User talk:Xaosflux/UBX/Sexuality

Wikipedia is the new MySpace
GASP.

Hehe. ;) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  04:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Theoretically, userboxes are meant to be used to bring Wikipedians with similar interests together so that they have the potential to create better articles.--  Akako  |  &#9742;  21:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is great! The thing with userpages is that we (editors/sysops/readers) are always interested in knowing more about those we interact with; here is a way that people can easily post some of that information in a transferable form. --Vamp:Willow 22:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. I was joking around. :)


 * I made quite a few of the templates myself if you look at the histories. As well as the Latex, leather and BDSM flag. ;) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  02:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So's that mean we should start posting half-naked userpics now? Man, I don't wanna get the camera back out... o.o; Kylu t 05:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage Boxes
I added a bit of a note about it to the talk page on Template:User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User samesexmarried, but I just wanted to add here that there are intentional choices to be made for gendered and non-gendered same-sex-married boxes, and I just wanted to put in my two cents that they please be left put together in such a way that a user can choose to reveal their gender or not with them.

New name?
Would anyone be opposed to changing the name from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexual orientation, gender and status to just Wikipedia:Sexuality? It would make the title much more concise and easier, and the subtitle could explain what was in the caregory, ie:

Current: ''Userboxes/Sexual orientation, gender and status, for sexual orientation, gender and status.

My Proposal: Userboxes/Sexuality, for sexual orientation, gender and status.

Opinions? I'm posting this same topic on the main discussion page, so you can discuss there too. Morgan695


 * I support. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User autosexual and User pansexual
I created these two userboxes, and when I went to put an image in the sidebox, I couldn't find one. Does anyone know where one could find an autosexual or pansexual pride flag/symbol/image, or does such a thing even exist? Morgan695 18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Autosexual and pansexual are joke-terms, and not real movements. --Revolución (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pansexual is a term for bisexuality and autosexuality is a preference for masturbation over intercourse. Not sure where to find images, try Google image search. - Koweja 05:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

anti-gay?
I don't want to start any fights or arguments, but can someone make an anti-gay userbox. schyler 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Anti-gay" is a bit too vague (to the point of being humorous). If such a template is to be made (which might not be a bad idea), there would probably have to be different templates distinguishing between people who consider homosexual intercourse to be sinful or immoral (such a view is surprisingly common) and people who actually think that homosexuals themselves are evil or somesuch (assuming the latter is even necessary). Also, you may be interested in user marriage man-woman, which is the closest thing to such a template that we currently have listed, even though it only focuses on one area of LGBT rights. Anyway, if you could be more specific in what exactly you're looking for, I'm sure someone could oblige. Also remember that you can always make your own userbox in the userspace, or a subst'd one, for personal use on your own page, since if your view is nuanced or unusual enough it may not fit a general-usage userbox. -Silence 04:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking an all-around kind of userbox. Like "this user think being gay or a lesbian is immoral and/or just plain gross. Also, I was thinking it could look like this:



But with the lesbian flag on the left and it has a circle and cross out and it has that other text in there. schyler 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So, like:

 Feel free to copy and paste this code to Template:User antigay or another appropriate name. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. The no symbol is a bit sloppy-looking close-up, but it looks fine at the size it's at, so not a big deal. Again, though, I recommend changing homosexuality to homosexual intercourse (or having both the above template's wording and this wording provided in two different templates), simply because 9 out of 10 of the people I've debated with on this issue have expressed quite clearly the latter view, and not the former. Such a view is more based on religious beliefs than instinctive homophobia, and could probably have a more general sister template, "This user believes in sex for the sake of reproduction alone" (and a counter-template, "This user believes in sex for the sake of pleasure"). I like the idea of creating some templates like this, to help open the Sexuality page up to more general sex-related issues, and not have it purely be a list of LGBT subcultures and terminology. And I'm always eagr to make templates dealing with popular POVs that I disagree with; makes finding debate partners (not to mention finding people to help on Wikipedia articles regarding these issues!) easier. -Silence 14:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

