Template talk:LGBT/Archive 3

doc
Sparse documentation page at Template:LGBT-footer/doc. Transcluded here in the "noinclude" tags. — coe l acan — 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality
Can anyone tell me why the bisexual section is highlighted like it is? -Gay15boy (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure why it was doing that but I've fixed it. It's supposed to be a highlighting section break so that each "?sexuality" section is seperated by that highlight. It apparently wasn't working. -- ALLSTAR  echo 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rights vs laws
I was eyeing up the "Rights" section and thinking that perhaps that should be titled "Laws" instead. My reasoning is that not all items listed are rights but they do deal with laws, like adoption. Thoughts? Zue Jay (talk)  00:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed..... I split off a new section called "Attitudes" and some stuff into there. (LGBT rights opposition could go in either Law or Attitudes, i stuck it in Attitudes for now unless someone wants to change it). -- User0529 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex relationships
Same-sex relationships are important to the LGBT template. However, the only mention is under legal issues as civil unions and same-sex marriages. Same-sex relationships are more than just a legal contract. They happen regardless of the legal status in the country. Besides legal issues, the only other place that it is mentioned is in the homosexuality article under sexual orientation. Homosexuality includes a lot more than someone's sexual orientation, but also their sexual identity and the relationships they have with other people. This can happen regardless of sexual orientation. I do not think it is accurate to place it in sexual orientation, because laws and religious persecution against homosexuality affects bisexual people as well as homosexual people. There is a separate article for people with a homosexual orientation that is strictly about sexual orientation and does not involve same-sex relationships or bisexual people. However, it is pertinent to this template and should be placed somewhere. Thoughts? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Under "LGBT community and culture" might be a good spot. Banj e  b oi   17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture
This is kinda minor, but I'd like to change the picture to this, it is wayyyyyy better:  Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I made a bold edit and changed the picture, it looks much better now, hope everyone will agree! Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I certainly do - it's a great picture.217.43.124.229 (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does Intolerance link to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality
This is nonsensical. To the question "Should homosexuality be accepted by society?" 86% of Swedes say yes. Among people who are 18-39 years old, this support reaches to 91%. Thats hardly intolerance. This isnt NPOV. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should change history to "History and Societal attitudes"? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OR "LGBT community/culture and Societal Attitudes"? Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Template flawed
Obviously some churches and religions support LGBT rights, in whole or in part, therefore religious views should NOT be under Discrimination. Definitionally I'm not sure "rights opposition" purely qualifies either... opposition to certain rights expansions is not by itself discrimination, assuming right not being violated in the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotel (talk • contribs)
 * I've left a notice at WikiProject LGBT studies regarding this interesting point you have raised. I did so because not many people watch these template talk pages. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move it to the "History and Society" section then. -- Banj e  b oi   02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two issues - Religious discrimination against LGBT people and Religious opposition to LGBT human rights. They are different, one is discrimatory practice, the other is a rationale that can be used for discriminatory practice.  We don't appear to have a category for human rights into LGBT human rights can fit, and which Religious opposition to LGBT human rights would be located.  The practicality of religious discrimination would still need to be under discrimination. Mish (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Views which are religiously motivated can be discriminatory; there's nothing special about religion that makes it immune from causing discriminatory behaviour, and there's nothing unique about religious teachings that make them non-discriminatory regardless of the positions they advocate. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, I've just posted this to the Category:homophobia discussion, and it provides quite a useful definition for there, and addresses this question as well, because religious opposition of LGBT rights is specifically included:


 * A. Homophobia can be defined as an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and sexism.
 * B. Homophobia manifests itself in the private and public spheres in different forms, such as hate speech and incitement to discrimination, ridicule and verbal, psychological and physical violence, persecution and murder, discrimination in violation of the principle of equality and unjustified and unreasonable limitations of rights, which are often hidden behind justifications based on public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection.

|European Parliament Resolution 18 January 2006, P6_TA-PROV(2006)0018 Mish (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

BDSM
Likely should be in sexual identity rather than orientation section. -- Banj e b oi   01:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a sex template. Its the LGBT template. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BDSM and LGBT cultures are certainly intwined so I'm not opposed to including it here. This issue I di have is that BDSM is not a sexual orientation so even the culture section would be better. -- Banj e  b oi   01:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "BDSM and LGBT cultures are certainly intwined" Source? Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Queer studies is full of BDSM (and polyamory is discussed also). Look at the listings of GLQ or Sexualities, or the topics covered in Queer conferences and seminars.  The Project page is contradictory.  The lede includes Queer studies as well as LGBT, yet further down the coverage is restricted to LGBT issues alone.  So, somebody needs to decide which part of the project is wrong - that the LGBT studies project is also about Queer studies, or that a project that includes Queer studies excludes aspects of Queer studies that do not relate to LGBT.  I have no problem with people limiting the LGBT studies project to LGBT issues, although that is a particular POV, but if it does so, it should make it clear that it is not also a Queer studies project. as that is misleading, especially in the lede.  Queer studies covers a lot of things that may be peripheral to many in the LGBT community - but like bareback riding, BDSM and polyamory is an aspect of some LGBT experience. Mish (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Split queer studies content from Template:LGBT and Template:LGBT sidebar to separate templates

