Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/heterosexual2

User:UBX/heterosexual2

User:UBX/heterosexual2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

The text of the userbox reads: This user is heterosexual, and is proud of it. (link and bold in the original). The userbox advocates "straight pride" and as such is or will be interpreted as homophobic. It will make other users feel unwelcome. It should be deleted.

For those not familiar with "straight pride", GLAAD writes that Super Straight, Straight Pride, and White Pride are examples of hate-driven ideologies that are built on a feigned ignorance of real-world social discrimination against marginalized groups and are a well-documented strategy of right-wing extremists for sowing discord and trolling the left [1].

My opinions on this userbox are summed up in a couple of op-eds:

• From Chicago Tribune: "Gay Pride" is an antidote to gay shame ... because there is no corresponding concept of straight shame, the expression "Straight Pride" can only be read as a gratuitous and contemptuous response to the suggestion that gay people not be marginalized. [2].
• From USA Today: ... the roots of straight pride, a movement launched about 30 years ago by conservative social groups to mock and ridicule gay pride — and people. Its goal has been laser-targeted: to denigrate the entire LGBTQ civil rights movement... [3].

More information about "Straight Pride," which had a resurgence in the last few years:

• Vox: "The distraction of Straight Pride, as explained by LGBTQ activists and historians"
• Boston Globe: "Ignore the Straight Pride Parade or fight it? LGBTQ community divided over how to respond"
• CBS News: Another "Straight Pride" event proposal submitted in a U.S. city
• The Times (UK): "Straight pride group to march in Boston with Milo Yiannopoulos as ‘grand marshal’" (that's Milo Yiannopoulos if you're not familiar).
• ...and many more references at the Wikipedia article "Straight pride".

I don't know if User:Xaosflux/UBX/Sexuality is a complete list, but of the gender/sexuality userboxes listed there, the only other userbox on that list that talks about pride is User:Allstarecho/proud, which reads "This user is proudly out of the closet and gay."

There is already a userbox "User:UBX/heterosexual" that reads "This user is heterosexual." So the only reason to add "and proud of it" is to advocate "straight pride." Levivich 17:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. As I wrote at ANI: There's nothing wrong with a userbox that declares someone is heterosexual, or white, or is otherwise a member of some majority group. However when you get into statements of pride surrounding these groups, there is no ignoring the historical context (see straight pride, white pride, etc.) The best case scenario with this userbox is that someone who doesn't realize the connotations adds it to their userpage thinking it a direct equivalent to a gay pride userbox, and accidentally conveys homophobia that they don't hold to the rest of the community. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per the clear connotations of 'straight pride'. GiantSnowman 17:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Though it's ironic. Human nature preaches tolerance, yet practices intolerance. I hope these proposals are defeated (per tolerance), though likely they won't be. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Preaching tolerance means being intolerant of intolerance. Levivich 17:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Don't start a debate here, with me. I posted my position & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • That's not how a discussion works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Highly emotional topic on both sides, which would only result in circular arguments. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
          • If you don't want to reply to Levivich, then don't reply to Levivich. But you're telling him he shouldn't reply to you to challenge your statement. That isn't how it works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
            • I'm not replying to Levivich. I'm replying to you. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
              • /* cuts bait */ --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Whack! You've been collectively whacked with a hover of wet trouts. Arguing about arguing is a bit silly. Fortunately I'm here to argue about arguing about arguing, so surely that fixes things. – MarshallKe (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

