produced for the non-Queer audience). - Montr&eacute;alais 07:29, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can not understand, why use this expression to name this article? Sexual minority cultrues gets only 18 google hits, while gay culture gay culture 46,700 and queer culture 12,400. getting so few google hits is good enough to be list on VfD, which is what i am worrying. --Yacht 07:33, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yacht, read the discussion here. "Gay culture" isn't inclusive enough because it doesn't include the experiences of LB or T.  "Queer culture" is too politicized and controversial a term.  So we're left with this title, despite how many Google hits it got. Moncrief 07:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I don't care what political meanings they may carry, i just care how common they are used. if google hits are few, i don't think that's a good naming. that's what we do with Chinese-related topics, and i think it's applied here as well. ("Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"), since gay culture is not inclusive enough, we should use queer culture. --Yacht 08:27, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * We've been debating whether they're the same thing and it seems we think they're not. There's nothing wrong with having redirect pages and besides, gay culture is probably a lot more commonly used than queer culture. Exploding Boy 15:59, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

my logic is like this: google gets few hits => it's not common used => people who like to find such info are more likely to use queer culture or gay culture => we should not use "Sexual minority cultures" as main article. (this illation is based on the reputation of google)

i agree that queer!=gay and queer>gay, therefore, queer culture is broader than gay culture. i am looking forwards to spliting them into separated articles. but since the gay culture section carries little info at the moment, it's acceptable to merge it into queer culture temporarily. what do u think? --Yacht 04:52, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I actually like the way the article's looking so far. I think it's good that there's something in the article on a variety of sexual minority cultures.  As you say, there's too litte in each of the separate sections to warrant a separate article for each yet; maybe if they expand sufficiently.  Until then, I think redirects are good enough, but I would like to see some of the sections expanded.  By the way Montrealis, have you decided against a separate section for queer culture? Exploding Boy 06:26, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think the content about queer culture in this article is good enough to be an independent article, while gay culture is not. i would rather be called "queer" than "minority"... --Yacht 09:10, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Given my druthers, I'd rather go back to the status quo ante bellum: this article under Queer culture, with information on the broader Queer culture and, under subheads, on the specific cultures of gay men, of lesbians, of bisexuals, and of trans* people.
 * The article sexual minority cultures could include links to Queer culture, as well as to S&M and polyamory which could include information on the relevant cultures.
 * Montrealais

There is a problem with using the moniker "sexual minority", viz., it does not include trans* people. See Talk:Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered, Talk:LGBT, for previous discussion. Dysprosia 04:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Can I get some feedback on this point? The name of the article can't stand because it does not include trans* people, so either the trans content be moved out or the page be moved. Dysprosia 09:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * One should not venture into minefields, but. . . The present title seems a bit wordy and pedantic, why not a plural of the original: "Queer cultures"? Haiduc 13:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conceptual framework for LGBT
I've written this conceptual framework as a proposal to the article. I'd like to know what others think about adding it. (Between lines below) Ray Foster 12:39, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Historically speaking, LGBT identities have been the focus of medical and psychological diagnosis or religious definition. However, LGBT culture, like other minority cultures, rejects diagnosis and majority and religious definitions in favor of self-defined identities.


 * While I would say that mainstream LGBT culture rejects medicalization of their sexual or gender identities, there are LGBT people who feel they are broken and want to be fixed. There are plenty of religous people in the mainstream LGBT culture.  To be sure, they are members of relatively liberal or libertarian religious sects, or have an independent spirituality.  Others, which may or may not fit in the mainstream, simply take traditional religious ideas and apply them to same-sex relationships.  There are plenty of people who take large swaths of "majority" culture and apply them to same-sex relationships. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The LGBT community's interdependent values, unique dignity, social organizations and mores, history, art, and political agenda fulfill contemporary definitions of culture, and thus have a conceptual framework in which to be viewed as a culture.


 * I'm not sure this sentence is actually saying much of anything...I guess it amounts to asserting that LGBT culture exists and that it's legit to call it a "culture". I'm not sure it's necessary to assert that explicitly; perhaps it's best to simply start describing it, and what its boundaries are (like non-participating LGBT people).  I'm also not sure that the word "culture" connotes a singular conceptual framework.  Lots of different people probably have different ideas for what "counts" as "culture" or what the "nature" of "culture" in the world is. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Groups disadvantaged by majority cultural beliefs and practices are identified as minority cultures because their values, social organizations and mores, history, organizations, art and political agenda arise from a struggle with these majority imposed disadvantages.


 * That's one perspective; that the minority is defined by the oppression of the majority. I think that's partly true, but it's also defined by common personal attributes, the need to find romantic and sexual partners, common practices (like pride festivals), and a network of social connections, including friendships and media. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LGBT culture has parallels among other minority cultures that experiences disadvantages. Racial groups such as African-Americans and Black-Australians, religious groups such as Moslem, Christian and Jewish minorities in many countries, language minorities such as the signing deaf and French Canadian all experience the disadvantage of the beliefs and practices of the majority cultures in which they are embedded.