'''PLEASE do NOT create this template. It is incivil and a personal attack, and is likely to be speedy deleted.''' Ian13ID:540053 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is no more incivil than "this user opposes racism", on Userboxes/Beliefs. There's no law against having negative opinions of something; this would be a boring, stale world indeed if everyone only had positive views, if support was OK ("The EU is great!"), but opposition ("I'm not so hot about the EU") was not. As long as we word the article in the same clear, concise, simple way we word most other userboxes, as a simple statement of what the person who uses it believes, I see no problem with making a template such as this. We should not base which templates we allow or don't allow on what views are popular (in the sense of "well-liked", not in the sense of "commonly believed") or unpopular (even when that unpopularity is due to the views being incorrect, bigoted, and ultimately harmful and destructive, rather than for more arbitrary reasons); it's still a value judgment on a person's beliefs, which is fine to make in a debate, but silly to make in terms of a person merely trying to describe their own views and preferences, almost like censoring userpages). And it's not a "personal attack" because it's not targeted at a person; it's targeted at a specific sexual behavior in the version I recommended, and at a specific sexual orientation in the version the others seem to like. Not only does it not target any individuals, but it doesn't even directly target a group (just as the "this user opposes racism" template targets a belief, not a group of people and certainly not an individual). I think that the possible controversy it might stir up to allow people to identify by a view which is deeply wrong but nonetheless very common is outweighed by the effect of demonstrating so clearly that creating userboxes is not a matter of saying "we like this group" or "Wikipedians should be that group", but simple a way for individual users to make clear what they like without anyone harrassing them for it. Being tolerant of the intolerant (which means, note well, "letting them say what they believe", not "don't criticize them"!) is one of the hardest things for a reasonable person to do, but it's ultimately necessary for the sake of an open dialogue on these issues, and ultimately beneficial to the Wikipedia project not only in that it gives us immediate access to people who hold very unusual, cut-off-from-reality views that may be helpful in understanding and contributing to articles on those topics, but also in that it shows that people can hold horribly false, ignorant views and not have to hide them in order to contribute to Wikipedia and participate fully in this community of human beings seeking to improve by bits and pieces the knowledge of mankind. It's people like that who need the knowledge the most, after all. So, tell these people you disagree with them, but don't tell them they can't say in an obnoxious, brightly-colored box the thing you disagree with them for. :)  -Silence 18:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is it is likely to easily cause offence. If I was gay, people making judgements about my sexual behaviour may offend me. I am suggesting here, but don't add it, would you agree with a userbox which says 'This user hates all jews'? Offencive userboxes are commonly deleted at TfD, and I would nominate any userbox which I feel would offend. It has been said that only positive userboxes, or neutral ones should be used, and that it should not directly oppose a user. I personally know no-one that would be offended by it being infered that racism is wrong, and legal laws agree with this, therefore I see it as exempt. Ian13ID:540053 19:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is it is likely to easily cause offence. - Lots of things are likely to cause offense. Something isn't unethical or harmful just because it's offensive; in fact, some of the best movements and thoughts in human history have been deeply, horribly offensive to people at the time. Qualifying something as being wrong because it's offensive is faulty thinking: rather, it's offensive because it's wrong. I have no doubt that user atheist causes offense to tens of thousands of people in the world, as shown by the popularity of anti-atheist sentiment. But offensiveness in itself is not reason to censor a common viewpoint from being a userbox, just as being right or wrong isn't a reason. Our only concerns should be (1) whether the view is common enough to be a useful distinction to make (if only two people in the world have any problems with homosexuality, the template won't be at all useful), and (2) whether the view is significant and noteworthy enough to make a difference in anyone's life (so "I hate it when I jam my thumb in a door", though a common view, probably won't make a good userbox because it doesn't tell us much about the person using it). A userbox for people who, for religious, cultural, personal, or psychological reasons, have an irrational hatred, fear, or resentment for homosexuality or homosexual intercourse, will satisfy both of those requirements, so I'm A-OK with one (or a few, to represent the most common nuances) being made.