May I be unwhacked, now? GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not interested in mindreading or inferring ill intent based on someone's expression of pride in being who they are. Whatever part of themselves that may be. Arkon (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Adding, if someone would like to say people are unable to express pride in certain parts of their being, fine I guess? Where is that line? Arkon (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Here is the line: When that expression of "pride" stops being a reaction, by members of a majority group, to pride expressed by a historically marginalized/mistreated group. Whether the "pride" comes from a place of supremacism or misplaced "reverse discrimination" victimhood, the effect is more or less the same. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I'm also not interested in applying broad brush bad faith to this editor. Bad actors co-opting things are only possible if we let them. Arkon (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  There is no "co-opting" by "bad actors" here--straight pride was conceived of, implemented, and propagated by bad actors, in the same way (and for much of the same reasons) that "white pride" was. As I said below, the context here is unambiguous. It is absolutely possible that this user doesn't mean it that way; I personally find that hard to believe, but it's certainly fair to extend AGF to them in this. But that doesn't mean they should still be able to use it freely; that context will still do harm to others even if it's not intended by the person using the userbox. Or, if you want to put it another way, the way we stop letting bad actors co-opt this userbox is by deleting it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Again, if you want to apply this broad 'historical context' (which I know very well exists) to this person's self expression, go for it. I don't care to do so. Also just to repeat what I said to another below, I'm down for deleting all this crap in general. Arkon (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  "Where is that line?" cuts both ways. If we allow identity pride userboxes regardless of known harm, does that extend to 'white pride'? If not, where is the line? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not the one trying to draw a line. People should be able to be proud of who they are. Be it their 5 toes, or 6 if they happen to have them. The editor themselves will edit in a bad way, or not and be dealt with. Policing someone's expression of self is just a dumb waste of time. I mean the discussion this came from already stalled out when it came to someone just typing whatever is in this stupid box on their page themselves. P.S. If I had my way these boxes wouldn't even exist. Arkon (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per Arkon. — Czello 17:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the super cringe userbox. Interpreting this message in a negative way requires a bad faith assumption. Popper meant his Paradox of tolerance to be applied only to ideologies that cannot be kept in check by public opinion, will not submit to rational discussion, and promote the use of violence. To promote the invocation of the Paradox of Tolerance to suppress speech that merely makes you feel bad, or speech whose meaning you have twisted, is itself a violation of the Paradox of Tolerance. While Wikipedia represents a voluntary association that can, in theory, eject whoever they want to, we have liberal values and I think removal of this form of expression is in violation of those liberal values, not in support of them. I should add that I personally think this particular userbox is cringy as hell and that nobody should ever use it. MarshallKe (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Levivich and per the Chicago Tribune. If we continue down this road, we'll eventually get to a fuzzy area where I'll probably diverge from the delete side sooner than others, but this - like the similar "white and proud of it" - is still well short of the fuzzy area and safely on the "delete" side. It does not require attempted mind reading or assumptions of bad faith to know what straight pride means; it does not require attempted mind reading or assumptions of bad faith to know that "straight and proud of it" is functionally the exact same thing as "straight pride". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Floq and GW--the context of this userbox is obvious. While it's certainly possible that any particular user might be unaware of that context when they use it, that's not an argument to keep the userbox; better to delete it rather than let it sit as a trap for people to say things they don't mean. The context exists and will affect the people who see the userbox, whether it's intended or not by the person who uses it. And if people are aware of the context when they use it, well, then it should definitely be deleted. If you feel the need to express that you're heterosexual, then just have a userbox that says "This user is heterosexual"; we can infer any simple pride in that by the fact that you felt the need to say it at all rather than let it remain the default assumption (along with the last few thousand years of law, history, and religion). Don't worry, this doesn't mean that we mean LGBT commies are coming for all of your userboxes; even if we wanted to--and we don't--these discussions are exhausting to read and contribute to, almost as much as having to mentally justify my own existence and identity every time I stuble across the wrong userpage. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding the "userbox wars" at the time around 2006, Jimmy Wales expressed a view that political and religious userboxes in general are wholly harmful to the project. I agree. I also disagree with the inevitable tit-for-tat userbox MfDs to come. I support mass deletion of political, religious, and social issue userboxes. MarshallKe (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete echoing GorillaWarfare and Floquenbeam. TelosCricket (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with both of MarshallKe's comments. Delete all "culture war" userboxes or none of them. But don't selectively delete in a way that reinforces the cultural or political biases of our userbase. (And I say that as someone who largely shares those biases, and agrees with Marshall's description of the userbox under discussion as "cringy".) Unless we think it's equally valid for [insert other language here] Wikipedia to selectively prohibit atheism or gay rights userboxes because they offend local community standards. Colin M (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Does deleting all culture war userboxes or none of them mean delete "gay and proud" unless we allow "straight and proud", and delete "black and proud" unless we allow "white and proud"? Levivich 18:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Speaking for myself on this point, deleting any userboxes that aren't of the sort meant to help find fellow editors is my preference. Like the 'Interested in Roman history from xxx-xxx' type that are actually useful should be all that exist. Arkon (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a good question. I don't think there's an easy answer here, since "culture war-ness" is a spectrum and is subjective. At first blush, I would say "This user is {gay,straight,black,white}" are fine, but the addition of "and proud" brings them into political territory? But it's further complicated by the fact that these judgements depend on cultural context. Even just identifying oneself as gay (setting aside the "and proud" aspect) would be a very divisive political statement if we were in the 1960s. This seems like a good reason to prefer the "allow all" approach.

