Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-06-08/Essay


 * "Possible manifestations" include "userboxes or userpages expressing anti-LGBT sentiments" and an example of these sentiments is the belief "that being LGBT is a conscious choice"? Apparently everything in this world is socially and personally determined, except sexual orientation, which is purely biological and an innate, intrinsic characteristic of a person.As Jane Ward notes in Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men, what’s interesting about many of these claims is how transparent their speakers are with their political motivations. “Such statements,” she writes, “infuse biological accounts with an obligatory and nearly coercive force, suggesting that anyone who describes homosexual desire as a choice or social construction is playing into the hands of the enemy.” People who challenge the Born This Way narrative are often cast as homophobic, and their thinking is considered backward – even if they are themselves gay.—BBC, 2016. One would hope this harebrained "essay" remains that instead of being used as a catechism to root out heretics, but that's not how these things work out in the end. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 14:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what nonsense exactly you're pushing here. Plenty of personal characteristics are inherent and biological in nature. Hence why they are frequently protected characteristics in legal systems around the world. Sexual orientation and attraction is inherent and while some amount of specifics of attraction might be socially determined, such as liking larger or smaller body types, there isn't evidence that the gender of who one is attracted to is socially influenced. There is literally decades of scientific research showcasing this. So, again, not sure what sort of fringe nonsense you're arguing for here. Silver  seren C 17:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't "decades of evidence" to show that sexuality is "inherent". There's evidence to show that there's a genetic *component* to it, but you wouldn't argue that gender is something inherent to one's biology simply because it's highly correlated with one's biology? Yelling "fringe" seems to be the theme of this essay, but much of it's not supported by any actual evidence. Pulling up Springer, the first result on the subject I got: If in the past the scientific interest revolved around the question of “nature or nurture,” the current theories of sexology, which are placed in a sociological, biological, psychological, and social perspective, recognize the multifactorial nature of sexual orientation.—Sexuality and Sexual Orientation in the Twenty-First Century. A far cry from "there isn't evidence that the gender of who one is attracted to is socially influenced". TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My head boggles at the idea that someone could argue that the gender one is attracted to does not have a social component, while also arguing that gender itself is somewhat/largely social determined, or that it is a purely social concept. This is absurd a priori, before any "scientific evidence" needs to be called upon. Oh well. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re confusing multiple topics to try and make your argument. The social component of attraction is obviously separate and quite often maladaptive to the individual, so the argument you’re making is having the opposite result of what you intended.  Nobody wants to hear personal anecdotes, but I will share them anyway.  When I grew up in the 1970s, gay men and women would often marry and have families with straight men and women because they were forced to hide for their own safety; this was also the only way they could have children at the time.  It wasn’t until the late 1980s in the US that people started coming out of these marriages, and it wasn’t until the late 1990s that it was accepted.  By the 2000s, the right wing began formulating their aggressive attack on gay people to force them back into the closet.  Your argument, whether you intended it or not, appears to support this position. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is discussed at length in the BBC article in the first post and this paper, whether certain beliefs about the nature of homosexuality lead to greater acceptance or not. The conclusion seems to be that it doesn't matter much one way or another. But I don't think any of that is relevant here: Wikipedia isn't meant to be the propaganda arm of a social justice movement, righting great wrongs. What opinions one should express, what content one should add to articles should be based on what the sources say, not what is beneficial to the social justice movement, or what "plays into the hands of rightwing movements" etc etc.The essay seems to call for disallowing anyone to express something that is now widely recognised in academia: that there's a social and personal component to sexual orientation. This kind of ideological rigidity and gaslighting of anyone who doesn't want to fall in line ("fringe!!!") in the face of obvious evidence cannot possibly be good for something that is meant to be an encyclopaedia. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 00:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood the 2007 paper you cited. I don’t see how it has anything to do with this subject.  Regarding the essay in question, you wrote, "The essay seems to call for disallowing anyone to express something that is now widely recognised in academia: that there's a social and personal component to sexual orientation.". I don’t see anything in the essay saying that, and the social and personal component you pointed to in the paper is not the one we are discussing. Not sure if you are intentionally misreading and misunderstanding or if this is on purpose to push a POV as others have said.  Maybe take a step back and review the recent literature. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me what you're trying to say, if you want to make a point, just go ahead and say it. The 2007 paper is investigates the connection between the etiology of homosexuality and public acceptance of it. In some polls and studies of heterosexual people's attributions for homosexuality, it has been demonstrated that when individuals believe that homosexuality is a matter of personal choice, their attitudes toward gay men and lesbians tend to be more negative, whereas more positive attitudes toward gay men and lesbians are associated with attributing homosexuality to something people are “born with”. I assumed this is the point you were trying to make: that implying homosexuality can be a choice is akin to wanting to force gay people "back in the closet". If this isn't what you meant, I apologise.The first response to my comment asserted that there isn't evidence that the gender of who one is attracted to is socially influenced and implied that any assertion otherwise is "fringe". The essay seeks to smear as "queerphobic" and thus disallow this, or at least the more specific assertion that being LGBT can be a choice (at least for some people). But the scientific evidence does not support this claim. My opposition is to this part of the essay. I hope I'm being clear. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * why would you want to make a "this user thinks some queer people are that way by choice" userbox in the first place? whether there is or isn't an environmental or social factor in being gay (which still doesn't mean being gay is a choice), what purpose does such a userbox serve except to be pointed and controversial? userboxen should be for info about you (or for comic relief, and none of this seems remotely funny) Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 06:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why might one? Perhaps they're an existentialist and want to affirm radical free will (cf. Sarah Bakewell's The Existentialist Café, chapter 9 (Life Studies): One major point of disagreement between Sartre and Genet concerned Genet’s homosexuality. Sartre interpreted it as part of Genet’s creative response to being labelled a pariah — thus, a free choice of outsiderhood and contrariness. Instead, for Genet, it was a given fact, like having green or brown eyes. He argued this point with Sartre, but Sartre was adamant. In Saint Genet he even had the effrontery to comment, of Genet’s more essentialist opinion, 'we cannot follow him in this'. Many people now favour Genet’s view over Sartre’s, considering that regardless of other factors that may enter the mix, some of us simply are gay, or at least have a strong propensity in that direction. Sartre seemed to feel that, if we do not completely choose our sexuality, we are not free.). And/or perhaps they themselves are homosexual, and want to affirm their own freedom, refusing to give into the narrative of preset, unchanging humans born to be a certain way; as Brandon Ambrosino wrote in the aforementioned BBC article: I was born the way all of us are born: as a human being with a seemingly infinite capacity to announce myself, to re-announce myself, to try on new identities like spring raincoats, to play with limiting categories, to challenge them and topple them, to cultivate my tastes and preferences, and, most importantly, to love and to receive love.But,, instead of asking "why would you want to express such an opinion" after trying to get it tabooed with false assertions of "decades of evidence", "fringe", "queerphobia", one should ask what's the point of enforcing these political narratives and trying to ban dissent. Protecting people? From what? Other people's beliefs and opinions? An encyclopaedia ought to be the last place where poltical expediency is privileged over truth, the party line over intellectual diversity. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I hate getting into the specifics of a gender theory argument but.... "Preset, unchanging humans born a certain way" I've seen you bring this up a few times, with a very obvious flaw (I will charitably assume you are not intentionally trying to be intellectually dishonest). Supporting "nurture" in the nature v. nurture argument is not the same as saying being LGBT is a conscious choice. As I said, noting that society can play a factor in someone's gender ID in no way logically justifies saying "trans people choose to be that way", because just like genetics it's not like people have much conscious choice in the society that they grow up in either. In other words, even if "gender = nurture" is not fringe, "being LGBT is a conscious choice" very much is.
 * Anyways, that is mostly irrelevant to the main problem with such userboxes - an editor putting up such a userbox is using a well-known queerphobic trope with absolutely no context, whether they are actually being queerphobic or whether they're "just asking questions" or "just stating facts" or whatever. Our articles should reflect RS and should thus neutrally present the nature v. nurture arguments, but editors should not be going around telling other editors they are LGBT by personal choice. This harms collegiality, which is detrimental to a collaborative project - which is why I will ask you to stop justifying such userboxes further, and get back to editing articles. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 18:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I obviously do not anywhere say that a "social factor" alone would mean that homosexuality is a choice. Both of the above quotes deal explicitly with homosexuality as a choice, and "social factors" and "choice" are nowhere conflated. I brought up "social factors" only in response to Silverserene's false claim that Sexual orientation and attraction is inherent and while some amount of specifics of attraction might be socially determined, such as liking larger or smaller body types, there isn't evidence that the gender of who one is attracted to is socially influenced. There is literally decades of scientific research showcasing this.. And this isn't about anyone "going around telling other editors they are LGBT by personal choice", it's about someone putting generic opinions on one's own user page. It's hardly a "well-known queerphobic trope", as something accepted by LGBT people themselves now and even in the past; nevermind that "trope" usually implies something is false, which this isn't established to be. At last, one can hardly believe these attempts at enforcing some kind of restriction on expressing an opinion that even many LGBT people or "allies" would agree with is about "collegiality"; it can and has only resulted in the opposite, as is clear from the talk page of the original essay. regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 19:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the purpose of a userpage? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 07:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with the essay and don't understand the arguments in favor of deletion. Essays aren't required to reflect consensus, and as far as I can tell no one is specifically being accused of being queerphobic (at least without evidence). It's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of respect and dignity. --Xacaranda (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for publishing this. I have mixed feelings about the essay ignoring the role of religion and right wing politics in creating queerphobia.  It’s pretty obvious where it’s coming from and who is disseminating it, yet we aren’t allowed to say it.  Strange times. Viriditas (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The nature of science and understanding are constantly in flux. Our understanding of biology, psychology, neurology, etc are continuing to develop -- they are still rather nascent, despite our confidence.  How should Wikipedians reconcile inevitable conflicts between science and your anti-LGBT list? What if at some point in time WP:NPOV tells a story that by your definition is anti-LGBT?   Tonymetz  💬  04:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments here are likely to repeat some arguments from previous discussions about the essay. Not sure if there is a good summary available somewhere, but one starting point might the "endorsers" (currently 15) and "non endorsers" (currently 13) !votes at Wikipedia_talk:No_queerphobia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Friendly reminder that everyone is also allowed to work on creating and improving content instead. Choose wisely. Polygnotus (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)