Wikipedia:No queerphobia

Many people are drawn to edit Wikipedia in order to promote anti-LGBT views, mistakenly believing that their beliefs are protected by the WP:NPOV policy. Expressions of homophobia, lesbophobia, gayphobia, biphobia, transphobia, arophobia, acephobia, or general queerphobia are not welcome here. They disrupt the encyclopedia by promoting WP:FRINGE viewpoints and drive away productive LGBT editors.

The essay WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE lays out why denigrating minorities is not allowed on Wikipedia and results in blocking and banning; others such as No racists, No Nazis, and No Confederates lay out more specific guidelines for those forms of bigotry; this essay specifically serves to outline common anti-LGBT beliefs, disruptive manifestations of them, and the systems of recourse on English Wikipedia.

Context of this essay
Discussions have raged on for decades about how Wikipedia should write about LGBT people and topics. Gender and sexuality (WP:GENSEX) are currently considered a contentious topic (formerly "discretionary sanctions"), meaning that editors contributing to articles and discussions about these topics must strictly follow Wikipedia's behavioral and editorial guidelines. MOS:GENDERID and the supplementary essay MOS:GIDINFO contain the most up-to-date guidelines for writing about transgender people on Wikipedia.

Anti-LGBT editors frequently disrupt Wikipedia by promoting misinformation or pushing fringe viewpoints (particularly dangerous in medical articles), and create an unwelcoming environment for other editors. Editors who are unable to set aside their beliefs about the LGBT community when editing or who seek to promote WP:FRINGE viewpoints may be restricted from editing.

This essay outlines common queerphobic beliefs, popular misinformation about the LGBT community, and groups known to spread and support it, so that administrators and editors may recognize them, address them, and show queerphobes the door.

Arbitration remedy history

 * In 2013 in the Sexology case (WP:ARBSEX) the arbitration committee authorized discretionary sanctions for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia). In 2014 this was updated to all pages dealing with said topics
 * In 2013 ArbCom had the Manning naming dispute case (WP:ARBMND) which found The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology or (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender
 * In 2015, the Gamergate case (WP:ARBGG) authorized discretionary sanctions stating Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case. This superseded ARBSEX and WP:ARBMND was updated accordingly.
 * In 2021, arbcom created the Gender and sexuality case (WP:GENSEX) as a shell for authorizing discretionary sanctions for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people., including WP:GAMERGATE and WP:ARBMND. In 2022, WP:GENSEX was amended to Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people are designated as a contentious topic.

Beliefs, expressions, and actions
This essay and sister essays such as WP:NORACISTS, WP:NOCONFED, and WP:NONAZIS face a common criticism: "we should sanction editors for their behaviors, not their beliefs".

This is not an unfair argument so it bears exploration. The essay Hate is disruptive addresses the issue like this (emphasis added): So bigots can edit here? Sure, if they edit without engaging in any hate speech or hateful conduct (which includes self-identification with hate movements). While this will be impossible for many bigots, presumably some number do manage this, people who write articles about botany without letting on that they think the Holocaust was a hoax, or fix lots of typos and never mention that they think it was a mistake to let women vote. Wikipedia policy does not concern itself with people's private views. The disruption caused by hateful conduct lies in the expression, not the belief.

The flip side of this is true too: If someone uses a bunch of racial slurs because they think it's funny, or posts an edgy statement about gay people on their userpage as a "social experiment", they are engaged in disruptive editing, even if they don't personally harbor hateful views.

This essay is based on that underlying principle, put succinctly as "your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins". If you believe LGBT people are amoral deviants who need conversion therapy, but practice civility, never bring it up, and solely contribute to articles about entomology and highways, you have nothing to worry about and your contributions to Wikipedia are welcomed. This essay isn't about you. If you try to change the first sentence of LGBT to All LGBT people are amoral deviants who need conversion therapy...—or insist on talk pages that this is the case and Wikipedia needs to take your POV seriously—that is a behavioral issue and the focus of this essay.

Queerphobic beliefs
Queerphobia is the fear, hatred, or dislike of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise queer people. Queerphobes commonly believe that LGBT people and identities are deviant, and should be denied rights and protections.

Frequent anti-LGBT narratives

 * That being LGBT is unnatural or a conscious choice.
 * That LGBT people are inherently fetishistic, predatory, pedophilic, or otherwise dangerous.
 * That the LGBT community or a subset of it are indoctrinating or grooming youth into being LGBT.
 * That LGBT people overall have greater societal power than cisgender/heterosexual people.
 * That marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples.
 * That recognizing same-sex marriage is a slippery slope towards legalizing bestiality or other strange or disfavored sexual practices.
 * That the open or subtextual presence of LGBT people or acknowledgment of them is inappropriately sexual or political and should be kept from the public square, media, or education.
 * That public spaces such as offices or schools should not protect LGBT people from bullying, deadnaming, and misgendering.
 * That LGBT (and intersex people's) rights are not human rights or LGBT people are requesting "special rights".
 * That people turn transgender due to "gender ideology".
 * That LGBT people should be forced to undergo medical or psychological treatments, procedures, or testing on the basis of their identity.
 * That transgender people should be unable to change their legal gender, should be invariably excluded from gendered spaces, or should be legally denied medical transition or have it otherwise made inaccessible.