I think there's also merit to Arkon's idea above of limiting to information that is relevant to building an encyclopedia. e.g. my user page mentions that I'm interested in and work on articles in the area of early 20th century gay culture, though I didn't bother to mention my own sexuality (spoiler: gay af). Colin M (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - As documented by Levivich above, the textual content of this UBX is clearly linked to a known hate group, thus constitutes a veiled form of hate speech, which in turn is directly linked with registered hate crimes. 'Culture wars'- and politics-related UBX's I generally dislike, and though I'm not one to prohibit what I don't like, I think there's a good argument for banning them all. The question raised by this particular UBX, however, is not one of dislike or disagreement, nor one of what is constructive or not on this project, but rather one of moral boundaries. I thought I'd grown out of this stuff, but on this occasion I'll say it: Good Night Straight Pride! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per Levivich, et al. As I wrote above, it's relatively easy to draw a line about which "pride" slogans are/aren't appropriate here. If the expression of "pride" is a majority group's reaction to pride expressed by a historically marginalized/mistreated group, then it's probably inappropriate. It doesn't require an assumption that someone using this box means it in the sense of straight pride, just like someone who says they have "white pride" might accidentally do so without knowing history and context. But if they don't know the context of that concept, I'd think they'd be glad to be rid of the userbox. Likewise, we don't have to assume that a person using the "gee whiz, can't someone just have pride in who they are" argument is some kind of supremacist just because they're using a line long repeated by supremacists to disingenuously deny history/context or otherwise troll people... but I'd figure someone doing so without knowledge of that history might want to know. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, GW, Floq, et al. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, in particular agreement with the points made by nom, GW, and Rhododendrites. Per WP:UBCR, "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive." Userboxes that are dog whistles for hate groups are categorically divisive. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Making leaps and bounds in logic in an attempt to associate X with Y is fallacious. For instance, there are users who support the Communist Party of Cuba, a party well-known for its persecution of LGBT citizens [4]. So, are the users who support the Cuban Communist Party in favor of LGBT persecution? No, of course not. WP:GF is still a core part of this project the last time I checked. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to User:UBX/heterosexual. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Levivich and Floq. Nothing else to add that Floq hasn't said already. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly refers to straight pride. If users want to state their sexuality on their user page there is "User:UBX/heterosexual". Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. I echo Colin M and Swag Lord. Interpreting userboxes as saying something they don't literally say is a dangerous precedent. This userbox does not actually wikilink to straight pride, the movement. I agree that this is cringey and reject the concept of straight pride (the world is already fully accepting of heterosexuality), but this propels us down the path of more and more limitations on what Wikipedians can say. What about a userbox that says 'this user is proud to be an American'? Is that unwelcoming to victims of 'US imperialism'? Is it supportive of a nation that some progressives consider white supremacist? How is this userbox different from 'this user is a proud Catholic'? The Catholic Church's doctrine considers only heterosexuality to be acceptable. What about being Muslim? Most Islamic sects do not accept homosexuality. Does a userbox supporting capitalism or one supporting communism endorse people starving to death and authoritarian violence? Opponents of either consider those to be inevitable consequences of the system they oppose. Once you open the door to "the userbox really means this", there are endless examples. Part of me wonders if we will start seeing some of even these arguments one day. There is little that cannot be considered too offensive depending on one's own point of view once we start reading into things. If we imagine a parallel world where Wikipedians are overwhelmingly religious and conservative, I would likewise oppose the deletion of a "proud to be gay" userbox, no matter how much it offended their deeply held religion/faith/values. Principles have to be applied consistently or they are subjective and worthless. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not about opinions and beliefs, it's not about what's offensive, it's about hate and about moral boundaries. All the examples you've given can be and actually are often interpreted in ways very different from the interpretations you've given for them. Not so for this UBX, which for people familiar with white pride (familiarity with straight pride isn't even needed) has only one obvious interpretation. The only exception to this would perhaps be someone who does not know the anglophone cultural connotations of minority-related 'pride', as GorillaWarfare mentioned. It won't do to reduce Catholicism or Islam to gay-hate, and it certainly won't do to use this as an argument to tolerate something that is quite directly promoting such hate. Everything is open to interpretation, and as Floquenbeam noted, there will be a fuzzy area where it really means this becomes convoluted, but this is not it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom and Floq's excellent reasoning. No problem with putting your sexuality on your userpage or in a userbox, but when a movement's adherents say that their purpose is "protecting traditional gender roles, Christianity, heterosexuality, Western Civilization, babies, and the contributions of whites to Western Civilization from the malevolence of the homosexual movement" (see the page for Straight Pride, it makes the wiki a less-safe place. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete until or if us heterosexuals ever become an oppressed minority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, any user that would use this template is either advocating for straight pride or unaware it exists, in which case it's better it doesn't exist at all so that they aren't inadvertedly promoting straight pride, which has been clearly stated to be discriminatory against gay people. Those using it and unaware of its implications will be just as well using the one that doesn't include and proud. —El Millo (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. As pointed out above, User:UBX/heterosexual already exists, and the difference between it and this one is the meat of the problem. We gain nothing by keeping the additional dog-whistle when there already exists something that expresses the good-faith sentiment instead. At best, at a very loose, fuzzy, potential best-case-scenario, this is redundant, and if that's the slim upside then we have no real reason to keep hold of it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 13:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per GW and nom. It's absurd that editors don't understand the concept of the paradox of tolerance and how prejudicial the concept of straight pride is. That we have some community members equating straight pride to LGBT pride is even worse. Isabelle ^🔔 14:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and GorillaWarfare. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, GorillaWarfare and all of the RS provided—blindlynx (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, user names must not be allowed to encapsulate hatred and intolerance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NONAZIS despite this providing a convenient means for identifying intolerant editors to kick out of the project. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom, GorillaWarfare, Rhododendrites, etc. There's simply no acceptable use case for this box: either it's used deliberately, making it hate speech, or it's used out of cluelessness, in which case it fosters poor communication and misunderstanding. Perhaps there's a middle case where it would be "edgy", troll-ish "humor", but that's also not what we're here for. The assumption of good faith stops when we have evidence of bad faith, and given what "straight pride" has come to mean, asserting it is evidence enough. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Question - User:Apaugasma writes, quoting User:Levivich, that the context of straight pride has to do with a specific hate group, making it hate speech. Maybe I have missed something, but I don't see a specific link. I see that straight pride is sort of a dogwhistle for hatred of LGBT, just as white pride is sort of a dogwhistle for hatred of all other racial groups (except that it is a 15 khz whistle, so that anyone can hear it). I don't see the specific link. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Because straight pride is a dogwhistle for hatred of LGBT. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:UBCR with its unambiguous reference to straight pride. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I think this breaks WP:UBCR; it's clearly a very controversial topic that will cause arguments, and therefore is better not being a userbox. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete whether intentionally or not this is effectively an endorsement of Straight pride, which is essentially rejection of LGBT rights or LGBT people. WP:POLEMIC bars "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing", which includes "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". This falls under that prohibition. Hut 8.5 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Deeply conflicted (and highly qualified) keep... I've been following this discussion (and the one from which it developed) the last few days and have found myself having a more difficult time than I can recall having with any other discussion for a long time, when it comes to parsing the right course of action here. I typically do not like to say much about who I am and what boxes I fall into off-project when I edit and participate in this community's discussions: aside from the fact that it helps me seal myself away from arguments from authority (which make for bad logic and are contrary to our processes here), the novelty and beauty of being able to participate in a community where all of my arguments stand or fail on their own (and are not filtered through the perceptions people have of me by virtue of irrelevant demographic details) is something that I cherish very much about this project, being a state of affairs that is quite uncommon and distinct from other areas of my personal and professional life. I wish that outlook was more ubiquitous here: if so, we probably would not be having this conversation. All of that said, on this occasion, I am going to to preface this discussion with the following sentiment and anyone reading this can choose how much or how little to read into it: I really do not take anti-LGBT bigotry (express or implied) lightly. And like just about everyone commenting above, I see the almost-certain dog whistle here for what it is.

