Talk:Same gender loving
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Advice from a reliable source
I just got some really good advice and insight from a source very close (subject wise) to this whole thing. I gave him every version of the Wikipedia SGL pages, and all the reactionary comments, including about the Cleo Manago page. He said it’s a waste of time to argue with biased anonymous people on the internet. That their goal was to block or freeze voices that don’t regurgitate their likely white and/or gay identified voice. It was clear by the lack of challenge to the erroneous version of SGL that was up, that honoring Wikipedia’s written policy was not mandatory. He said he faced these contradictions all the time, and that it was to be expected.
The most poignant thing he said was that these reactions reminded him of when people who did not agree with the war in Iraq were irrationally called unpatriotic. Everything I wrote about gay was true and never challenged or addressed. Instead of acknowledging the facts I was called a bigot, prejudiced and accused of being Cleo himself. He reminded me that oppression and racism is rarely rational, and not to put anymore energy into responding to clear bias and ignorance that even Stevie Wonder could see.
Who is determining truth here, and what's OK?
I ask this because someone is perpetually altering my comments, and attempting to revise the real genesis, purpose and meaning of SGL. Who and what is the criteria for a source? Cleo Manago created the term, purpose and meaning of same gender loving. He is definitely a source. Even his comments on the issue are being erased! SGL is not a fluke, but a real word and concept that has a real meaning. What is the point and agenda here, Wikipedia people? What's going on? Wouldn't you rant under the circumstances? Why is this being allowed?
- Definitely a source alright, a source of pure B.S. Wikipedia is about forming consensus, not usurping control. Judging by your own little autobiography page Cleo Manago it is clear that consensus is something you are incapable of doing. You are truly a legend in your own mind! Given your racially motivated contempt and unwillingess to deal with other humans you percieve as caucasian, you might want to try learning how to work with other people. If you keep writing this crap however and reverting editors who are trying to help improve this article, you will get the article frozen.Beatmakerz (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, irrational assumptions that are based on your issues are running your show. Cleo Manago did not write the little page you are referencing. I did. I have no doubt that you do have racist goals to freeze the page. Because you are being personal. I personally have no problem with concensus or dialogue. But that's not what's happenning here. What's happenning here is pure reactionary and irrational tantrums based on people's issues. Not on what's right. If wikipedia really is whitipedia, then I will just inform people of what this is and move on. I thought it was an open space to share enclopedic information. Clearly it's not (Wikipaeton (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
Oh yeah. I knew all of this was sparked by the same person who is trying to make the Cleo Manago page, which was done properly according Wiki policy, an issue. It's your personal issue. While you are discussing freezing things to express your racist control issues, this discussion is about the SGL page, not the Cleo Manago page.(Wikipaeton (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
The term seems notable enough to me. Try googling same gender loving sgl. Many people even seem to use it exclusively, instead of the somewhat similar LGBT. If one's looking for more serious validation besides slang usage, GLAAD seems to take the term seriously, or look at the way the term is used in this call for submissions for a conference.
I do see the point that this page is largely a definition. However, the history behind the term takes it somewhat beyond strictly a definition, and that some people seem to consider SGL a movement as well as a term leads me to believe this page has room for expansion and thus shouldn't be deleted. --Jackhorkheimer 09:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I will take your word for it. Please improve th article to mention this if you can, so others don't make the same mistake.. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the proposed deletion tag. This is certainly not a hoax, and I'll add some sources shortly.