 * Templates: LGBT (this template), sidebar version: LGBT sidebar

'''Withdrawing proposal -- apparently BDSM/poly are queer theory topics, not queer studies topics, so do not belong in the template to begin with -- making the split a moot point. (see Queer_theory Wikignome0529 (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is some overlap between LGBT and Queer studies, but some other areas which do not make much sense. Example: polyamory has been added and removed at least twice to this template. While polyamory may be a part of queer studies, it is not an LGBT-specific topic and looks strange in a mainly-LGBT template. Also BDSM, which is a queer studies topic, but not an LGBT-specific topic. Having a separate queer studies template would also allow more room to expand on other queer studies topics which would look odd lumped in with the LGBT topics, instead of diluting LGBT/LGBT sidebar into every sexual practice or topic under the sun which might be viewed as odd or strange by "straight" society. thoughts? Wikignome0529 (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this sounds like a strange move (because it's making a distinction that I don't think exists in the real world), but I do see your point. Why is a topic like polyamory in there in the first place? It's certainly not limited to LGBT or queer communities, and I dare say warrants its own template. Rebecca (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The LGBT project page already covers queer studies - would this involve Queer studies still being under the LGBT project, or a project in its own right? If it is still within the project, but with its own template, then this would make sense, but if it has to become a project in its own right then I suspect bodies are a bit thin on the ground to support sexuality and sexology, LGBT, and Queer projects. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How would you semantically separate queer studies from LGBT studies? They're effectively the same thing, though one has a more deconstructionist stance. Saying "okay, LGBT can take the general stuff, and queer studies can take the weird stuff" is an easy split, but it doesn't make any logical sense in the real world. Rebecca (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * Mish: This would only affect the templates LGBT and LGBT sidebar, not any WikiProjects which maintain them.
 * Rebecca, I think I jumped the gun with the split proposal. It appears that BDSM/Poly/etc./etc. are a queer theory topic, not a queer studies topic. Which means they don't belong in this template to begin with. (see Queer_theory) I misunderstood various messages left at WT:LGBT as meaning that queer studies included these types of topics, but apparently they meant queer theory. This template is about LGBT/Queer studies (not queer theory), so the split proposal is a moot point since BDSM/Poly are not "queer studies", and do not belong in the template to begin with(?). sorry for not doing my homework first. -- Wikignome0529 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So, where should queer theory stuff go then? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Queer theory article has the LGBT/Queer studies template, so should there be a template for Queer theory, or should Queer theory be on the LGBT/Queer studies template? The issues I have come across discussed under Queer theory do go outside LGBT issues, but it tends to be from a perspective of queering whatever is under discussion.  So, Michael Jackson's relationships with boys for example, where there is no (demonstrable) sexual connotation gay or otherwise, paedophilia, necrophilia, and female body hair are all things that may not be covered under LGBT studies, but can be under Queer theory.  Stranger sex, BDSM practices that transgress the boundaries of legality, self-mutilation, amputeeism, any paraphilia you can think of.  These are not covered in sexuality and sexology in the way they would be in Queer theory.  I'm interested to know how we accommodate such articles in Wikiepdia generally, and given Queer theory seems to fall within the scope of LGBT, how that works?  It is effectively a project category in its own right - but I'm still not sure there would be enough bodies on the ground to deal with three projects in this area.  I'd be happy to look at building Queer theory as a project in its own right - but I'd need help with that as I am quite new here.  Perhaps it could be combined with Trans theory, to make a new project that covers Queer and Trans theory? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be against including Queer theory topics (in LGBT/LGBT sidebar) as a many of the topics don't have much to do with LGBT/Queer studies topics specifically (maybe "Queer studies" should even be removed from the title of the navbox/sidebar to avoid confusion with Queer theory? - since Queer studies basically = LGBT studies(?) and LGBT is already listed). A navbox (and sidebar if needed) for Queer theory series articles would make sense to link those articles together. I was never proposing to split Queer theory topics from WikiProject LGBT studies, but maybe Queer theory would work as a taskforce within WP:SEX (sexology/sexuality WikiProject), since not all Queer theory topics are LGBT studies topics -- and articles which fell under both could be tagged for both projects?
 * We posted at the same time, but this is a distinction that is totally artificial: throwing in a bunch of concepts that have nothing to do with the academic discipline of queer theory to get them out of the LGBT template, and pretending that they're separate and sensible ways of organising articles just doesn't make any sense. Rebecca (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of attempting to split hairs this way is. "LGBT studies" and "Queer studies" are the exact same thing in the real world, and "Queer theory" is a major theoretical component of that discipline.

The LGBT template should focus on LGBT issues, but we probably need something along the lines of an "alternative sexualities" (perhaps a more polite name can be thought of; I'm not sure) template covering the likes of BDSM and polyamory. This would cover all the articles that don't really fit in an LGBT template, without making anything up or unnecessarily stretching concepts (BDSM is even less related to queer theory than a general LGBT template, and polyamory is tangential in either one). Rebecca (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that LGBT template should focus on LGBT issues (and I removed polyamory as it does not fall under "queer studies" -- so there is nothing further to remove right now, unless until it gets added back). If editors (not to mention readers) are going to keep confusing Queer studies with Queer theory (before today I did not know the difference), maybe we should remove "Queer studies" from the header to avoid confusion (and adding of non-LGBT Queer theory topics). Wikignome0529 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * You're still making a very strange distinction, and I'm not sure why. BDSM and polyamory are not "queer theory" topics; they're even less related to queer theory than a general LGBT classification. I'm also not sure why we keep going into "LGBT studies" and "Queer studies". This is an academic discipline (and the same one, too), and real-world concepts that might come up in those once in a while are a pretty strange fit for any template based on them. "LGBT issues" is what the current template should be titled; we really do need a template linking some of the topics that are being removed here together, but "queer studies" or "queer theory" is not a useful way of doing it. Rebecca (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * :-/ Queer theory gives a pretty wide scope for queer theory (though there are no refs for it, so that might not be so)... afaik, the only 2 items that have been removed were BDSM & polyamory. Even if they are re-added back on the basis of being marginally-related to LGBT though, monogamy and other things that LGBT and hetero couples do could be added on that justification :-/ I have no prob with a new navbox to group alternative lifestyles topics, though it might be redundant with Sex or Sexual identities ? Wikignome0529 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Queer theory is a sub-discipline of critical theory; yes, these are things (along with many others) that are sometimes the subject of queer theory, but they've got nothing intrinsically to do with queer theory itself. Both the articles being discussed here are already in Sex, so perhaps just having them there is good enough. Rebecca (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cross-posted - so here is my response to this:- I'm not sure they would be well catered for - as sexuality and sexology is mainly about practice, and this is about identity. Polyamory is a practice, but for some it is an identity - in the same way that a monogamous bisexual woman can have a relationship with another woman and still be bisexual and not lesbian, a polyamorous person can be in a single relations, yet still identify as polyamorous, and open to the possibility should the opportunity arise.
 * And this is what I was posting:- ::::I'm not sure where you see BDSM as peripheral to Queer theory, the point is it is a topic covered within Queer Theory, over 200 references on scholar for Queer Theory and BDSM, 150 for Foucault and BDSM, only 1/10 for the same search using intersex. However, Foucault and Sadomasochism turns up over 4,000 and Queer Theory and Sadomasochism nearly 3,500 - so nearly double that of intersex (at over 2,000 for Queer Theory and nearly 1,500}. By that reckoning Sadomasochism would be more appropriate than Intersex, which is pretty well covered in Queer Theory, and nobody has challenged my insertion of that into the project or the template - yet.  Only some intersex people identify as LGBT, and even fewer as queer, most identify as heterosexual - should this be excluded as well? These questions are not rhetorical - I am seeking clarification on this. When I came here, intersex was part of medical and sexology/sexuality projects - something some intersex people will have issues about, and some won't - but it was inserted here to try and ensure balance in a way that it would not be weighted unduely towards the medical and sexological perspective, particularly if there were RfCs, and that the social and identity aspects could legitimately be dealt with in that artcile in a way that they would not be from a medical perspective. Given this is an LGBT project, which includes LGBT studies and Queer studies, it seemed at the time that this was the best place to do that.  However, if it specifically excludes Queer theory under its remit, then it is not - and that means there is nowhere to locate such projects other than under disciplines like medicine and sexology, where the perspective of those who identify with these articles tend to be under-represented in favour of expert views, and where issues of identity don't easily fit, and where sex or sexuality is itself peripheral despite being included in the project.  I am asking how best to manage this - incorporate Queer theory, or set up something different for Queer theory.  I don't know the technicalities of how you manage these templates, but would it be that much of a problem to have a template for Queer Theory within LGBT studies that would then embrace all the queer stuff folk do? I don't mind - but I would like to know. I suppose another way to manage the queer stuff would be to make WP:Sex into Sexology, Sexuality and Queer Theory? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that queer theory is an academic discipline. A template on queer theory should look something like Template:Anthropology - which lists basic topics like fields, subfields, key concepts - rather than mentioning every ethnic group or issue which is at all commonly discussed in anthropology. The attempt to use this as a catch-all to link together a bunch of topics which occasionally get discussed in the field is going to look very strange to most people who've actually studied queer theory; it's a little bit like trying to include George W. Bush in a political science template.