The problem is, I'm not sure even absolute certainty would justify banning the statement in question here. I'm deeply concerned about the implications of such a course of action: it feels to me that by doing this, we are codifying and legitimizing exactly the rhetoric of the queer-phobic bigots that we take such exception to here, and thus play right into their hands. These people want us to associate the innocuous concept of a straight person expressing joy in their sexuality with their (the bigots') reactionary brand of discourse and jingoism; whether they merely feel irrationally threatened by other sexualities or are fully committed hatemongers, these people have put in a lot of rhetorical work to subsuming a concept of internal integrity and self-celebration into a twisted idiomatic fulcrum that they can strategically use to leverage people of good will against one-another. And I fear that if we accept their reasoning, if we concede their claim to that phrase even to such an extent as forbidding a class of person (whom the bigots unfairly claim as their own constituency) from expressing pride in a major part of their personhood, we are just empowering the division and rancor that they have already wrought with a term they have illegitimately appropriated from every straight person who would choose to love and respect both themselves and their non-heterosexual neighbour.

I am not prepared to head down the path of denying my fellow community members a statement of self-worth that they are entitled to, just to get into the semantic mud with small-minded provocateurs. Even recognizing the statistical possibility that the userbox may never be used in a fashion other than that noxious variety of identitarian extremism, I would still rather preserve the availability of those words rather than cede them to the force of intolerance. We cannot defeat ignorance (in this community or in the world at large), by sacrificing the rights of our sisters and brothers on the other side of an arbitrary divide of sexuality, thereby endorsing the factionalistic tactics of bigots. I think this community is stronger than that: I think we can let them have their dogwhistles (if the alternative is to rob a large portion of our community of their right to self-description) and can instead use the most time-tested strategy for dealing with people who erroneously claim to speak hate in the name of the majority: we ignore them, and rob the destructive flames of their atiloloquence of the oxygen that it needs to survive.

Mind you, if this discussion involved a broader and more uniform proposal for scaling back the scope of polemic and ideological statements in userboxes and similar content, I would be much more amenable to it: I've loooooong found these little signal flares of political and personal views to be highly problematic for this project--including, in fact, exactly the userbox we are discussing here, which I observed with some distaste when I first saw it in the userbox indexes. But what I am not prepared to do is support giving that freedom of expression to one class of editor and not to another, based on their sexual orientation. And since I don't see this entire class of subjective userbox going away any time soon, I must reluctantly, for the reasons detailed above, argue to preserve this one as well. I make this statement knowing the ship has apparently already sailed on this issue, but I hope I have done a good enough job above explaining to my fellow community members why I am respectfully deviating from the consensus here, and why I think this is the most prudent course of action, regardless of personal distaste for the phrase, as it is typically used. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