Common misconceptions
Overlapping with the narratives and beliefs above are more medically-related misconceptions, often associated with pseudoscientific/unevidenced proposals and typologies. The guideline WP:FRINGE addresses how to handle these in article space. In short, we don't include them in articles on the broader topic, but if notable we can discuss them in their own articles while making clear they're fringe).

Some of these common misconceptions include:
 * That being LGBT is a mental illness or disorder.
 * That LGBT identities can be cured, treated, or suppressed - commonly referred to as conversion therapy, advocates often use terms such as reparative therapy or gender exploratory therapy and may justify it in scientific or religious terms.
 * The belief that "transition" always implies a full medical transition. In reality, transition is a slow process that involves many steps, several of which involve no medical intervention at all. The process starts with these non-medical steps, and includes regular check-ups to evaluate the outcome of every step.
 * The belief that medical transition commonly occurs in children. This is also false because in many cases, these types of interventions physically cannot be performed on children. Where transition occurs in children, it invariably refers to social transition, which is completely reversible.
 * That LGBT people, particularly youth, have become LGBT through media exposure, peer pressure, or social contagion. This narrative is often repeated as if it were a serious scientific theory, but in reality it has never had any scientific support, as explained in detail here.

Frequent arguments brought by queerphobic editors on Wikipedia

 * That pushing anti-LGBT narratives is protected by free speech or the neutral point of view policy.
 * That misgendering transgender subjects or consistently using their deadname is necessary to preserve a neutral point of view, "biological reality" or "the historical record". (See MOS:GENDERID for the current consensus on how to deal with pronouns in BLPs; see here for the most recent consensus regarding the use of deadnames for dead people.)
 * That LGBT editors have an inherent conflict of interest or are unable to write neutrally on LGBT-related topics because they are LGBT.

Possible manifestations
These beliefs may manifest in various ways that damage the encyclopedia. Below is a non-exhaustive list of possible ones.
 * WP:TENDENTIOUS promotion of WP:FRINGE viewpoints about the LGBT community, commonly civil POV-pushing.
 * Hostility toward other editors, such as consistently treating LGBT editors as biased, or refusing to gender them correctly.
 * Denigrating comments about the LGBT community in articles and talk space, often through the use of dog whistles and/or phrases serving to delegitimize transgender people (e.g. calling trans women "males masquerading as females").
 * Userboxes or userpages expressing anti-LGBT sentiments (e.g. a userbox with the text "This user Hate LGBT").
 * Deadnaming or misgendering article subjects, or arguing against using their current pronouns in violation of Wikipedia's MOS:GENDERID guidelines.

What to do if you encounter queerphobia
You should always assume good faith and exercise civility. However, our social policies are not a suicide pact; we don't have to treat every harmful edit as the result of non-malicious ignorance.

For a new editor, understand that they are likely ignorant of Wikipedia systems and standards. Point them toward relevant guidelines and policies. If they are editing material related to gender identification, make them aware of the GENSEX topic restrictions via the or  templates. If they are arguing against the guidelines, make it clear that you can't change the guidelines in an article discussion and direct them toward where such discussions can take place.

If an editor consistently and chronically disrupts the encyclopedia by promoting queerphobic opinions/viewpoints, you should collect relevant diffs and report them. If an editor was already made aware of the GENSEX topic restrictions, then you can request enforcement at WP:AE. Otherwise, request administrator attention at WP:ANI.

Editors brazenly vandalizing articles or using slurs may be immediately blocked. Wikipedia has zero tolerance for such behavior. If an edit is grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive, it may be subject to revision deletion. If an edit breaches someone's privacy, you should request Oversight.

It can be very tempting, especially in article talk pages, to debate or rebut anti-LGBT talking points on their own merits. However, remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Stick to source-based and policy-based discussions which serve to improve articles. If a conversation is blatantly unconstructive or off-topic, then consider collapsing, refactoring, or moving it so that you and other editors don't waste others' time.

Sister essays

 * Hate is disruptive
 * No Nazis
 * No racists
 * No Confederates

Sociological context

 * Movements and ideologies
 * 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States
 * Anti-gender movement
 * List of anti-LGBTQ hate groups
 * Gender-critical feminism
 * Anti-LGBT rhetoric
 * Bathroom bill
 * Deadnaming
 * Gay mafia
 * Homosexual recruitment
 * "LGBT ideology"
 * LGBT and Wikipedia
 * LGBT conspiracy theories
 * AIDS denial
 * Drag panic
 * Gay agenda
 * Gay frogs conspiracy theory
 * Grooming conspiracy theory
 * Homosexual seduction
 * Litter boxes in schools hoax
 * Disputed medical concepts
 * Conversion therapy
 * Blanchard's transsexualism typology
 * Rapid-onset gender dysphoria