I would suggest a merge to Terminology of homosexuality at least until this expands more, though -- it's still pretty close to dictionary definition territory. —Celithemis 08:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would be down with that merge. A google search revealed a lot of blogs and urbandictionary.com entries, which generally doesn't bode well; remember that neologisms (which I think this is) need to be the subject of sources, not simply used in sources, or else the article is inherently original research from primary sources... -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Are this article and Same-gender-loving (SGL) essentially the same? Can they be merged together? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely that it could be merged. Initially I tried to do that. But (check the history), for some reason(duh!), Voyagerfan5761 keeps obsessively changing it back to the wrong and gay/racist/incorrect version. As someone who identifies as SGL and has followed the term for two decades, I know its significance and what it really means. Sure. let's merge it, so a broader (less reactionary, more accurate) version can be on Wikipedia. Wikipaeton (talk / contribs) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Articles such as Same-gender-loving (SGL) or Same gender loving or SGL are what we call "forks" and are simply not allowed. Wikipaeton, if you have an alternative text, please post it at user:Wikipaeton/sandbox and invite discussion here. But quite honestly, the present text seems OK. Could you manage to stop ranting and explain in one sentence what is wrong withthe article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can stop ranting. and do just what you requested. I'm new here and just learning the ropes. The present text is full of hearsay and opinion that can't be referenced. So it's not OK. I figured and assumed that the facts were OK. But now, I'll try the sandbox. Thanks. (Wikipaeton (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The more accurate version of SGL is at [same gender loving] Like I said before, I have no problem with a merge instead of a "fork," because the text I have submitted contexualizes the erroneous, opinion with no references stuff on wikipedia there now. I hope there is a discussion, instead of the continued privileging of what's on at the same gender loving wiki now. Also SGL would be relevant to African American issues as well. It is not of the "LGBT" culture. (Wikipaeton (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
There is a fundamental fault with the phrase "same gender loving" - you are trying to make it refer to African-Anericans when of course it is applicable to homosexuals of any race. May I suggest the word "blaggot", being a combination of black and faggot. I thought this up all by myself, but found that others had done it before me - see Urban Dictionary. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I dont know about "Blaggot", I wont be using that anytime soon. I do think your right that SGL can apply to any race who wants to say it, there is nothing particularly "Black" about it. It can have meaning for all peoples who may wish an alternative to "Gay". Though I do believe that people's uncomfortablity with the word "gay" is USUALLY rooted in plain old homophobia, and the move is a divisive one to separate from "whites", as if they invented homosexuality. It is a good point that outside of the cultural differences, there is nothing uniquely different about homosexuality between different races. Though it seems someone wants us all to think so, and exploits that to no end. Though he did not invent it, Cleo Manago's co-opting of the term for Blacks doesnt mean that others seeking to distance themselves from "Gay" cant also use it.
LOL, that's all besides the point, and is your perception. All words including gay and SGL are used and made relevant by human beings. "Gay" was not always used as it is now. White Human beings agreed or were encouraged to make gay mean homosexual community. Now many human beings do so. Life is a process, it does not stop because some White homosexuals decided to make gay mean homosexual. That I don't have resonance with and am not comfortable with gay has no connection at all with homophobia. I have no qualms with being a homosexualand have never been in a closet. I can't speak for what you USUALLY see or believe. When it comes to SGL and its wide and growing usage, it has more to do with self-determination an cultural affirmation than what you are talking about. SGL is clearly new to you. But it is not to me. There are conferences, groups, organizations, essays, journals, etc. all written about and around SGL. Do some research, and learn more. The resistance to SGL is USUALLY plain old racism and White gay chauvinism. (184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
- My apologies. You're right it's not just homophobia. I guess it can also be motivated by bigotry and prejudice, if one associates the word gay with the race we hold such contempt for. I have seen no evidence of anyone "resisting" the term as you claim, and certainly no "gay white chauvinism" excercised on these pages. Our concern here is for the integrity of this article, that it be presented as an honest, sourcable description. If there are known controversies then perhaps they should be part of the article as well. This is not an advert for Cleo Manago and this Wikipedia is not a playground for his ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
you said: "Our concern here is for the integrity of this article, that it be presented as an honest, sourcable description." I agree with this, though this is not what I found on the same gender loving page before I contributed. It was full of erroneous, non-soureceable stuff, apparently unchallenged. Of course now it's an issue, because the truth offends some people.
Well, at least, now, we finally get to the root of all of the resistance and reaction, which, as is typical is based on "personal" prejudice, projection and assumption, and therefore won't be rationally explained. You think that Cleo is trying to use Wikipedia for advert and his ego. This is based on what? Here is where the opportunity to be responsible for your impression comes in. I'll await the response to that question. Your "advert and Cleo ego" concerns are based on what? Please be able to reference your response.