by doing this, we are codifying and legitimizing exactly the rhetoric of the queer-phobic bigots that we take such exception to here, and thus play right into their hands - Strong disagree. By pretending there is an innocuous version of the "straight pride" slogan, we are "playing right into their hands." Terms like "straight pride," "white pride," "all lives matter," etc. exist as reactionary slogans responding to marginalized/oppressed groups fighting for their rights, but framed to be as innocuous as possible. That way, when someone objects to the obvious trolling, there is always a built-in response: "why can't I have pride in who I am?" or "why is it bad to think that all lives matter?" While some people have then taken up the slogans without knowing where they came from, "playing into their hands" is buying into the trolling and saying "oh, yeah, sometimes people just think all lives matter or have pride in who they are," not calling it out for what it is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That way, when someone objects to the obvious trolling, there is always a built-in response: "why can't I have pride in who I am?" Yep, precisely: and when more substantial efforts are made to roadblock that expression, they begin to cry foul even louder, but at that point they no longer have their rhetorical opposition in mind as the main target audience; rather they instead at this point begin to use the situation as a recruiting tool. "Look!" they holler, "these people don't think we should even have the right to express our pride in who we are. The say they are just fighting for their own equal rights, but don't you believe them! Their real goal is the erasure of your identity as you know it!" And it is a depressingly effective technique--and not just with particularly credulous people or those already well-primed to be converted to bigots. Because people become very alarmed at even abstract threats to what they are used to perceiving as their rights of self-expression, let alone manifest rules prohibiting impacting them. "Wait, I can't say I'm proud of being straight now? I mean, I hadn't felt the need to say it recently (or maybe ever?), but why shouldn't I be able to if I want to? Maybe I ought to pay more attention to [insert crankpot here]". All it takes is some young and/or uninformed people who don't have the proper context to see this nonsense for what it is, and it becomes an "us vs. them" window through which all of the rest of the bigoted messaging and misinformation can begin to flow. That is exactly the chain reaction of emotionally manipulative rhetoric and moral panic that I am arguing we should be short-circuiting here, rather than catalyzing the feedback loop.

That's what I mean about not playing into their hands. And I would argue that, far from refuting my argument, your observations about those tactics actually support it: with no disrespect intended, you are dropping the line of reasoning too early and not following the reactions out to their likely conclusions, to get the full picture of exactly why these tactics are so successful and why playing the game on their own terms will only lend the queerphobes strength. Especially in this case, where we are not just objecting to the exact phrase "straight pride" (which appears nowhere in the infobox in question), but rather apparently any expression of pride in being straight: that's not just one step down the slippery slope, but several. We're excising far too much healthy tissue here, when this isn't even a winning strategy to deal with the malignancy in the first place. I just don't see the cost-benefit ratio here as having a positive return: humanistic values never prevail by trying to control the contours of the issue like this: the bigots will always turn the creation of any such obstruction into pyhrric victory, leveraging the ambiguities of the language involved and turning it against those who might otherwise be united against their nonsense, carving that natural opposition into smaller groups that can be pitted against one-another. That is the entire history of radical identitarian politics in a nutshell.

The only winning move here is not to validate the results of such rhetorical contortions at the outset. The only viable longterm response to these strategies (here on this project or in the greater world) is a principled stand against the idea that these divisive hatemongers can claim ownership of sexual pride terminology as a justification for their reactionary beliefs and biases. This nonsense can only be combated with critical thinking and express repudiation of their illegitimate use of such terminology. If we instead just take the easier (in the moment) route of letting them have their claim to that language, and then attempt to quarantine that language (now infected because of our laissez-faire attitude towards the tactic), all we will ever do (as a community here on Wikipedia, and a society at large) is play whack-a-mole with one set of facially valorous terminology (turned to bigoted purposes) after another. Letting the bigots have hard-fought-for emblems of the pride of repressed communities is NOT the solution here. Reappropriation is. And that solution, the only one with a historically proven track record for successfully undermining this variety of reactionary jingoism, would be thrown out (or realistically, will be thrown out) the window by adopting the proposal here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Snow_Rise has brought concerns not yet addressed by other editors. I concur with these concerns and until they are addressed, I will object to and pursue process against any closure other than "no consensus" MarshallKe (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That's...not how consensus works. But if you want a response: Snow Rise's fear that "we concede [homophobic bigots'] claim to that phrase" is unfounded, because it already happened. Their claim to the phrase was staked long ago, when they coined it and (tried to) promulgate it. To acknowledge that it is a dog-whistle, as Snow Rise does, is to admit that the game is over before it has begun. Pretty much all of the delete !votes have been on the basis of the pre-existing cultural context around the phrase, and to disregard that context out of a concern for freedom of speech and even-handedness...well, WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:UBCR seem to indicate that neither of those things are primary concerns when it comes to userboxes (or indeed, Wikipedia in general). We don't give people equal space to express themselves, and for good reason--although I would again point out that nobody here has expressed any issues with the simple "this user is heterosexual" userbox, so people are perfectly welcome to express themselves there--and allowing an admitted dog-whistle is not the place to start hand-wringing about it. (I should probably say that I don't doubt Snow Rise's good faith in making the argument for one second, even if I feel it's a bad one.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Their claim to the phrase was staked long ago, when they coined it and (tried to) promulgate it. Did it, though, in reality? Coining a phrase is an inherently diffuse and informal linguistic and cultural process, and most communities do not have the kind of gatekeeping mechanisms that this one does to contemplate the validity of such ownership: I just can't accept that nothing more than the repeated vociferous use of a phrase for cultural currency in an ideological fight can stand alone as evidence for the fact that bigots who appropriated it now "own" that phrase--and indeed, according to this proposal, any syntactic variation thereof which looks remotely similar in tone--in perpetuum, and that we must all just bow to that reality because they are really committed to their theft. The non-bigoted straight people of the world certainly never ceded this state of affairs, that I ever saw: in fact, I think if we looked, we would find the record out in the wide world full of principled objections to this hijacking of the language. In any event, regardless of the nebulous state of affairs in the world at large, this is our first time contemplating how to deal with language on this project and in this community, and the situation is pregnant with possible knock-on effects, so we should consider very carefully whether we want to endorse the notion that a straight person discussing their pride in their sexuality is strictly verboten language.