While Wikipedia does tend to use the LGBT acronym, remember that this expands most elsewhere to LGBTI - it's certainly not a stretch to include intersex people in this way. Putting under queer theory, however, would be very strange; it's not a particularly common topic of discussion in queer theory, and there isn't much of a connection between the two anywhere else. I think that one would prompt a "what the?" reaction generally from both intersex people and those who've studied queer theory!

I'm really not sure that attempting to define what counts as queer theory through a Google test is in any way helpful. Queer theory isn't some catch-all "stuff that's kind of weird but not really LGBT" category; it's an actual field of critical theory, and linking random issues that people sometimes discuss in it just doesn't make sense. Rebecca (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I understand. The category:Queer Theory is a sub-category of category:Critical Theory under the Philosophy project task force for Continental Philosophy: WikiProject Philosophy/Continental.  So, should the article on Queer theory have the LGBt template?  From what you are saying, nothing about non-LGBT queer identities or cultures should be under that category (Queer Theory) either - like Pomosexual or Queer heterosexual - there is no category, and no project, under which that falls apart from WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's pretty much correct - except that I'd say almost no specific identities or cultures (not just non-LGBT ones) belong in a queer theory template full stop. Queer theory, on the other hand, would fit in an LGBT template pretty well; the existence of the field stemmed from queer identities in the first place.


 * As to those articles - honestly, I'd nominate them both for deletion. The sourced, non-original-research portion of Queer heterosexual (i.e. the second paragraph) could very easily be merged into a couple of sentences in Queer. Pomosexual is a dicdef article of a non-notable neologism. I've never seen it used in a non-ironic sense, and one look at a Google search suggests that this is borne out; the first couple of pages are all mostly either people using it as a username or forum hits. It might be worth merging that one into Queer as well, since it basically describes a fairly common form of queer identity (this is precisely why LGBTI expands to LGBTIQ...)


 * In the event that either survived an AfD, though, they could both fit under LGBT with not too much of a stretch; queer is part of LGBT, so queer heterosexual would be fine, and pomosexual, according to the article, seeks to replace the LGBT name, so that would also fit. Rebecca (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template from Unlabeled sexual orientation and Pomosexual, but left Queer heterosexual as it says 'queer' and includes 'transgender'. Will look to see if there are any other inappropriately applied templates as well. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BDSM and Polyamory have LGBT templates on either the main or talk pages - should these be removed? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd remove them from the article pages (& will after posting this cmt) as they are not LGBT-specific topics and not even included in this template anymore. Whether or not to add/remove project tags would be beyond the scope of this talk page though. WT:LGBT would be the better place to get more opinions on that. Wikignome0529 (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pederasty?
I'm not sure why that is there. Someone care to explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmelion (talk • contribs) 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pederasty is a (mostly) archaic form of male same-sex sexual relationship, common in ancient Greece, but which has persisted in some instances through to modern times. Some see it as controversial, because it involves an older man with a teenage young man, or historically teenage boys.  But unless people have neutral reasons for not wanting in the template (i.e. not just because they don't like it), it should not be removed without discussion.  I have no particular issue with it being there, it has a historical context.  We would also include relationships between Roman legionnaires as a historical fact that should be included as LGBT, along with the Sea Queens who acted as wives for heterosexual seamen while at sea on passenger liners.  Whether that means it should be specifically included in the template... that is up for discussion.  It certainly should be part of the project.  If we start to question whether one historic form of LGBT manifestation should be excluded, where would we stop?  Hidjra, two-spirit?  Perhaps we need to expand to include Mollies and Sea Queens? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, why do you think it shouldn't be there. seeing you deleted it? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly much of a modern LGBT topic. Comparing it with Hijras really doesn't work, considering that they're very much still around. Rebecca (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue has been debated this century in the context of lowering the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16 . The way that debate was framed, both by conservative Evangelicals and in the House of Lords, was in terms of the risks associated with pederasty.  Christian groups specifically invoked the pederastic image of an older man with a younger man .  The law was changed earlier in this century, and the opponents see that issue in terms of pederasty, while gay rights groups oppose that view. As it is not a currently claimed identity, it's probably OK for it to be removed from the template, but it should remain part of the project and have the template applied, as it is an LGBT issue.  However, we ought to make people aware of this discussion so that whoever put it in the template can have an opportunity to speak to this. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections there, then. Tagging it as a project-related article, and sticking it in the template, are two very different things. Rebecca (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only possible issue I can see here is WP:UNDUE weight being given to it appearing as one of the few items in the history section (compare to LGBT history navbox). It is pretty obscure today, but was possibly the most visible manifestation of LGBT in some cultures in times past. Maybe the solution is to keep it, but flesh out the history section with more non-pederasty links to give a better-rounded representation of LGBT history topics? Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest just relegating it to the LGBT history box - but actually, as for many years it was a dominant forms of LGBT relating, then being in history in the LGBT template makes some sense. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Social attitudes" / "Prejudice/discrimination" / some other wording?
I have reverted the recent changes of "Social attitudes" to "prejudice/discrimination" as they go too far in the opposite direction of "sugar coating". Even if we do not agree with something, we still should use NPOV wording. If "Social attitudes" is not strong enough wording, maybe a compromise or alternate wording can be found. Also, religion/homosexuality and "social attitudes" links do not belong in history, as they document contemporary issues (in addition to the more historical ones). Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's first put things in context here. Please include the fact that the recent change you mention is in fact a revert to the pre-existing and long-standing group "Discrimination" after your first change to "Social attitudes". Thanks! :-)


 * "Discrimination", "intolerance", and "prejudice" are neutral terms for unfortunate realities. Would anyone term the assassination of a nation's president or prime minister as simply "death", "passing away" or "loss of life"? The group as such is an essential core group that underlies all of the LGBT work here on Wikipedia as all LGBT community organizing has the goal of both legal and social equality through combating descrimination, intolerance, and prejudice against LGBT people. In other words, the group on these latter three must stay intact as they are the raison d'être for LGBT work here and elsewhere.


 * Clearly, with this in mind, we do not have a (re)naming issue here. Let's discuss, on the other hand, your aim as shown in your edits and summaries. Apparently, the goal was to justify a previous insertion of Religion and homosexuality into a pre-established group. The means to justify placing it alongside the -phobias, -isms, within the Discrimination-Intolerance-Prejudice group was to change the name of the group, thus altering the purpose of the group. This was a misguided effort as it distorts the essential group to fit only one irrelevant topic to the essential core group, to which Religious views on transgender people was subsequently added as an afterthought.