Secondly, I know that Cleo would invite any and all rational perspective on a so-called controversy about SGL. Where is it? As the one who put together the correct SGL wikipedia, I know I have no problem with any controversy being part of the article. Remember, I never erased any of the biased non encyclopedia, incorrect opinions that were there. I just added what I knew to be true. But you kept erasing that! Your words like "bigotry and prejudice" need to be explained as well. What do you mean? What "bigotry and prejudice" have been displayed. A central theme was and is that gay is a white male creation and is symbolically adorned in 100% European ethos and history i.e. pink triangles and lambdas's etc. That's an absolute fact. Go too Wiki's LGBT pages and look.
Now tell me, what "bigotry and prejudice"? Finally, the evidence of resistance is everywhere within all the ruckus you have started about my corrections to the reactionary, hearsay based, gay chauvanistic version of SGL you prefer. Erasing what I wrote, and not doing a fair merge are blatant examples of your resistance and lack of integrity.
Be responsible: Tell me, what "bigotry and prejudice"? You think that Cleo is trying to use Wikipedia for advert and his ego. This is based on what? Please be able to reference your response beyond your opinion. If you request it, I will do the same. (Wikipaeton (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
- This guy is scary, even his questions are framed like imperial demands. He seems to have great animousity towards people of European descent and likes to try and intimidate you with big words. But no, that couldn't be Cleo Manago.
In a 2004 study of African American men, most of whom were recruited from black gay organizations, 12% identified as same gender loving, while 53% identified as gay. Men attending Black Gay Pride Festivals in nine U.S. cities in 2000 responded similarly, with 10% identifying as same gender loving, 66% as gay, and 14% as bisexual.
Am I the only one here to raise eyebrows over the fact that two studies that reported on the proportion of African American men identified themselves as gay drew their research samples from, on the one hand, black gay organisations and on the other, attendees at Black Gay Pride Festivals? Is it just me, or does that read like a textbook example of selection bias? --7Kim (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- A slightly late reply... I would guess that these surveys were obviously not meant to determine the proporition of the black community that identifies as 'same gender loving', but the proportion of the black LGBT community that does so, giving an impression of how widespread this identity is among them. Robofish (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
So what exactly does SGL mean?
"SGL is an alternative to Eurocentric homosexual identities e.g. gay and lesbian which do not culturally affirm or engage the rich history and cultures of people of African descent. Specifically, the term SGL affirms Black homosexual and bisexual men and women through its African American conceptual origins, African inspired iconography, philosophy, symbology, principles, and values."
Not all. Please read carefully. No where does the definition say that it is anti anything. If anything SGL is anti-hate, and anit-anti-Black. Again please read carefully. Michaeljfoster (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Down low is a slang descriptor of a dysfunctional self-concept and cocommittent behaviour which is not concordant with the notion of love as intended with in the SGL concept. It has been deleted.Michaeljfoster (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is White-Dominated in qoutes
Studies of Gay Identities Irrelevant
There is no need for the paragraph about gay identity surveys because the studies illuminate no relevant information. That is to say, a study that goes to a organization with the term gay in its title and asks the men there whether or not they identify as gay is highly likely to find a large proportion of men who say yes they do identify as gay. In much the same way going to Japan and asking a group of people if they identify as Japanese will very large proportions of people who say they do. Selection bias: ample selection bias refers to problems where the dependent variable is observed only for a restricted, nonrandom sample.. Therefore what is exactly is being contributed to the definition of SGl by their inclusion?
Also to be clear. Regarding the "Multiple Identities: Creating Community on Campus for LGBT Students" by Kerry John Poynter, Jamie Washington. They say specifically "Language is one of the major challenges in understanding and engaging multiple identities. For African Americans, for example, the terms lesbian,gay, bisexual, and transgender are often associated with white culture(Boykin, 1996). As a result, many people of color distance themselves from these terms and have crafted others, as described by Boykin (2005): Same-gender loving. Often used by people of color who arecomfortable with their same-sex attraction but do not connect with the social and political connotations that come with the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender..." Michaeljfoster (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Definition of loving
In the context of sexual behavior, the word "loving" is not used in its broadest sense, let alone Platonic love. Like two heterosexual males or two heterosexual females loving each other like brothers, i.e., with sexual activity or attraction.
But I wonder if the coiner (or the users) of this term using loving to blur the distinction, or to avoid negative connotations, or what? I've seen attempts to deny that there is (or, more pertinently, should be) any distinction between:
- Those two little boys really love each other, and
- Those two little boys are gay