I feel that (whatever the past milktoast response to this strategy by some others out in that wider world) we ought to reject the presumption that the hatemongers have claim to language of this sort--and indeed reject that principle in the strongest possible terms. We aren't talking about content here, so we aren't bound to descriptive precedent. We can choose whether we will, as a community, rubber stamp this appropriation, or to reject it on principle and take a more conscious and nuanced approached to the situation. Without meaning offense to anyone in this particular discussion, in a general sense I think a lot of people just want to pat themselves on the back whenever they recognize a dog whistle for what it is. Knowing how to utilize that knowledge and deal with the problematic language, on the other hand, is a far more challenging matter and requires a lot of contemplation (and perhaps some moral courage) to figure out how to purge our shared dialogue of such a taint. Certainly that's not in Wikipedia's job description, but now that this issue has crossed the boundary into our community, I think we need to be careful about what our formalistic response is going to be, and how it is going to affect our community and processes going forward. Because while this may relate just to userboxes in the present instance, I'm going to guess that some of the people !voting delete here would apply a similar line of reasoning to that extended here to a non-UBCR context, and when you consider that we're not just reacting to the exact idiom "straight pride", this begins to concern me regarding some pandora's box implications of just trying to stamp out the fire vigorously without taking stock of anything vital, by way of community needs, that may be caught up in the act. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

nobody here has expressed any issues with the simple "this user is heterosexual" userbox True, but the obvious rejoinder here is that there is also no one arguing for the deletion of the multiple userboxes expressing pride in other sexual orientations aside from straight. You are quite right that this community has (for numerous reasons amounting to more than good cause) a WP:NOTFREESPEECH principle. But I know of not one community discussion which has ever abrogated the intuitive presumption that this principle be applied equitably: to the extent the community permits declarations of personal beliefs, no past community discussion has ever found that they should not be applied with equal vigor to groups divided along such an arbitrary demarcation line as sexuality. The NOTFREESPEECH principle runs in both directions: it's also the reason we have our WP:RGW guideline. And I understand (and am somewhat sympathetic to) what I perceive your likely response to that argument would be: the specifics of the phrasing here (and the historical context around it) make the difference not quite so "arbitrary" at all. That's fair enough, and there's plenty enough discussion of that context above: afterall, there's no denying it and we must simply each decide what the best strategy is for combating that kind of bigotry. But we can't pretend this is really a WP:NOTFREESPEECH policy issue at its core, because the community has clearly made express carve-outs (ill-advised in my opinion, but here we are) to many classes of infobox content, and those carveouts also greenlight the LGBT pride infoboxes, amongst other personal declarations. I should probably say that I don't doubt Snow Rise's good faith in making the argument for one second, even if I feel it's a bad one. Likewise, and with respect, WK. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