 * "I am suggesting here, but don't add it, would you agree with a userbox which says 'This user hates all jews'? - I don't plan to add it, but if anyone else did add it, my only problems with it would be (1) that it's poorly worded and vague (so, a rewrite is in order, perhaps "This user is an antisemite."), (2) that it is unfair to other religious bigots (so perhaps we should just make a general template for people who oppose a specific religion, and have a blank space where people can fill in their own personal religion, so something like "Scientology" would produce "This user opposes the religion Scientology", just as an example; we already have several templates for people who oppose all religions, like user antireligion, so it's not that big of a jump to make, and indeed a few for people who specifically oppose Scientology, so I don't see any huge, overwhelming problem that would be caused by letting a few silly idiots say what specific religions they are opposed to), and (3) that it may not see much use (though I could certainly be very wrong on this; it might actually be interesting to find out how prevalent self-described antisemites are on Wikipedia, if only as a thought exercise), whereas we know that an anti-homosexuality template will get plenty of use (and have, indeed, already gotten one request for such a template, which in itself shows that there's a demand not being met; there's never been a request for anti-semitic templates, on the other hand, and the only antisemite templates that have been created in the past have been to make a point). So, I don't see it as a horribly bad idea to have such a userbox around someday. Users can already express such views on their user page anyway, as long as they don't violate any of Wikipedia's general rules (like avoiding personal attacks against any specific Jews or homosexuals); providing a box for it won't cause any real harm.
 * One important thing to keep in mind is that the way to deal with hateful views like these is not to say "You can't say that! Bad bad bad!"; forbidding people to express certain opinions won't make them stop thinking those opinions, or acting on them. Instead, the proper way to respond is to let people speak their mind, and then to respond to them in a reasoned, intelligent way, explaining why they are wrong, and then let them do with that information as they wish. As long as they don't try to POV-push or vandalize Wikipedia to support their agenda (in which case the template would just make it easier to identify them anyway, thus still not causing any harm), simply having such views doesn't, and expressing them doesn't change whether you have them or not, so if anything, it benefits everyone to let these people say what they think in systematized boxes. People like this will still exist even if you try to shut your eyes and plug up your ears until they go away; we should acknowledge and deal with the reality, and let them be open about it, so actual discussions can happen and we maintain an open environment that is accepting of users with all forms of ideological views, as long as their intent is to help and benefit the encyclopedia to the best of their ability. And, again, to try to keep this on-topic, we're still on Wikipedia having this discussion. Wikipedia is benefited by knowing which users have certain views because it allows us to easily access people with unusual opinions on various issues when we want information on sources, context, and specific views from the ideologies they belong to. Whether those ideologies are right or wrong, offensive or inoffensive, is irrelevant; just as Wikipedia's information is not censored based on whether or not something is "offensive" or not, just based on whether it's useful, informative, and accurate, userpages should be as informative as possible (and as the users themselves are comfortable with, of course), even when not all of that information is palatable. -Silence 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was implying that I suggested not to make the template for anti-gays. And an anti-jewish one was created, and swiftly speedied. But I ask you this, on your first view of Wikipedia, would you like to be faced with a colourful box stating "This user thinks hetrosexuality is immoral or just plain yuck" (or whatever the anti-gay one was). I personally find your anti-gay template much more immoral than an anti-hetrosexuality one. Ian13ID:540053 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And in reply to your censoring comments. I am against censorship, but under limitations. There is no need to offend people with your comments, just because you have them. I could go and slap "I hate all block-skinned people" over my userpage, but even if I did believe that, it would cause much offence and possibly law-breaking, so I wouldn't. Ian13ID:540053 19:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a lesbian and I created the example template and would support its continued existence. I also created Template:User marriage man-woman.  The template, as I designed it, is most certainly NOT uncivil or a personal attack.  People can make pacifist templates stating their moral opposition to war without it being considered a personal attack on soldiers.  There are already tons of templates on this page promoting acceptance of homosexuality, and I think that it would be extremely unfair to quash the opposing view.  I believe that many Wikipedia articles related to homosexuality are biased towards gay-rights-activists' perspective and I think the users of this template could help rectify that problem. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, though ideally we would rectify the problem with neutral parties, not with people who merely have the opposite bias. :) Exchanging one bias for another isn't the way to go. But I agree in principle; belief userboxes are much more useful than non-belief userboxes, because they actually give information on what assumptions users are running on in their editing, contributions and discussions, whereas stuff like "this user has a pet goldfish" and "this user likes to eat at Taco Bell" rarely give useful information (though they are fun). -Silence 00:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be here. I think that's a political or religious statement. Not something that belongs in Sexuality. --Revolución (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to delete this page
Apparently this page has been flaged for deletion at least twice in the past week. Is there a legitamate reason for this, or is someone just being overly sensitive about the topic of sex/sexuality (or perhaps just trying to be disruptive)? If it is legit reason, and a debate is called for, let me be the first to vote KEEP. People are just expressing who they are with these boxes, no different than announcing what country your from, what language you speak, or your religion.