 * I am wholeheartedly against your means, and only the means, to justify your goal. What's more, everyone can agree that there's no feasible comprise in the form of sugar-coating discrimination, intolerance, and prejudice, which were in themselves neutrally-termed, albeit unpleasant, realities. Moreover, your current stance has additionally been to delete these heading names in their entirety. Nonetheless, I am in strong favor of an entirely NEW, distinct group under a different heading for what you have inserted because the template lacks other "nexus" topics, i.e. X and homosexuality, Y and homosexuality, Z and homosexuality, etc. This new group would perfectly include your religious theme as well as other parallel and related topics such as Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Surely you can agree that there are several of such "homosexuality" nexuses of major importance on Wikipedia.


 * To sum up, the only logical solution within an LGBT framework, i.e. the very same one of this template, is to create a new group. Remember, there had been more groups in the side template until you had removed and truncated some when you were editing last year as User:User0529, among other aliases. Until a new group is inserted, I will, on good faith, not revert your distortion. Nonetheless, as to restore the Discrimination-Intolerance-Prejudice group rightfully and ASAP, we need to LGBT-brainstorm quickly. I'm sure the past month of June's pride events will help. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Two groups, one for discrimination, one for social attitudes which includes religious attitudes (as these one type of social attitude).  Chuck in hate-crime and the shit that goes on in Jamaica, Egypt and Nigeria in the name of religion (Rastafarianism, Islam and Christianity respecticely) there.  Catholic dogma and Anglican hand-wringing can stay in the social attitudes section until the former start endorsing eugenic responses to homosexuality that conform with their ideological views on homosexuality, and the latter cleanse the church of liberality and align themselves closely with Catholic and fundamentalist protestant ideology on sexuality. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * CJ, this is a simple disagreement over how to organize/label the section. I simply did not (this year or last) see the need to spell out the naughty things with such wording when a more NPOV wording would do. The only reason the "intolerance"/(and other words) wording was so long standing was I got tired of fighting with you over it last year. I recently changed it to the "Attitudes - Violence" version in the past 1-2 months? I dunno. I am not the only person who has seen problems with the section wording, see last 2 threads on Template talk:LGBT/Archive 3. If the compromise is to have separate Attitudes and discrimination/intolerance/whatever wording sections, fine.. (though it is kind of redundant. even "bad" attitudes are attitudes). :-) Happy editing, Wikignome0529 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean less than two weeks ago from when I spotted it and two weeks and a day ago from this post, i.e. not even a month. (Mis)represent facts and (mis)frame the issues as you wish. Enjoy. --CJ Withers (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So less than 4 weeks and 1 day? That is almost 1 month. 4 weeks on Wikipedia can seem like 1-2 months. I am content with the compromise. see you around. Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates converted to the 2 separate sections, though I put heteronormative in the attitudes section as I wasn't sure if it belonged in prejudice (as it is used within LGBT circles also as a neutral term, though if you think it belongs in prejudice feel free to move). Wikignome0529 (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! :-) Now we can all see that last year's amputations didn't do a single bit of justice. --CJ Withers (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

reorganised template a bit
The numbering was messed up, which meant that legal issues was not showing up (two sets of lists numbered '5'). I re-numbered the sections, which gives us 7 groups. I found that on some articles there is already an option for rights, so I have revived this on the template. Because the last two sections will not necessarily be relevant for all articles, and because the template is getting quite long, I created two extra options to supplement the existing culture option. These are social, and prejudice, to cover social attitudes, and pejudice/violence against LGBT people as well as legal/rights and culture/community. I have updated the documentation, which explains how to use these four options:

Enjoy. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching the group #, dumb mistake on my part :-) looks good. Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a new group academy as well, to cover academic/activist topics:

Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this would be viewed as over-complicating the template, but throwing it out there... the template looks good (even in the full-blown, everything-switched-on mode).. but in most articles only 1 or 2 or 3 (if any) of the optional sections will be turned on. So the average reader would have no idea that there is a Rights section, or a Culture section, and on and on. If we switched to collapsible groups (Template:Navbox with collapsible groups), then all sections could appear on every article, and would avoid having to manually set sections to appear from within articles. 1 trade-off would be aesthetics (the flat version looks better), but we could force the first/main section to appear uncollapsed on loading, which would help some with that (avoiding having just a row of uncollapsed bars -- such as Discrimination has), and also would invite readers to explore the first section (main topics, like gay, lesbian, etc). It would also provide room for more expansion without having to add optional sections in the future. thoughts?.. Wikignome0529 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Could be a good idea, although I quite like the ability of being able to tailor the template in line with the article content - and I suspect most people would be more interested in search for like. Means checking out existing articles to make sure the relevant groups are displayed on appropriate articles. Maybe run it past people on the project page, though? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The uncollapsed section can actually be set at the article level so that the relevent section would automatically be visible.... Not sure what the method is.. something like .  Wikignome0529 (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, so the relevant group(s) would be visible, and the rest collapsed, but on expansion all can be accessed. That sounds better.  I'll look into it. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Academy
This is definitely a needed group. I added some things, condensed others. As for the queer/LGBT personalities, it seems unfair to mention a few revered "saints", so I removed their links all together. Just think: Foucault, Millett, Butler, Hooker, Kinsey, Klein, Sedgwick, Irigay, etc. That way, we can avoid a popularity contest. Besides, these people can easily be found under all the other entries in the group and even immediately in Discourse. Btw, I removed "activism" simply because it wasn't accurate; if it had been, we would need to include LGBT rights and host of other things such as Gay liberation and LGBT social movements. --CJ Withers (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I added this to the sidebar as well, in reduced form. (Lavender linguistics already there under culture).  I added some items from Group 1 as well, as that was missing.  I also tidied and reorganised a bit for neatness. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Made history an option as well.

converting to collapsible navbox
Looking at the documentation, inserting this will set the navbox as collapsible:

{{Navbox with collapsible groups |name = LGBT |state = collapsed

I've not yet figured the syntax for dealing with this on a page-by-page basis. Do we know of any projects that have done this, so I can have a look?

But, I am reluctant to do this, because that would hide all the entries until they can be reset on all the articles. The current setup gives the main 3 'top-level' groups, with the ability to pull in more specific groups on an article-by-article basis. We could make each page display the top-level groups, and add in specific groups as appropriate, but that would take time. The change I have made is relatively inobtrusive, and allows for updating on an article-by-article basis. To introduce this quite drastic change in the template would need to be done with reference to discussion on the project talk page, as it would involve editing a lot of articles quite quickly to accommodate this. It would need planning. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (update: was using wrong method before, fixed...) I looked around, but the best examples I saw had more elaborate/huge sections than our template does (something I'm not sure we'd end up doing with it). I copied the existing LGBT template into one of my sandboxes and switched it to the collapsible format (added 1st line from your code above, + added "abbr#" lines to each section, + added "selected" line) Thus,  {{LGBT|academy}}  would give:

Update: Newer method: {{LGBT|academy=expanded}} would give:


 * The only change needed to articles would be adding the "|academy=expanded" (or |rights=expanded, to articles). If no section is specified to expand, the main section expands instead (or the template can be set to expand no sections instead). The existing rights=yes, culture=yes, etc. settings on them would just be ignored, and could be removed/replaced at-will). All template sections would still display, but would not automatically expand to the specific related section until an editor added the appropriate tag.. Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) This post edited to reflect new expansion method used in sandbox version: 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My browser stopped displaying anything as collapsed some time ago - it must be a setting I changed in my Wiki preferences, but I can't figure out how to change it back. So this navbox displays at twice the size of the current one, and looks clumsy. I can't work on or test this facility on my PC because it doesn't work for me. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I had the state= set to expanded but just changed it back (if that was what you meant by twice the size?)... if not, is your javascript enabled? when i have it disabled, all navboxes display with everything expanded. Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted my settings to defaults - and left out all the gadgets - it works now, yes, looks OK. I think this needs to be discussed on the project page though. I also think that group 1 (at least) needs to display as default, and pages relevant to an article display as an option - so that expansion is only necessary if somebody wants to look for things not displayed. Mish (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the current box works differently for me now - it is collapsed, and when maximised shows the two main items, and any selected items, and the others can be expanded. I think this works fine as it is now. Mish (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The formating needs looking at - the centering looks weird. In this format, maybe the headings need to be left-justified and unbroken to display on a single line. {{User:Wikignome0529/Sandbox1|main|rights|academy}}


 * The method which was being used could only take 1 expanded section setting at a time, I just switched it to the method used in Template:Dutch colonies though. Under the new method:

 {{LGBT/Sandbox|main=expanded|rights=expanded|academy=expanded}}  gives:


 * The downside in the new method though is that it does not recognize when no sections are set to expand, so it can't auto-open "main" as a default section in those cases. "main" could be set to auto-open in all cases (but in the above example, the 3 sections open looks kind of odd/busy?) As far as formatting goes, the existing formatting is taken directly from the non-collapsible groups version which is live (except the overall template is set to always-expand, this can be changed back to autocollapse though). Changing the headings to left-justified should be do-able (would have to check to see the method though - if nothing else, heading text could work. This is the list of templates currently using collapsible subgroups to get an idea of the varying formatting possibilities other collapsible-groups templates are using (some of them get pretty elaborate and others are basic) Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on proposed adoption of Template:LGBT/Sandbox occuring at: WT:LGBT Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC) {{Archive bottom}}

Additional articles
I would like to add four articles (the last one still a bit of a stub) to the template, as they jointly constitute an important part of LGBT history. Specifically, they are Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity, Historical pederastic relationships, Pederastic couples in Japan, and Egalitarian same-sex relationships in classical antiquity. Any thoughts? Haiduc (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The size of this template is getting ridiculous, even with the minimised sections. I think these would be better placed in a Template:Pederasty. Rebecca (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - too many articles in template currently. Firestorm  Talk 13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - one reference to pederasty is enough - if people want more they can have a template on the article to help them find other articles on the topic. Mish (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Even the one article on pederasty that's there is one too many when it comes to the LGBT Template. "Pedarasty" as defined in those articles has no historical link to LGBT anything, that is, unless you have the "homosexuals-are-child-abusers" myth in mind. In other words, just because homosexuality as a behavior is what's shared, does not require it to be included under a LGBT rubric of any sort. Remember, the word is still commonly and directly associated with child abuse in most of the Western world. What's more, the topic is already covered under homosexuality, which goes beyond identity politics. Besides, not only is pederasty pre-LGBT anything, it also constitutes a relation of power, i.e. far from both the struggle for LGBT equal rights and the striving for LGBT well-being. I, therefore, suggest someone create a pre-LGBT category, template, etc. should they deem it that important and provided that they realize that it's not an LGBT topic in its own right. --CJ Withers (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a note of this discussion at WT:LGBT as these template talk pages aren't generally on people's watchlists. I'll also point out that there is a difference in pederasty and pedophilia. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  18:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, purely for space and utility reasons. The current template is already too bug and performs its function poorly imo, by trying to include too much. A separate template would serve readers and editors better in this case (and in many others). But i do think pederasty has very strong historical and cultural links to LGBT, and anyone who has read up on the suject would agree, so that link should stay.YobMod 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, makes sense to me, but I have never done a template before. Should I just adapt this one? Is there a stable of standard forms somewhere? Is anybody interested in lending a hand? Haiduc (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, try this. I have created Template:Pederasty; by adding  you can insert template Pederasty to the relevant pages.  I have tested it on a couple.  If there are more pages, or you want to reorganise the listing, just edit the template.  If you want it broken into sections, let me know. Mish (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! If I need more help I'll let you know. Haiduc (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Identities
Sorry to have to revert, but the correction of "sexual identities" to "sexual orientation identities" was justified, if not overdue.


 * sexual orientation identity = identity based on sexual orientation: homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual


 * sexual identity = identity based on sex: physically or biologically male, female, intersex, transsexual


 * gender identity = identity based on gender: socially male, female, in-between, gender-free, transgender

The fist sentence or paragraph of these articles is very clear on the differences. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not supported by sources, and is due to a recent non-consensus edit of the sexual identity article. It has been referred to as 'sexual identity' for years. Mish (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the edit to the Sexual identity page, and provided evidence of the established usage here:


 * Talk:Sexual identity
 * To avoid replicating discussion, I have opened up discussion of this issue here:


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies
 * I have also notified the other relevant project here:


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
 * Mish (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Inversion
Why is "inversion" listed as a distinct sexual orientation in this template? It is an old clinical term used by 19th century doctors for homosexuality. It certainly isn't a distinct orientation; just a synonym. B-Wuuu (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point - it should be in the 20th Century history section, as it fell out of use after the 1930's. Mish (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. B-Wuuu (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream gay
I have removed this, because the term is a neologism (may not exist outside the article), and the article itself seems to be an opinion piece more than anything. As it is primarily anti-gay, if the article does survive, societal attitudes would be the wrong section - prejudice could be more appropriate, if the article can more clearly demonstrate this form of inverted LGBT-homophobia is established within WP:RS. Mish (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"mainstream gay" seems to be there again, can someone remove it please?
 * Done. --CapitalR (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

default template to unexpanded ?
I think this template should default to unexpanded not expanded because currently it takes up too much real estate and it is too imposing especially where there are other templates in the same article. --Penbat (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is why the settings exist - so that it defaults to expanded, but if there are other templates, then it can be set as collapsed instead. Not a major task to collapse it (unless there is no consensus to collapse).  You certainly should notify people on the project talk page if there is to be some discussion of this here. Mish (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a very simple change to make. I would have thought the default setting (where the template is initially collapsed if there are there are other templates on the same page but otherwise initially expanded) is an uncontroversial change. The setting can easily be adjusted again in the future anyway. --Penbat (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Arteagle, 8 June 2010
The policy of "Don't Ask--Don't Tell" is not about banning an individual but about banning the political "gay rights" movement brought to military. Gays will demand to live on-base housing. Gays will demand "gay pride" parades inside military bases. Furthermore, Gay will then demand "gay marriage" ceremonies for soldiers inside the office of the Commanding General of military bases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arteagle (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT sidebar - icon
I've restored the pride flag to the LGBT sidebar. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is frowned on, images in these sidebars are pretty common: And those are three of the five I looked at in Category:"Part_of_a_series_on"_templates. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church
 * Meher_Baba2
 * Puzzles

Navbox with collapsible groups
Seems like the collapsing parameters in this template no longer conform to the syntax of the source Navbox with collapsible groups, which means all instances of LGBT that designate one section to be "expanded" are effectively broken. I'll try to fix, but could probably use some help. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 18:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 November 2011 [from LGBT sidebar]
Elmasry96 (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC) George wants to be added to the gay people page.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- N  Y  Kevin  @871, i.e. 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What to do about merger of Template:Gender and sexual identities into LGBT
A recent edit merged much of the contents of Gender and sexual identities into this template. So this template largely duplicates that one. Ways to resolve this:
 * 1) Remove much of the merged content, making this template more as it was before the merger
 * 2) Check that the merge completely covers the other template, and complete the merge by making the other template a redirect to this one (using the required edit summaries).

This template has not been put on all pages that were added by the merge, so if it is to continue to contain the expanded content, it needs to be added to the relevant pages.

I favor option 1 - remove merged content. This template is getting too large to conveniently use. The merged content makes it much harder to understand the topic area. Just covering the basics of gender/sexual identities here (or not covering them on this template at all, and using the other template where appropriate) seems like a way to keep things manageable and a bit more intelligible. (When the major sexual orientations are buried in with a bunch of less common neologisms it makes it much harder to understand.)

Since some sexual orientations are not LGBT, it seems like merging the other template into this one might violate NPOV. Also, it seems questionable to have not clearly LGBT material (e.g., object sexuality, asexuality, etc.) in the LGBT template. Zodon (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a recent edit -- it was in June. It if was a recent edit you'd be justified in reverting per WP:BRD. However, since it's been in place since June, the burden is now on you to justify your edit. You have done so to my satisfaction, though, so I support your edit. However, I'm not an expert on the subject or a regular contributor to this page. Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How about the LGBT merge within the G+S Identity template as LGBT refers to the specific communities/identities of such which in itself are part of the more general encompassing G+S identities (including ones that are besides L, G, B or T). Crzer07 (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2012 (LGBTQA) [from LGBT sidebar]
LGBT should also include Q and A for queer people (people without a definite label) and for asexuals ( people who are not attracted to any gender sexually)

67.204.11.152 (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Given the discussion directly above, it appears consensus has been against this in the past. Regardless, it's something that should probably be decided by the whole of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies and not simply this template.  elektrik  SHOOS  (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How about this photo ? [from LGBT sidebar]
This one is better than the original. - 111.251.197.212 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the current one, the sunlight shining through the flag is a nice touch. And you also see more of the actual flag in that one than this one. Cadiomals (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

SPLC-listed hate groups
I have removed a list of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups. For one thing, it was a POV addition - that is, there were called "hate groups" in wikipedia's voice. But also, it seems be a case of undue weight as far as this template goes - indeed, there is no comparable list of pro-gay groups. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think an article that was focussed just on anti-gay LGBT groups would be a perfect addition. Thanks for the idea! Insomesia (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes - you could be right. Sorry, I didn't explain myself - the exhaustive list had been added to the template here. StAnselm (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that list doesn't belong as is on the template but a separate article would. Insomesia (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you want. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Designated anti-gay hate groups
At the moment, the link to List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups is piped as "Designated anti-gay hate groups". This is POV - they are (only) designated as such by the SPLC. Template:Racism as a similar link piped as "SPLC list". Here are some options, in my order of preference: - StAnselm (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "SPLC-designated anti-gay hate groups"
 * 2) Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-gay hate groups"
 * 3) SPLC list
 * I have changed it to option No.2 so that there is proper attribution. It stands out a little more now, but I think that should be OK. – MrX 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, this is a template not an article where more context is usually better. This entry should be anti-gay hate groups, in it's simplest terms this is what the template should represent. The only reason SPLC is in the article title is that we are being tight with the definition of hate groups to their definition which is widely accepted. Once we have a new parent article on anti-gay hate groups perhaps this link would redirect to that article instead. Insomesia (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not anti-gay hate groups. They have been designated anti-gay hate groups by the SPLC. Your proposal is not neutral. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, reliably sources, including the nation's leading authority disagree with you on this. Do you have any reliable sources that agree with you that these groups are not anti-gay hate groups? If not I think we need to restore a less-surprising entry on this template. If you want to contest this we can certainly get more eyes to help make an informed decision. Insomesia (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would support using the shorter 'anti-gay hate groups' for brevity, as long as it falls withing the policies/guidelines for navboxes. I don't think it is at all inaccurate. – MrX 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm all for getting more eyes - though I see 65 people have this template on their watchlist. Does anyone say they are hate groups apart from the SPLC. I am reasonably sure virtually every reliable source say they have been designated as a hate group by the SPLC. It's not just a matter of whether the entry is accurate, it needs to be neutral. This is all the more so because it is a nav-box - there are no references and no explanations. StAnselm (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, in the Wikipedia world these groups are all considered anti-gay hate groups, and if you search on "anti-gay hate group" on Wikipedia (seen here) you pretty much only get these groups, listed handily in one article per your suggestion, and related articles dealing with these anti-gay hate groups. Ergo the list of anti-gay hate groups is the only list of anti-gay hate group that Wikipedia has, no further template explanation or footnote is needed. If another reputable group also has a list of anti-gay hate groups on Wikipedia then we can reconcile what to do about this link at that time. Interjecting qualifiers and mysterious acronyms to readers is counter-productive. Insomesia (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But in each case, the group is not called an anti-gay hate group in Wikipedia's voice - and nor should it be here. StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Templates do not have to conform to that strict voice rule, instead we point to the relevant article where the reader can find what information we have on anti-gay hate groups, and that article is explicit it is according to SPLC. The same case is true for hundreds of links on templates that don't go into great qualifiers that there is controversy or some other circumstance, just that Wikipedia has coverage on the topic. You already tried to get the list deleted and that didn't seem to work. Here we simply are presenting it as the sole entry on anti-gay hate groups. Perhaps when we have more coverage a different link will be appropriate. Insomesia (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Who says templates do not have to conform to the strict voice rule? What policy are you referring to? StAnselm (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning more strongly toward supporting the shorter piped link, for two reasons:
 * 1) The HTML title tag uses the full (unpiped) name, so that in most browsers, the longer lname would appear in a bubble when the mouse hovers over the link. This is by design, suggesting that templates should use shorter piped link.
 * 2) The SPLC, much like the ACLU, ADL, etc. are authoritative in matters of civil liberties/civil rights by their long standing reputation. By virtue of being designated a hate group by the SPLC, the group is then a de facto hate group.

– MrX 00:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to (1), this is why my first preference is to have the acronym. With regards to (2), I know that you think that, but as you know, I and a number of other editors disagree. Now, I haven't canvassed at all on this issue, and if brevity is your main concern, we should be able to resolve things between the three of us. StAnselm (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I really don't have a strong committed preference either way, as long as it's clear what the link is about. One option is to bring in a 3rd, uninvolved, neutral editor to break the deadlock. – MrX 01:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What about Anti-gay hate groups listed by the SPLC as an option? StAnselm (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No thank you, it's still introducing a needless acronym into a template that is already very full. This should be clean and simple. Are you going to continue to block this? Insomesia (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "very full"? It won't take up an extra line of text. It seems your main reason against my proposal(s) is size. Whereas my main reason against your proposal(s) is neutrality. They don't seem like equally weighted reasons. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So... do you want to do an RfC? StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Per RfC I've started a discussion at the project who is chiefly responsible for the integrity of the template, discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. After discussion has died down we can move forward. Per WP:EGG and WP:LINKCLARITY I've moved the link to List of anti-gay hate groups since it's a list and not an article solely on anti-gay hate groups. Insomesia (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 November 2012 [from LGBT sidebar]
There are two links to te Violence against LGBT People article.

173.48.61.110 (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Insomesia (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2013
Please remove the text "Whether or not LGBT people actually openly identify themselves as being so may depend on they live a discriminatory environment or not, as well as the status of LGBT rights where one lives" and replace it with the text "Whether or not LGBT people actually openly identify themselves as being so may depend on whether they live in a discriminatory environment or not, as well as the status of LGBT rights where they live" (for grammatical sense).

211.26.45.166 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that text in the template anywhere. RudolfRed (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Gender/sexual identities
May benefit from being replaced with a transcluded form of this template: Gender and sexual identities, which seems to be more comprehensive. Please ping me if you are responding. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This would seem appropriate to me. Thanks for suggesting it. Trankuility (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * LT910001 (Tom), I'm not sure what you are asking for regarding Template:LGBT, which is a different matter than Template:Gender and sexual identities. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I suppose you're right. But for future editors, beware there's significant duplication so both templates may need to be updated if you're adding an article about a gender/sexual identity. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * LT910001, Template:Gender and sexual identities notes the duplication matter and that the templates should be updated to be consistent because of that. Perhaps a similar note should be placed on Template:LGBT. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Please change Boi to Boi per page move. Thanks. 82.132.234.79 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Nici  Vampire  Heart  16:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015 [from LGBT sidebar]
LGBT parenting link

131.251.253.64 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (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. Pishcal  — ♣ 16:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrois
I've moved neutrois from "Sexual orientation identities" to "Gender identities" where it belongs. It's a gender identity that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. --Shikku27316 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed "Neutrois" from the template completely: it currently fails to meet the notability criteria: see the two AfD's for the neutrois article. -- The Anome (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Characters [from LGBT sidebar]
In the LGBT Ethics portion of your sidebar. Cant seem to track them down in the template. --Savonneux (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015
In the template under "Gender identities Sexual identities" Object sexuality is listed. I don't really think that that belongs here. It has nothing to do with gender and I would more likely call it a paraphilia than an orientation.

&#42;Treker (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016 [from LGBT sidebar]
I feel like this was put her by I biased LGBT supporter. Why I think this is wrong if homophobia is a word that describes an irrational fear of homosexuality then why is the word heterophobia made to seem like it can't be a irrational fear. I believe that homophobia and heterophobia should be shown the same level of equality. Where one is an irrational fear of LGBT people and the other a fear of straight people. I completely disagree with what was written the term may have not been around as long as homophobia but I feel it deserves to carry the same kind of definition or remove the page completely from Wikipedia.

2606:A000:3041:8600:5C24:D38A:69CA:7B1B (talk) 12:24, 12 April 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. Cannolis (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2016 [from LGBT sidebar]
Under "Sexual orientation", add "Pansexuality" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality), "Polysexuality" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysexuality), and "Asexuality" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality)

Rtzentmyer (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Omni Flames ( talk ) 07:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template sidebar move: LGBT to LGBTQ [from LGBT sidebar]
This discussion has been copied & pasted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies:

The template sidebar used on many LGBT related articles was changed between 19 & 21 February from "Template:LGBT sidebar" to "Template:LGBTQ sidebar", to include the term Genderqueer. Potentially controversial changes should be discussed beforehand, but there appears to have been no discussion, either before or since. The associated Talkpage redirects here: Template talk:LGBT. Is everyone happy with this?Daicaregos (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LGBT as an initialism has a much more widespread usage:
 * 12,300,000 ghits for LGBT
 * 1,200,000 ghits for LGBTQ
 * It should therefore stand to reason that LGBT should take precedence over LGBTQ. I am therefore not particularly impressed that this has been done without discussion. --  role <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:#9ACD32">player 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you, and other members of this project, would like to comment on that Talkpage. I don't feel qualified to pass comment, but wanted to bring it to your attention, as the change seemed rather radical to me. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Undo it. No bloating, or soon we'll be dealing with FABGLITTER.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 17:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back pending discussion. This discussion is copied & pasted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to Template talk:LGBT sidebar. Daicaregos (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To move this page: please follow the instructions at Requested moves. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The LGBT trafficking link doesn't actually go to anything Binaryhazard (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Crossdresser under gender identities?
I don't think there is much basis for putting crossdresser in the list of gender identities. This is not saying I'm against crossdressers or trying to start an argument over trans purity; it's just that if someone asks a crossdresser their gender, they are likely to say "male" or "female" rather than "crossdresser." Crossdressers can be cis men, cis women, non-binary people, and it's not even completely unheard-of for trans people to crossdress to their assigned sexes, though it is uncommon.

On an unrelated note, the phrase "gender identity" is redundant and should just be changed to "gender." Jan sewi (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Jan sewi, I'm not sure about removing "crossdresser." I guess it was added to that portion of the template because it is commonly listed as an identity under the transgender umbrella.


 * As for changing "gender identity" to "gender," I disagree. We have a Gender article and a Gender identity article and they are not WP:Redundant forks. "Gender" is the broader category while "gender identity" is specifically about what gender one identifies as. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether crossdressers fit under the "trans* umbrella" is a matter of tiresome and pedantic debate, but they are in no way a gender identity, and I don't think any of them would even argue that they are. Crossdressers are normally either cis men or cis women, though they are sometimes trans people crossdressing as their assigned sex. Jan sewi (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, crossdressing is an action, sometimes even a profession, or habit, but not a statement about a person's gender. People might identify as crossdressers the same way they identify as a political activist, but being a crossdresser or a political activist says nothing about your gender. On the other hand, being a trans woman, a cis woman, a non-binary person, etc., is a clear statement of gender identity. Jan sewi (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Jan sewi, you can ask WP:LGBT to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposing that 'crossdresser' be moved out of 'gender identities' to 'Culture'
I think 'Crossdresser' would fit better under Culture than under gender identities, and would like to move it there if no one objects. Jan sewi (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding: if you notice, "drag king" and "drag queen" are already part of that section, and these are simply professional forms of crossdressing. Jan sewi (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with that. And while we're on the topic, I don't think that "gender neutrality" really fits in the Gender identities section. Sure, it concerns gender identity, but the topic of identifying as "gender neutral" is covered at the Genderqueer article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to disagree, but then I saw the article in question, and I completely agree. It's not talking about a gender identity. And people are way more likely to identify as "agender" than "gender neutral" anyway. Jan sewi (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

To keep the "gender neutrality" issue on the sideline for now, I am really not sure how to feel about moving Crossdresser in this manner. I think it's really 50/50, as someone who has met people who identify as a 'crossdresser' specifically. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about it, though, and even when people identify specifically as a crossdresser, this is more so as a "woman who crossdresses as a man" or vice versa rather than a specific gender identity. I, uhm, don't think it matters too much. Now if the article was called "Crossdressing", it would be pretty clear what to do. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, a person who identifies as a "woman who dresses as a man," they are specifically identifying as a woman, even if they might identify with the act of crossdressing as well, or even list it as their gender sometimes. Inherent to the idea of being a crossdresser is that you consider yourself a member of one gender but dress as some other gender, which makes it vastly different from everything else subsumed under gender identities, where the article is specifically about people considering themselves (or others considering them) to be members of a specific gender. Jan sewi (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I was trying to communicate, yeah. Whether this means 'gender identities' or 'culture' is more proper is subjective, I think. I'm fairly neutral on the topic. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's as subjective as anything else that relates to language I guess, but "woman," "man," and "non-binary" all refer to single and specific genders that people identify themselves as members of, whereas "crossdresser" refers to someone who considers themselves a member of one gender (which may be woman, man, non-binary, etc.) but dresses as another. The second is not the same as the first by any stretch of the imagination. Jan sewi (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see how "non-binary" can be a "single and specific gender". The plural phrase "non-binary genders" is often seen. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant to say that every non-binary gender is a single and specific gender; I'm sorry that it wasn't clear. It's really not the point anyway. The point is that non-binary genders are all genders, and crossdresser is usually not a gender.
 * When someone says they have a non-binary gender, they are making a statement about their gender identity, whereas when someone says they are a cross-dresser, they are just saying that they don't always dress like a member of their gender identity.
 * Similarly if I said I was gay, that would say nothing about my gender identity; you can't read anything about my gender into the word "gay" whatsoever. That's because being gay doesn't say anything about your gender; it just says you like members of your gender. Crossdresser is closer to this than it is to a gender identity; both are carried out as a function of gender identity ("if man and gay then attracted to men"; "if man and crossdresser then dresses as non-man"), but are not gender identities in their own right. I hope that makes sense. Jan sewi (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Maplestrip, you stated, "Now if the article was called 'Crossdressing', it would be pretty clear what to do." But the article is called "Cross-dressing"; so I take it that you more so meant how the article is listed on the template? In any case, Jan sewi made the change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving "gender neutrality" out of gender identities
As pointed out when we were talking about crossdressing, gender neutrality is not really a gender identity; it's being confused I think with agender and other non-binary identities. Even if some people might list their gender identity as "gender neutral," that is not what the article is about; it's about inclusive language and other anti-discriminatory practices. I suggest moving it to "LGBT rights topics" under "Rights / Legal issues." Jan sewi (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Wikified "gender neutrality" Jan sewi (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about it being listed under a rights issue; I mean, the bathroom topic is complicated, and even a number transgender people don't agree with other transgender people on matters such as that. But, yeah, feel free to make the edit. It is sometimes a rights or legal issue, after all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2017 [from LGBT sidebar]
Please revert 2603:3003:3600:7E00:68A4:44D3:56C1:B018 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2017 (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. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Why was the flag changed? [from LGBT sidebar]
Question in title. There seems to have been no discussion on this. Tech12 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The decision to change the official flag for the "Philadelphia City" is arbitrary. There are no sources that indicate that there is consensus in LGTB organizations that this new flag will be adopted, therefore the change should be reverted to the rainbow flag. --Cardnewman (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I'll change it back. Tech12 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Asexuality [from LGBT sidebar]
Is asexuality a part of the LGBT? The articles (LGBT history, LGBT community) do not say anything about asexuality. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

LGBT charity GLAAD seem to think that they are (https://www.glaad.org/blog/asexual-agender-aromantic), the book "Asexuality and Sexual Normativity: An Anthology" also links the two (p60), the book "LGBT Psychology and Mental Health: Emerging Research and Advances" also ties asexuality into the LGBTQ+ community (P122),both of which are academic books. I think there is enough to back putting asexuality in sexual orientations and is part of the LGBT community. I will add it back in, if there are no sourced objections, when I am able to get on account. By the way, I am Welsh Socialist (talk--88.110.31.219 (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018 [from LGBT sidebar]
MaisyDaisy (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2018 (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. —   IVORK  Discuss 02:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Detransition as identity [from LGBT sidebar]
I added cisgender and detransitioner to the identities section of this template. Another user left cisgender there but moved detransitioner to the healthcare section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LGBT_sidebar&oldid=882078649) with the note "not an identity - just going back to cisgender". While I appreciate not striking the additions, and I'm not at this time reverting the move, I must ask that this editor and other editors not dismiss detransitioners as "just cisgender", and not dismiss detransitioners' needs as "medical" only. Detransitioners are a unique and emergent identity group, whose experiences, perspectives, and needs aren't limited to healthcare (but also include great legal and social challenges). Most detransitioners are gender-conformists. Most become gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Many refuse the labels of cisgender, transgender, and non-binary (while some do adopt these). Please do not dismiss this group's right to self-identify. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sidebar templates link to major topics, but there's no article on a "detransitioner" identity, and one seems unlikely to meet general notability guidelines, in part because the phenomenon is so exceedingly rare and, as you note, new. Even the article on the process of detransition faces a dearth of high-quality medical sources, as discussed at length on its talk page. I had removed it from this sidebar because this (broader-LGNT) sidebar omitted transition-related articles (on transition and on reassignment surgery and therapy); if we are going to link as obscure a topic as detransition here, I will add the transition links. -sche (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no independent, direct, empirical evidence that detransition is "exceedingly rare", and (as I've stated multiple times on Talk:Detransition) I wish you'd stop making such claim, please. I agree that acknowledgment of detransitioners' existence is new. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Detransitioners
In this diff, a user removed detransitioners, claiming "not a notable gender identity". This same user has similarly attempted to deny the existence of the detrans community in this talk page diff for the linked page.

Detransitioners are indeed a marginalized community within the LGBT+. Over the last decade, they've struggled for healthcare and legal assistance. They've tweeted and blogged and vlogged and formed online support groups and gathered secretly in person. In the last two to three years, the media has begun to take notice, as shown by the increase in news coverage, increase in Google Trends, and the backlash of those who continue to seek to deny and erase their existence.

Please let's re-include this link here. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Following the suggestion of another editor, I've added it instead to the more generic "related" section instead of the "gender id" section. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)