All your points: +1. Very well said. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. On a personal level, I think that it's silly to be proud of anything that one cannot control, whether that be race, gender, sexual orientation, or place of birth. This includes being proud of being gay, which I think I have enough right to say – in my opinion, LGBT pride is being proud of the fact that you came out of the closet, which often takes a great deal of courage. The other "pride" userbox reflects this fact. But we are not arguing my personal opinion. As it stands, I think that the straight pride dogwhistle is obvious, and that falls under a violation of WP:UBCR. I also disagree with Snow Rise's "live and let die" argument, especially when there is an incredibly simple step that we can take (deleting a userbox). The sign-wavers who like to walk around preaching about "homos and whores" will show up outside of businesses whether or not they get shouted down by those on the opposing side. They only leave when somebody shows up, says this is private property, and asks them to leave. — GhostRiver 13:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to keep this brief, having already responded at some length to two responses to my own !vote here and not wanting to become a distraction, but I do want to say that I don't think that "live and let die" is quite an accurate description of my own perspective on this matter: I don't think favouring opposition to letting bigots have the language in question here is the same thing as turning a blind eye to what they are trying to do, any more than a nonviolent resistance can be accurately described as a passive response. I am very stridently opposed to the use of "straight pride" as a banner call to bigotry. I just have a difference of opinion with the emerging consensus here as to appropriate strategy for shutting such jingoism down. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The sign-wavers who like to walk around preaching about "homos and whores" - the vast majority of straight people are not these sign-wavers; most do not give much thought to LGBT issues in favor either. While some here may feel they are just fighting bigotry, the optics of this to that vast majority appears to say that straight people can't think positively of their sexuality like a LGBT person can. That plays right into the bigots' hands. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete deleting a userbox isn't going to fix bigotry, but it could very well prevent a well meaning, but naive editor from inadvertently posting something on the their user page that expresses a sentiment they don't agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 20:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I guess it’s kinda funny and it’s clearly a joke.CycoMa (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining the joke for those of us who don't get it? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Straight pride was never once met to be a serious statement, it’s a meme. Memes have no meaning to them.CycoMa (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually nevermind I read the Wikipedia page on it.CycoMa (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and modify Assuming good faith that the creator and users were not aware of the unsavoury connotations of the "straight pride" slogan, we should provide them with alternative wording to express a positive view of themselves. For instance: "This user is heterosexual and feels confident in {{their}} sexuality". Cheers, gnu57 12:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  You might want to check out how this userbox originated Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Homophobic userbox Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, that is not how the userbox originated. It has been around since 2010. history Crossroads ^-talk- 18:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've struck my comment as you're right. I misunderstood the conversation but should have investigated properly before commenting. I apologise to the actual creator, the Gnu57 and everyone else for any confusion from my earlier incorrect comment. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I thought this MoD was closed? Why was it re-opened? GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • [5], User talk:Sahaib3005/Archive 4#Close at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/heterosexual2 GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • This seems to be a growing trend by that individual. Challenging RFC & MoD decisions, that he/she dislikes. How does that saying go? - "Thou does protests, too much". Oh well, something to ponder. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
      • No, this was an indisputably bad closure by a new user who didn't justify their close at all, much less why they closed a still-active MfD 4 days early with a result starkly against the surface-level consensus. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
        • It would've been better, if another editor had raised the objection. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
          • In fact, at least three other editors did. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
            • Very well. But, I think one objector was enough? Anways, it's done & over with. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
              • The first two objections were raised 9 minutes and 11 minutes after the close (so, basically simultaneously), by two editors who have not !voted here, so it's not part of the trend you describe. Also, of course people challenge decisions they don't like; it'd be weird if people challenged decisions that they liked. Levivich 17:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
                • Cool. BTW, what's the timespan of these MoD? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
                • Interesting. Brings it all back to the tolerance/intolerance paradox. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
                  • 7 days for WP:XFDs, which would be Aug 30. Levivich 17:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Something else to ponder: Perhaps hold off on throwing out a bunch of incorrect assumptions, including [still standing] accusations of bad faith, until doing even a tiny bit of research to figure out what actually happened? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Point taken & comment struck. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and per WP:NONAZIS and IamRageSparkle. As Levivich wrote more eloquently, there is already a "this user is heterosexual" userbox, the only reason to add "and proud of it" (bold in original) is to advertise straight pride, a hateful ideology which only exists to attack gay pride and LGBT culture. A person who wants to advertise that they're proud of their heterosexuality really wants you to know they're proud they're not some other sexual orientation that they consider inferior. Hateful sentiments do not belong on Wikipedia. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: Given a real world example - If you had a rainbow flag in your yard & I had a straight flag in my yard & we lived across from each other, with no trees to block our view? Do both flags get to remain, or do both have to be taken down. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that is a useful analogy, since much of the nuance in the current situation lost (e.g. Wikipedia is an explicitly collaborative space that you do not own, not even your user page), and also not sure why "remove both" or "keep both" are the only two choices you offer. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Because both flags should be treated equally. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No they absolutely should not. One is a celebration of an oppressed group and their struggle for love and acceptance, and the other is a celebration of violence and hate. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That's in your opinion. Not everybody sees it, the way you do. We all see it differently. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And we all see your advocacy for a blatantly hateful ideology. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's stop right there & agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@PEIsquirrel: Accusing another editor of WP:Advocacy is a serious accusation. I would recommend you either provide your evidence for this in a report on AN/I or strike out your accusation. MarshallKe (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: in order to fix a ping you need to re-sign your edit. Just fixing the template doesn't do it. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And this is how I learnt why so many of my pings haven't worked in the past. — Czello 06:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a flawed analogy. The first amendment protects an individual's right to expression on their private property; but that doesn't apply to a private website like Wikipedia. To use a more extreme example: At least in the US, someone could fly a Nazi flag on their own property if they so desired; that doesn't mean our community has to accept Nazi userboxes. But if I saw a straight flag in a neighbor's yard, I would take it to mean that they were actively hostile to me (a queer person), and would avoid interacting with them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Real world example, since you asked. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah hah. There you have it, the tolerance/intolerance paradox. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be the first to tell you on this page that you have completely misunderstood Popper's paradox, so I won't try again, but you should stop trolling this discussion with your hateful comments. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