 * I believe that the rationale behind suggesting the deletion of this page is that there is very little difference between the sort of templates that are "acceptable" on this page and templates like Template:User homosexual-no and Template:User pedophile, which some users have found very upsetting. (Also see the Signpost article explaining the extreme controversy over the pedophile userboxes.) It could also simply be an expression of the view that userbox templates are unnecessarily divisive and do not help us to write an encyclopedia. However, none of this makes the page a candidate for speedy deletion. Does that help?- AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 05:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why I put a deletion tag on it. But I never get into revert wars, so don't worry about me adding it again. I think the encyclopedia is better without user sexuality user boxes. I'm sure many disagree. WAS 4.250 05:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggesting putting the page up for deletion, but I am relatively sure the consensus would be to keep at this point, so I don't see any point in adding fuel to the fire in the userbox discussion. I was originally a userbox supporter but have now changed my mind; perhaps others will, too. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 05:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, however unless there is a widespread deletion of all non-encyclopedia/wiki related userboxes (such as ones making political statements), then I really can't see a reason for deleting sexuality based ones (or a chance of it happening). Personally I think we should keep the userboxes as they are, but that's an arguement for somewhere else. - Koweja 06:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

same sex marriage userbox
Has


 * I don't really know for a fact, but it looks to me like vandalism. Most proper deleters would go and remove links, wouldn't they? ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 17:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality signs
Does anyone find it all wierd that the userboxes to identify homosexuality are the same as those used during the Holocaust? I just thought it was a little bit improper. Retinarow 15:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's what the majority of homosexuals prefer to use for self-identification. It's in part an attempt to appropriate potentially derogatory symbols and create positive connotations for them, much like "gay" and "queer" are widely used despite their potentially offensive connotations, in an attempt to prevent the words from becoming slurs. -Silence 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Generic" Single
New ubx, also listed in "Wikipedians by marital status" category, for those of us who are single, advertising the fact, yet uninterested in proclaiming a specific gender to the world (which would invite come-ons)... I don't, however, see where there's a category aggregate listed for the other userboxes. I might however be missing the point. :) Anyway, pester me if I made a gigantic blunder, hm? :D

lilewyn 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. I wouldn't use it, but I like the idea. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]  nath a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W) 08:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why, thank ya! *happy hop* Kylu t 17:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (yesh, I'm lilewyn)

circumcision userbox
What happened to the circumcision userbox? Dan Asad 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was speedy deleted as "divisive." Admins these days like to declare that things are "clearly" this or that, without seeking consensus. Tomyumgoong 03:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dare I ask what graphic was used in that userbox? Kylu t 05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The pink and blue ribbon associated with Genital integrity was the image employed. It was certainly not a divisive image.  Tomyumgoong 09:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You can always contest the deletion here. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]  nath a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W) 21:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply, Tomyumgoong! I appreciate it! *goes to read that article now* Kylu t 22:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I sort of doubt that such a contest would stand, given the recent consesus to keep the "same sex marriage" and "no same sex marriage" userboxes deleted. If another of the few dozen people who used this box wish to contest its deletion, I'll chime in. Tomyumgoong 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which... any opinions on either remarking out or deleting the entries for those two userboxes if they're just going to be deadlinked permenantly? ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC) (Yes, the sig will settle soon)

I wish that there were a userbox in favor of genital integrity. Nick, 16:54, 1 May 2008, (UTC)

S and M
are there any slave and master boxes? ♥sailor cuteness-ready for love♥ 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed you had a userbox for submissives. Is it possible for you to create a userbox for kinky Wikipedians who are dominant. I picture the same colours used in the submissive userbox, but a different picture. Probably showing some sort of whip, paddle or other sex toy. ISD 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Antfeminist userbox
Isn't it a bit ironic that the antifeminist userbox has a female sign? And also, why does it denote that the user is a strong supporter of antifeminism? Faustus Tacitus 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate userboxes.
Hey, there are some duplicate userboxes that I think that should be deleted under the sexual orientation.

--Wolfdog1 (soon to be Wolfdog406) (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They are duplicates but they are in different locations. So if 1 gets deleted for whatever reason, the other is still available. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)