 * Inheritance of or exposure to the beliefs of the majority culture is also a positive thing in many ways. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They are also drawn together by core values which set off the development of highly complex cultures as sophisticated and dynamic as the majority culture which surrounds them. LGBT culture, though not a language minority, shares an aspect of deaf culture in that members of these two minority groups, as a rule, do not share their minority identity with their parents and cannot develop it at home. LGBT culture, though not a racial minority, shares aspects of African-American culture in that laws and majority culture biases have had historically broad-ranging negative effects on them.


 * I'm not sure what's meant by "as a rule"; sexual orientation and deafness are both partially genetically heritable, we think. It's certainly true there's a mismatch in many cases.  I'm sure many deaf and LGBT people are perfectly free to develop their "minority identity" at home, where they can consume minority-culture media, hang out with or chat remotely with friends who are also members of the minority, etc.  I'm sure there are also plenty of intolerant homes that effectively prevent expression of LGBT identity at home; not sure how that works with deaf people. The idea of comparing sexual minorities to language, disability, racial minorities is quite interesting, though. -- Beland 14:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed phrase

 * not having the education-level to appreciate it

This implies that the entirety of, say, "gay culture" is only accessible to an elite who are properly educated in its appreciation. I don't think any particular education above and beyond awareness is necessary to participate in the culture by consuming gay media, going to gay bars, or wearing a rainbow flag. The end result is that this sentence comes off to me as vaguely offensive. -- Beland 03:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cultures and homosexuality
I moved the following line here:


 * Cultures associated with Homosexuality include: BDSM, Furry, Neopaganism, Military Fetishism, and numerous other Sexual Fetishes.

for the following reasons:
 * 1)  I'm not sure it is appropriate to create such a definite link between homosexuality and these "cultures".  They exist in their own rights, both within and without gay culture.  They also aren't necessarily a part of gay culture, which, though not said explicitely, is sort of implied by this statement.
 * 2)  This isn't an article, nor is it a section. about homosexuality.
 * 3)  You might want to check your use of caps, but those are a lot of red links to add to an article.

-Seth Mahoney 04:04, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sexual minority
Does anyone have a source for the assertion that "sexual minority" and "sexual minorities" do not include transgender folks. I have not read this, but rather the opposite. For example (emphasis mine, of course): Hyacinth 08:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "The [Seattle] Commission [for Sexual Minorities]' 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. The Commission was formerly known as the "Seattle Commission for Lesbians and Gays." Suggesting the name was changed specifically to include transgender people.
 * "The Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL, ) is 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."
 * "Sexual minorities in athletics (SMIA, ) is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting student welfare by advancing the enfranchisement of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and allied (GLBTA) athletes."
 * "The Jacksonville Area Sexual Minority Youth Network, Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to building a safe space for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning youth under the age of 24..."


 * We've gone through that argument before elsewhere, viz., Talk:LGBT. I however copy the final part of your and AlexR's discussion to these points as a means of summary of this previous discussion:


 * 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)


 * If the usage of the term is not agreed to, then it should not be part of an article title. Please also examine the discussion at Talk:Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Dysprosia 09:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly: Having gone through the argument before I was surprised to see someone still making statements such as: This implies that "sexual minority" shouldn't even be mentioned, which I must disagree with.
 * "the intro needs work, as "sexual minority" does not include transgendered people (as was already argued elsewhere and made clear on the talk page)"

I do not think it has been made "clear" on this talk page. In opposition the evidence I present: 1) that "sexual minority" is used inclusively of trans and intersex folks, 2) that this language is used by people and institutions which are part of that culture; I find only assertions to the contrary. Hyacinth 20:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are reading too much into that edit comment. Firstly, I have never said that the term should absolutely not be mentioned. I quote what I just wrote above "should not be part of an article title". What was intended by that edit comment is that the previous versions used the term sexual minority to describe LGBT people, where it has been argued elsewhere that the term is really only inclusive of LGB and other groups, as I have said quite clearly above. I mentioned it needed work, since wording needed to be changed for the nouns used to describe the groups in the subject matter to be inclusive of all the groups described. I apologise if it was construed that I was implying otherwise.
 * However, I have mentioned (to no response, I point out) the inappropriateness of the term sexual minority to describe trans* people by linking to the talk pages and previous discussion which in my opinion has made this clear.
 * Finally, your claims about the term have been spoken to in detail elsewhere, and I for one have no intention of rehashing the argument. Interested parties can read the discussion on the aforementioned talk pages for themselves. I reiterate that a term whose meaning is not agreed to should not be part of an article title. Dysprosia 21:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On Talk:LGBT and Talk:Violence against gays%2C lesbians%2C bisexuals%2C and the transgendered I find assertions similar to those on this page. Hyacinth 22:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What assertions? That the term is not an entirely inclusive one or assertions that the term should not be used entirely in the article? Please be explicit. Dysprosia 22:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also?
Is there any reason for the two 'see also's? there is one just prior to the contents which seems superfluous. any objections to me moving it to the bottom with the others? Davepealing 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which "see also"? I see many in this article. CyntWorkStuff 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Crispin van den Broeck painting
Having looked around the net for this picture, what I find is that the homosexual interpretation appears to trace back to one site making extremely tendentious claims. For instance, they claim that the crow in the picture is actually an eagle, badly drawn. It's not a plausible claim.

I've put what I found in the article on Crispin van den Broeck. It's obvious that the various interpretations, no matter who they come from, are conjectures of greater or lesser merit, but still unverifiable conjecture. A more accurate caption would describe how moderns project homosexuality back into older images, but it seems less than germane in context. Indeed, the paragraph to which it is attached doesn't say anything about so distant a time, as it essentially only discusses the 20th century. And there's plenty enough to say about more recent gay subculture which is, after all, well-documented. Mangoe 04:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that it behooves us to dabble in art criticism, but I have come up with a number of examples of utterly ridiculous artistic depictions of eagles. These guys never saw one, they could not help it. It is only in modern times that most artists became familiar with the lineaments of wild animals. Look, for example, at the absurd lions of antiquity, such as the monument at Chaeronea (looks like a woman with the face of a dog). And now for the funky eagle gallery:, , ,
 * As for the exposure of art criticsm as conjecture, well, yes. Again, opposing views are welcome, deletions are not a good idea, the material has long been held to be plausible. Haiduc 04:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All the examples you link to actually are recognizable as eagles, or at least as some sort of raptor. Conventional representation of eagles goes very, very far back, and this image does not fit the pattern. And besides, they certainly did have plenty of examples of crows to draw upon. It looks like a crow, and a reasonable person would suppose that's because the artist intended to depict a crow.


 * And "held plausible"? By whom? The Fitzwilliam, the actual holder of the painting, denies that it is plausible. Find me someone outside the homosexual advocacy community who espouses your theory. Plausibility isn't a good enough standard anyway.


 * Finally, all of this discussion is irrelevant to the other point: that the picture doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article. Can't you guys come up with pictures that have something to do with the text? Right now what you have is a picture which at best allows a dubious interpretation about three people. Even then it doesn't tell us about a homosexual subculture of the period. The text of the article doesn't even mention the possibility of such a subculture. Mangoe 11:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the bird being a crow, I would suggest to you that while van den Broeck may well have been unfamiliar with eagles, he could not have helped but be very familiar indeed with crows. However, if you study the bird head he drew you will see that it a lousy depiction of a crow. Crows (or ravens, if you will) have elongated beaks where the lower and upper sections curve towards each other, a bit like a clamshell . Not the one in the picture, where both parts curve downward, like a bear claw. And the shape of the head is odd as well. But vdB is a very subtle and observant painter - how can you explain such a clumsy mistake?
 * Your argument regarding the appropriateness of the image in this article is a different matter, and rests on information about homosexual subcultures in the Netherlands at the time, about which I have no data at hand. Haiduc 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's where the point is, isn't it? I'd have to agree with you that it's not the best image of a crow I've ever seen. And further research leads me to doubt that the painting is even authentic. It doesn't look much like van den Broeck's other work, and acto the Fitzwilliam, it has no provenance before 1948 . But beyond that, everything about the meaning of the painting is speculative. At best, maybe if the painting is authentic it might suggest a community about which we apparently have no other information, at least none that appears in this article. The only definite, factual meaning to be found is about the tendency of some moderns to project such meanings upon older images. At best, the image could be captioned to identify someone's speculation, and it would need a name for that someone and a citation of where he said it. At this point it appears to me that the person is Stanley Wells, and that the book is Looking for Sex in Shakespeare, but as I don't have the work at hand I can't check this as yet. But at any rate, the caption as a statement of fact simply does not bear scrutiny, and the image in any case doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article in which it appears. To me that last point is the most important and points most strongly to the simple removal of the image from the article. Mangoe 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I could not disagree with you more strongly on the validity of art interpretation in general (dubbed by you as a "tendency by some moderns to project such meanings upon older images," thus depriving the artist of his right to expression of ideas and the moderns of the use of their intelligence), I have to say that you have made your point regarding the unproven validity of this image in this article, and I would not oppose its removal unless material can be found to document the existence of such cultures in the Low Lands at that time.
 * As a side comment on this bird that can oly be called a "creagle," here's another twist - it could be the artist's comment on the degradation of modern (to him) homosexuality in contrast to that of the ancients, more at the level of a crow than that of an eagle. After all, the painting does seem to allude to a purely carnal pederasty. Regards, Haiduc 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)