By describing my comments as hateful & trolling, you're proving the paradox. You'll note. Not once, have I tried to have a rainbow flag or proud to be homosexual userboxes, deleted from anyone's userpages. Anyways, we're heading into a circular argument. Neither of us is going to convince the other. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, we can agree that Wikipedia does not 100% reflect the real world. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete/Redirect to User:UBX/heterosexual. The issue is context/tone. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• We have a habit here on Wikipedia of judging things on how they would be used ideally, ignoring how they are used in actuality. But, to climb on my favourite hobbyhorse, how does this userbox look to a new editor who is confused by our arcane processes and slang and the like and goes to an editor who is using it for help or advice? It's an edge case thing, but around 10% of new editors will be LGBT+ and the wording of this userbox says "go away, pervert, [I'm exaggerating for effect] this place is for Normal People only!" And for, what, 3 or 4% of the population, the wording [again exaggerated for effect] says "Welcome! Come be a fucking Nazi here since you're a Normal Person and they are not!" Neither is useful to the overall goal of our encyclopaedia. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It should be clarified that this edit's summary says Delete. It would be better for Trey Maturin to include the "Delete" at the beginning of their statement. —El Millo (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote. The closing admin is expected to read the arguments put forward by each participant and come to a judgment, not count whose arms are in the air. So, no, it would not be better for me to include ‘Delete’ or anything else at the start of my comment. ◦ Trey Maturin 22:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

We ought to be far more concerned for new editors unfortunate to stumble upon this nonsense and read what, to 97% of the population, effectively says: "Go away, normal person wanting to build an encyclopedia, this place is only for those committed to rooting out and crushing any and all dissent from woke orthodoxy expressed by your kind!" Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Normal person, huh. Parabolist (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Hard to take seriously arguments that it's acceptable to announce pride of one's membership in group, but only if it's one currently described by some GLAAD-type political advocacy organization as "oppressed" or "victimized"—and that to express pride in an otherwise-identical "non-marginalized" group is akin to being a "Nazi". How many of these are verboten: "proud American", "proud North American", "proud Native American", and/or "proud native American"? What about "proud disabled, queer, Muslim American"? "Proud heterosexual cross-dresser"? What about a "proud Homo sapiens"? "Proud Christian"—in or out? "Proud billionaire"? A "proud man"—in, but only with "trans" in between? "Proud white rapper"—"Nazi" or no? "Proud Boer farmer"? "Proud white anti-racist"? And, of course, what about plain-old "White pride"—but from a black man named "Mike White"? Is it not obvious that policing individual infoboxes is, under cover of strict "tolerance" enforcement by an enlightened group of do-gooders, both a massive waste of time and an ugly political witch-hunt? What would have been the effect of it in, say, 1950? Or will it be in 2030? Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You should take your arguments to conservapedia. They'd love you for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    • How is that comment helping anything? Rather than just telling them to go away, destroy their position. This editor is missing the nuance and reason for the MfD: the phrase "and proud of it" and the negative connotations it has with straight pride. Merely saying one is heterosexual is not being scrutinized nor are the literal words "proud" or "pride," as the editor wants to argue, it's the usage of the word(s). They gloss over that in their emotional soapbox argument and do not focus on this userbox. When you just say "go away," then you have no impact but to strengthen their resolve. That is a useless comment. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect per all. Pure bigoted humbug.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as transparently WP:POINTy and incompatable with an open, collaborative project. Slippery-slope and paradox-of-tolerance arguments miss the point that this userbox is obviously intended to provoke conflict. The idea that someone would post this because they are legitimately and innocently proud of their identity as a straight person is ludicrous. Generalrelative (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Others have said it better, but let's not allow open support of homophobia. Thanks. Valeince (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Crossroads. There is nothing inherently offensive about proud of your sexuality regardless of which one it is, it seems editors are reading for too much into this userbox ... Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder how many of the "Keeps" here are not Trump supporters? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Clarify: What exactly are you suggesting, about the editors who've opted for Keep? GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
      • They're very socially conservative, almost to the point of being right-wing? I mean, imagine if someone said "Keep" about a "white pride" userbox because "There is nothing inherently offensive about being proud of your race regardless of which one it is, it seems editors are reading far too much into this userbox." I find that extremely, extremely offensive, whether we're talking about white pride or straight pride. Just as white pride is extremely racist, straight pride is extremely homophobic. There is definitely something very wrong with straight pride, and with anyone who would tolerate it. Levivich 17:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
        • All the editors here, who've chosen to Keep, are not haters or intolerant individuals or have anything else 'wrong' with them. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • FWIW - I would support the usage of white pride, black pride etc & straight pride, gay pride etc, userboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC).