Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

List of male performers in gay porn films

I posted a message in regards to this on my talk page, but I'll re-post it here so all of my queer brothers/sisters can see. I'm currently trying to clean up the articles listed under this category by removing porn/marketing links and reducing the number of movies mentioned per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies. I know some of the guys on here feel very protective of these articles for some reason. (My guess is they're incredibly horny and want porn on wikipedia in addition to the countless porn websites already on the Internet) I've already had to revert some of the edits guys have made to these articles...edits that are re-adding the links and movie titles. I'm the first one to admit I admire the male anatomy and enjoy the guys in these articles, but come on, this is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Articles dealing with the porn stars is totally fine, but adding links to their studios and to pictures of their dicks hard is not. A few users, User talk:Ciompi.sellone, seem to think constantly adding copyrighted/pornographic images on WP is fine...it's not. I'm not a prude, but WP is supposed to be educational and adding images of guys giving blowjobs is inappropriate for a website that is used by minors. If someone really wants to see naked images and view a full list of the movies a porn star has been in, then a simple google search will satisfy his cravings. Besides, most of the articles contain a link showing the full list of movie titles. I hope the guys that are adding these links and images reads this and realize this isn't some kind of "attack" on porn actors, but an attempt to make WP encyclopedic and relevant. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I assume since you placed a notice of this discussion on my talk page that I'm one of the people you so charmingly consider too horny to make good decisions about articles (very civil of you, by the way). The notion that Wikipedia must be cleansed of links at which some minor might see a penis is completely contrary to our cornerstone policy Wikipedia is not censored. I have little interest in using Wikipedia as a repository for blow job pics either but if the blow job pic is otherwise allowable under our extensive image use policy then you have no business removing it under the rubric of "inappropriate for minors." As for the notion that a complete videography is improper for a porn star's article, that's nonsense. Most articles on actors contain lists of their works and we have several categorization structures for capturing articles that are solely devoted to listing actors' films, authors' books, asrtists' paintings and sculptures and so on. Unless you're suggesting that the entire contents of for instance Category:Filmographies should be deleted (and if you are then going about it by complaining about porn stars' videographies is to say the least an odd way to approach it) then you may want to examine your own bias that those articles are worthwhile and encyclopedic but lists of porn films are not. I would also point out that the desires of any particualr Wikiproject regarding content should be given consideration but that the desires of that Wikiproject do not automatically outweigh the opinions of other editors who work on the articles without being part of the project structure. The notion that a link could be added to another site that has a listing of films strikes me as self-contradictory, as there is a decent likelihood that the site housing that list will have pictures of naked men on them. Otto4711 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard of no more than six videos being listed on each porn actor's page comes from WP:WPPORN. Since you disagree with the standard, I suggest discussing it there. APK is just trying to bring the articles in line with the established standard. Aleta (Sing) 22:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, again, the wishes of the individual project are certainly important but they are not the end-all and be-all in deciding on content. Consider for example Ryan Idol. He appeared in eight adult films. It makes little sense to me to delete two of those films off the list just because the Wikiproject says so. As far as I know having a complete filmography in an article is not discouraged or forbidden by any policy or guideline above the project level, whether for porn stars or "legitimate" actors. Otto4711 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are the end-all and be-all in deciding content? Tell me if this [1] & [2] (the images have now been deleted from that link but contained oral and anal sex) belongs in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. WP is viewed by minors and I'm having a hard time thinking parents would agree that having pornogaphic pictures and links in an encyclopedia is a good idea. This has nothing to do with the articles themselves...having an article about a porn star is fine, but the marketing and porn links is NOT educational. I'm not here to argue and I wasn't uncivil in my first paragraph...I merely stated what was going on and if you took it as being rude then that wasn't my intention, but when you throw a brick into a pin of dogs...the one that yelps is the one that got hit. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Or maybe the one that yelps is the one who happened to be near his computer when you threw your little "brick." And sweetie, please, I am the master of the snide comment and if you really think that you had no intention of being rude above then you're simply not being honest with yourself or us.
• I never said that I was the end-all or be-all in deciding content. I said that the Wikiproject isn't. And you certainly aren't. And as I also said, it is irrelevant that Wikipedia is viewed by minors because Wikipedia is not censored. It is not the job of Wikipedia to decide what is or isn't safe for little Jonny or Sue to look at. That's up to little Jonny and Sue's parents. Wikipedia editors have no role in loco parentis and removal of content on any article I see had damn well have a real reason behind it because Won't someone think of the children! cuts no ice with me or with bedrock Wikipedia policy. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Relax, breathe, calm down, and don't make this into a big deal when it's not. G-DD--N, people on here are touchy about their porn. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm "touchy" about editors seeking to contravene well-established policies and guidelines and then trying to act like the person reacting to their campaign is constipated. I'm "touchy" about editors going into GA-class articles and unilaterally removing links that have passed that peer-review process with the claim that it links to "porn," when linking to sites with adult content is not prohibited nor even listed as a sort of link to be avoided. I suppose it's easier to dismiss these concerns by suggesting that all I really need to do is take a good dump, and that's certainly your perogative, but I find your actions disruptive and harmful to the project and you've said nothing here that indicates to me that you have any real interest in improving Wikipedia but are interested instead in purifying it according to your personal standards of decency. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A wise woman wrote on my talk page: ":Hey APK, I suggest you post about this at WT:P*, since it's that project's standards you're using, and it seems reasonable to refer critics of your work to discuss it there. If they don't like the standard, that's where they should try to change it, not with you as an individual. Aleta (Sing) 22:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)" I agree...and the "disruptive and harmful to the project" line is real cute. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know about removing links to porn sites - the whole List of male performers in gay porn films debacle really soured me on that topic, so I won't comment. However, given the fact that a single porn star can be listed as "appearing in" 100 movies a year or something ridiculous like that, and given that each film is about as likely to be notable as each Romance novel is, limiting the number of titles is, IMO, a Good Thing™. But you're right, Otto - six is an arbitrary number, and PORNBIO is a guideline, so some leeway is advisable. And guys - stop the pot shots at eachother, K?thx bai. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that a large videography may unbalance an article, and suggest that the solution to that problem is to split it into a filmography article rather than deleting it. Otto4711 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tabercil wrote on my talk page: "I'm one of the participants in WT:P* and I would suggest you take a look in the archives of the Talk page regarding discussions about the "six film" rule. It's been a source of contention in the past, and it's probably still a valid issue of discussion. Look here, here and here for three of the discussions we had on the topic... there may be more which escape my memory. Mind you the talk at the time was geared toward the breeder side of the market. <G>" AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more in agreement with Otto4711 on this. 6 is an arbitrary number (whereas 3 is a magic number). If we evidence that a scene has been lifted and recirculated then we can simply tie those two film together. There are multiple ways to address this issue but simply hacking away at lists in articles doesn't seem entirely helpful. I'm also concerned who decides which six? I think it should be handled on a case-by-case basis if there is a strong desire to delete material. Benjiboi 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

At least one person agrees with me. Also, for those that read the above discussion...a civility attempt was made on Otto4711's talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So cut it down to six and if the number creeps up a bit, let it go. Eight (or even 10) is still better and more concise than the lists of 30 I've seen on some. Incivility, of course, is still not acceptable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with "So cut it down". Unless you are quite familiar with an actor's full body of work you're putting yourself in the seat of a knowledgeable biographer determining which handful is fully representative of their work and career. I also sense disparagement against porn as something just to jerk off to. If that's how you see it fine but that is hardly a world view. This, to me, also seems generally dismissive of pornography actors in general and perhaps sexphobic or otherwise inspired by puritanical morality. These articles should be improved through regular editing. A list of an actor's work is valid and we should treat it encyclopedicly not just hack what we somehow deem as just a bit too much. Benjiboi 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Claiming me or some of these other guys are "sexphobic" is like claiming Paris Hilton is sexphobic. I love men. I love sex with men. I love watching videos of men having sex with men. I also think listing every single porn movie these guys have been in is not encyclopedic because most of these movie aren't noteworthy (as in they didn't receive a GayVN award for it...most porn movies are quickly and easily made, so they're not like mainstream movies). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, please avoid claiming we are inspired by "puritanical morality." WP:AGF I agree those articles should be improved through regular editing. Most of the articles are full of OR and uncited claims. They're a mess. But simply listing all of the movies doesn't make the article any better...the actual content of the article should be focused on instead of naming countless porn titles (some of the articles also list the entire cast of the movie...which i don't understand). AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim, nor do I need the visual (thanks), of anyone's motivations, I stated "seems generally dismissive" and "perhaps sexphobic or otherwise inspired by puritanical morality". This still may be true but we agree the articles should be improved so let's stay focussed on that. I completely disagree that a film is not notable unless it gets an award or nomination, frankly there are plenty of notable films (mainstream and porn) that neither have an article on wikipedia nor any award history. The awards systems are not always freely open and available and actors/studios don't always submit them for consideration. And these articles do need more work so it makes sense to leave the myriad of film titles which other editors saw fit to add as it at least shows a volume and breadth of material which is better than a simple stub. Building articles is an organic process and sometimes sections are way huge compared to the rest. The answer usually is to build up the rest and restore balance not to delete content so it feels better/balanced. And we still have little to guide which movies should be arbitrarily selected until the article is massively improved. Benjiboi 03:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this response and this morning I noticed your comment from January 19th. Looks like someone agreed it was a WP guideline and that listing a sampling of 6 titles was a good idea back then. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

Could I please get someone who has had no previous involvement in the article homosexual transsexual to have a look at the article and it's talk page. I'm very concerned that the article about this controversial term has been seriously skewed to make the term appear acceptable, which would mean that the article has a serious POV problem. I think that it may be a one-person effort similar to that attempted in the article shemale a while ago by the now indefinitely blocked user vinay412 and his sockpuppets. I'd like some independent objective input because I'd like to know if I'm over-reacting. My best NPOV solution for this article would be AfD or reduce to stub and merge elsewhere. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've stepped in to address the image issue. Is the article still unbalanced? Benjiboi 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've just copied one statement into the article from what is nominally supposed to be a summary of the article at Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy#Criticism of the Homosexual transsexual hypothesis but I think that it still needs considerable work to be NPOV. I won't be surprised if that addition gets reverted out... --AliceJMarkham (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Homosexual transsexual is a controversial term used by some sexologists to describe male-to-female transsexual women who are exclusively or predominantly attracted to males" Wouldn't that make them straight? --Tyrfing (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what's so controversial. The term is based upon birth sex, not brain gender. Nobody who meets the definition will self identify as a homosexual transsexual. If they meet the definition, they'll self identify as hetero female, not gay male. Apparently some autogynephilic transsexuals actively seek to misrepresent themselves as homosexual transsexuals because they see that as being a "true transsexual", so those who self identify as such fail the definition. :) --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Herbert

Benji recently added our project banner to Mr. Herbert (Family Guy). I strongly object, but wanted to see if others had opinions on the subject. IMO, he's a pedophile which is totally different from LGBT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the banner is inappropriate. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Second that...very inappropriate. Homophobes will use that as an excuse to link pedophilia with homosexuality. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the article (I'm not familiar with the character, and have only watched a couple episodes of the show), it sounds to me like he is both gay and a pedophile. One need not imply the other. Yes, the ignorant will use the fact that he's both to make an incorrect association, but it is our job to educate. Also, don't we tag pederasty articles? (Not the same phenomenon, perhaps, but related.) Aleta (Sing) 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He's more correctly a gay ephebophile whose pedophilic interest in Stewie may or may not be notable as Stewie was covering his older brother's paper route just the one time. This is a prime-time adult animated series which means teenagers worldwide (via original broadcasts and voluminous YouTube postings of clips and whole episodes) see the show and characters. Our tag doesn't say we endorse ephebophilia, pedophilia or any frm of child-abuse. Our tag also doesn't vote whether we think it's good that this TV show has flawed but still gay characters. It simply informs those who make it to the talk page that we have an interest in the article and can serve as a resource. Benjiboi 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have another category, for homophobic depictions of gay characters. Haiduc (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is he really gay? Pedophile seems to be true. Ephebophile I doubt, since he seems to be attracted to Stewie, who is a year old. But I haven't seen anything saying he's gay. Mind you, I don't watch the show, so I'm only going on what I've read. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The description of him being gay is a fairly new edit...by an anonymous IP. The character is an ephebophile because his molestation attempts have been mostly directed to Chris Griffin. I've seen just about every episode (yes, make fun of me...i need a life) and I'm not sure saying he's gay is completely accurate. Herbert is a child molestor and cross dresser, not gay. One can argue that being either one of those is synonymous with being gay, but that's not always the case. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

An aging swish with a lisp, who wears fey clothes and tries to grope teenagers - looks like a caricature of a gay man if I ever saw one. The intent is what matters. And here the intent seems to be to parody homosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(*spluttering*) Wha? I say, for the love of cannibals, what a hideous conflation - pederasty is not tantamount to being gay. And just an FYI, Chris is prepubescent throughout a number of seasons (until he gets the killer zit). --Phyesalis (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that pedophilia and ephebophilia do not equal gay. In this case Mr. Herbert is exclusively attracted to young men and boys with the main focus on Chris, his neighbor and paperboy and once to Stewie who was filling in on the route (unclear in episode if Mr. Herbert could clearly see him as an infant or just as another paperboy). In an extended sequence Mr Herbert fantasizes of marrying Chris and having children together so some form of transsexual issue may also be at play. Benjiboi 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no explicit evidence that Mr. Herbert is trans, besides that one episode Benjoboi mentions above, where he appears (in a daydream) in a Marylin Monroe dress (which is not, in itself, an indication of transsexuality). Nor is there any evidence that he is now or ever has been interested or involved in an adult same-sex relationship. There really is no evidence that he is anything but a pedophile, albeit a male whose primary attraction is to males. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the definition of gay, a male attracted to males? I think there is ample evidence to support the fact that Mr. Herbert is gay, and no evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that he is straight. It's unfortunate that some might use that to vilify the queer community, but that doesn't change the truth from being true. We could put a disclaimer in the explanation for inclusion on the project banner, the way we do for NAMBLA. Queerudite (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether he's gay or straight. The question is whether he's gay or a pedophile. It's not the gender, it's the age. Herbert's attractions have all been to teenagers or children. Pedophilia doesn't make a distinction (afaik) based on gender. Pedophilia is illegal, immoral, and based on power-over, not love-between. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He can both be gay and a pedophile, the two aren't mutually exclusive and despite our culture taboos ... held in tension with over-sexualizing children ... kids at very young ages are sexual and can have quite developed sexualities. Again, Mr. Herbert by all accounts seems to be a gay ephebophile. This would also be somewhat in keeping with his generation of not generally being able to live a more openly non-heterosexual life when he was younger. Despite our desire to distance ourselves from this very real part of human sexuality, Mr. Herbert is seen by others as a gay character even if we wouldn't elect him to be our spokesmodel. I noticed SatyrTN has also removed the LGBT tag from that article so should we just bury our heads in the sand on this one? Benjiboi 16:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"kids at very young ages are sexual and can have quite developed sexualities" Wow. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your "wow" is to convey but FYI kids have been coming out as gay and lesbian at pretty young ages (below 10) and kids are quite sexually active before adolescence with all indicators that the trend of children becoming sexually active with each other at younger ages will continue. Benjiboi 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My "wow" was in reference to your assumption that someone below 10 years old can have developed sexualities. But I'm not going to argue with you anymore...it's pointless in more ways than one. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair I stated "quite developed sexualities" not fully developed. Just as children's senses and language skills develop their understanding of relating and reading social cues also develops. I'd be surprised if there weren't some research showing that children's sense of themselves as sexual beings existed and also showed that kids are becoming more sexual at younger ages, due, in part, to adult content and situations being readily available and more predominant across all mass media including TV and pop music. Benjiboi 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All of which is true, perhaps, but irrelevant. We use "gay" to mean someone whose attraction is primarily to adults of the same sex, for which there is zero evidence in the case of Mr. Herbert, whose primary attraction is to children. Over at the Chris Griffin article they're not sure how old he is, the claimed 13-15 having a fact tag. At the ephebophilia article, however, the definition provided is "the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to adolescents. In everyday English, the term pedophilia, strictly meaning sexual attraction to children, is also colloquially used to refer to attraction to adolescents." As has been pointed out above, however, Mr. Herbert is also attracted to, and actively flirts with, Stewie, who is a one year-old baby. In any case, I don't think we need to worry about the fine distinctions between ephebophiles and pedophiles, only about whether or not Mr. Herbert is gay. Since so far we've never seen him show any interest in adults of any gender, I don't think we should be using the LGBT tag on his article. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We also use gay in numerous other ways but to remain reality-based Mr. Herbert is a cartoon character broadly drawn as a gay ephebophile attracted to Chris, who is at least as tall as Mr. Herbert and twice as wide. We cannot infer as of yet if Mr. Herbert sees him as an older teen or a young boy although he did take him out on an adult-like date. The one instance of Mr. Herbert being attracted to Stewie was when Stewie (filling in for Chris' paper route) threw the paper while riding by so it's unclear if Mr. Herbert was attracted to Stewie or whoever the paperboy happened to be - this parallels Mr. Herbert's mistaking a robot for a paperboy as well. I also see us as being a resource to investigate and answer questions just like this and obviously if we're unclear on the issue others will be as well. Certainly seems like we'd have an interest in the article but maybe they'll get it right in our absence like we've seen on so many other articles. Benjiboi 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Benji, you keep saying that Mr. Herbert is gay. Can you tell me why you believe that? Several times in this discussion people have stated that there doesn't seem to be any indication of that, so I'm wondering why you believe he is. Or do you believe he's LB or T? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First can we stop calling him Mr. Herbert...the only person that says Mr. is Chris, as far as I know his first name is Herbert, not his last. But aside from that, being that he is only attracted to teenage boys does that make him a pedophile and gay? If he was also attracted to teenaged girls, then obviously he wouldn't be gay. I oppose adding that he is a gay pedophile, and have deleted it from the page a few times, as listing that he is gay will give people (mostly IPs) another reason to bash us. So basically does being a pedophile attracted to boys only qualify as being gay? BTW, he did refuse to sign a petition to legalize gay marriage, so in my view that alone would mean he isn't gay...that or he is trying to hide it by not showing support for the LGBT community Ctjf83^talk 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Haiduc nailed it best with "An aging swish with a lisp, who wears fey clothes and tries to grope teenagers - looks like a caricature of a gay man if I ever saw one. The intent is what matters. And here the intent seems to be to parody homosexuality." Haiduc

If we look at the creators and audience of this adult animation it's quite clear they play up on myriads of stereotypes with most of the characters, I see Mr. Herbert as no exception. We've failed to bring up the episode where Chris goes to an expensive private school and is harassed for being poor. Mom Lois gets her very wealthy father (Mr. Pewterschmidt) to get Chris inducted into the secret fraternity (a Skull and Crossbones of sorts), when Chris decides to walk away from the school altogether at the last minute of the secret initiation ceremony, Mr. Pewterschmidt has to do the final act of spending time in a closet (yes, no irony there) with the high holy mucky-muck who is ... Mr. Herbert, who says "I am so tired of you, get your ass in there". So tada, you have your gay encounter with an adult and it's likely an ongoing non-consensual gay one as well. Pile on the song and dance numbers of love songs to Chris and viola - unleash the queen. Benjiboi 22:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ctjf83, I chalk that up to irony, closetedness due to generational mores or both. And Mr. Herbert seems to be his name although I don't check his mail. Benjiboi 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your post above is quite useful. I would suggest that a section is needed in the relevant article on his sexuality, since currently he's described as an ephebophile and categorized as gay. Since others are apt to have similar objections to the posters here, some explanation is needed. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, again Chris is the only one that calls him Mr. Herbert...but we're not here to discuss that. The above comment about Mr. Pewterschmidt could be, and most likely is, just a one time joke that Herbert would do anything sexual with an adult man. We'll have to see how the show plays out for that. Also, my above question, does attraction to young boys make him gay, or just a pedo? Ctjf83^talk 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to take a break but if no one else adds the material in I'll look to doing it. And Chris is the conduit for Mr. Herbert's role in the entire show so seems significant that of those who refer to him by a name at all, Chris' take on what to call him would seem to have the most weight. And we're not here to infer whether a joke is a one-time thing or not. And to your question "does attraction to young boys make him gay, or just a pedo?" It makes him sexual and the rest we take the best evidence at hand until a more reliable source proves otherwise. For instance, if he used to be married would that mean he must be then bisexual? We just have to go with the best evidence at hand and build the best article possible. Benjiboi 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ctjf83, being attracted to young people (whatever the genders) is pedophilia. Attraction to adults of the same gender is homosexuality. Attraction to adults of the other gender is heterosexuality. Those are the three, mostly non-overlapping "ends" of the spectrum. I fully recognize (and celebrate) the overlap and all parts of the spectrum, but this project is focused on LGBT, which stays on the adult end of those groupings. Herbert doesn't fall in to those categories, IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So is that an agreement that he doesn't need to be added to our LGBT project? Ctjf83^talk 02:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. With respect to Benjiboi's argument about children's early emerging sexual identities and the nebulous concept of when children can consent, the focus is Mr. Herbert as he is portrayed as a mature man. Just because he's had one heteronormative transvestite dream does not allow us to classify him as a trannie (original interpretation of primary source). Ephebophile is just too obscure/specialized a term (maybe I'm showing my ignorance) for us to make that distinction from the primary source materials. If we agree that pedophile does not equal gay for the purpose of WP articles (running under a common name/convention precedent that the predominant academic position is that they aren't equivocal) then he's out. Just my opinion. --Phyesalis (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anyone here arguing that pedophilia and homosexuality are equivalent. The argument being advanced is that adults who are predominantly attracted to minors of the same-sex are gay. I thought this matter had been settled when we decided to tag NAMBLA and Pederasty. Queerudite (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I've never suggested that pedophilia can equal gay although can be swayed if reputable research can prove it beyond a doubt. Who would finance such research is another issue altogether. However as to the subject of Mr Herbert my point is that everything about this cartoon character suggests he is indeed gay including sexual contact with other men, lusting after teenage and adolescent boys and numerous fey references spanning well over a dozens episodes. If it swishes like a duck, quack quack. Benjiboi 09:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I would tend to think of this as being on two axes: a same-sex/opposite-sex attraction axis (yielding a L/G, B, or heterosexual result) and an age-attraction axis (yielding a typical adult attraction or a pedophilia result). Thus any one person would have two coordinates on the hypothetical graph, and could thus be gay pedophiliac (like Mr. Herbert), "straight" pedophiliac, gay attracted to adults, straight attracted toadults, etc. Aleta (Sing) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CfR

Hello. Not sure where to announce this but I've nominated Category:Christian LGBT people for renaming. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_23#Category:Christian_LGBT_people. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that a few people from this project have contributed. FYI, I have proposed a rename to category:LGBT Christians for consistency with category:LGBT Jews and category:LGBT Muslims, which you might like to consider. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

where to report homophobic comments

Hi - hopefully someone on the project can point me towards the right place to report homophobic comments? is it the administrators board. thank you. --87.115.7.37 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That (i.e. WP:AN)would probably be the best place - but if you don't get a satisfactory response do come back here where at least people will be supportive and may have further ideas for how to proceed. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just coming to ask a similar question. User:Aminz has been having a discussion here, which includes a post in a foreign language (Farsi, at a guess?). Is this allowed on English Wikipedia? Given the rest of the discussion, where Aminz expresses his views on homosexuality in this diff, I am also wondering (as is the IP Editor) about reporting this somewhere. Thoughts? Jay*Jay (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, also, that the IP editor has posted a query on Aminz's talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmmm, it appears that IP editors like you cannot post on WP:AN - you can post on its talk page, or if you could provide the diffs then I could post your complaint there for you. DuncanHill (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Posting in foreign languages is sort of allowed, but a translation should be provided on request. DuncanHill (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, IP vandalism of WP:AN has been frequent recently, resulting in semi-protection. A sub-page has been set up here for use by IP editors to raise serious questions. As for the foreign language comment, I will await the translation that you have requested from Aminz, but I am considering posting on WP:AN/I about this. I find the comments in this diff unacceptable, even in talk space. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing some of Aminz's other posts, I don't really know if the message is unsuitable for talkspace. He didn't really say anything hateful or vulgar about gay people. He apparently doesn't "agree" with someone being LGBT, but he has a right to think that way. Although that's my P.O. I'm just wary of editing opposing views because at one time we (LGBT people) were the ones who were heavily censored...it wouldn't be fair for us to censor opposing views now. ;) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An example of gays/gay allies trying to censor free speech in a dangerous manner is this...note the 7 year prison sentence. Also, I'm not comparing the news story to what Jay*Jay said. He's acting in good faith and there's a big difference between the two. I just added the news link as a warning for my fellow queers to read since I think it's an important topic. (I hope I don't come across as picking on Jay*Jay, I'm really not.) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - could you provide a warning when linking to the Daily Mail? It's a homophobic, xenophobic, racist, sexist, islamophobic and pro-child-abuse (in the form of encouraging physical punishment of children) paper and some people would rather not have it leap onto their screens on a Sunday morning. It's an important debate, but the Mail is not in any way a reliable source for it. DuncanHill (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My intention with the DM article was not to start some type of debate over reliable sources. It appears to be fairly reliable and your opinions on child abuse, islamophobia, etc. are debateable. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the article states the information about the ammendment, prison sentence possibility, etc. I'm not going to argue about this because it was a simple example. G'day. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AgnosticPreachersKid (do you mind if I call you APK?), I find the argument advanced in Aminz'a post to be simplistic, ill-informed, possibly misogynistic, and trivially falsified. They demonstrate significant misunderstanding of evolution and an absolutist view on religion. However, it is only with the inclusion of the last sentence that the post becomes unacceptable. If I encounter someone advocating that homosexuals are not worthy to consume natural resources, I object to those comments. It is only a small step to advocacy that LGBT people should be restrticted in the resources we may consume. Having said that, I may have a bias here as I strongly advocated the need for Aminz to remove a WP:SOAP-violating section of his user page which attacked pornography and argued that watching porn leads to committing rape. To be fair, he did act to remove the section when I (as an uninvolved editor) became involved. Note, by the way, that I would not ask that the comments be censored or removed, but they do warrant challenging. I will wait for the translation before acting. If it is harmless, I will likely talk to Aminz directly; if it is blatantly offensive, I will respond more forcefully. (Incidentally, an independent translation might be good to havem if anyone can provide one.)
On the legislation described in that tabloid article, I suspect we will disagree. Seven years gaol for inciting hatred seems a reasonable maximum sentence for the worst offenders, and that is irrespective of whether the object of that hatred is gays, muslims, blacks, christians, hispanics, ... (I could go on!) BTW, I did not take your post to be picking on me. I'm a big boy, and happy to engage in discussion and debate. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC) NB: post after edit conflict.

You can call me APK...it's my nickname, waaaaay cooler than J.Lo :-) I didn't realize Aminz had posted those other comments. Yeah, we'll agree to disagree on limiting free speech and throwing people in jail for a time period longer than rapists. I like big boys. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What the Daily Mail objects to is the idea that LGBT people are entitled to the same protection from hate-crime that is already enjoyed by Jewish, black, Christian, Muslim etc people. The maximum sentence for rape in England and Wales is life imprisonment, so the comparison made by the Daily Mail is highly misleading, and I suspect deliberately so from a paper which in this century has published an article calling for all gay men to be castrated in order to prevent child-abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to apologize if I seem bad-tempered about this - in my defence I will just say that the Mail seems to hate just about everyone and everything I hold dear, and sometimes it's important to get angry! APK has made some important points, and is obviously a decent sort, and I certainly don't mean to get at him. DuncanHill (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the point of my earlier comment was NOT to start a discussion on the validity of the DM. I am not familiar with that newspaper. I did a simple google search and came up with that article. All I did was simply point out the FACT that 7 years is a possible prison sentence for people that use so-called hate speech, and the DM article seemed like a reliable source. My intent was not to start a goddamned debate about all of this. If you would like to show me the article where the DM calls for castrating gay men, then please do so on my talk page because I find that fascinating/scary. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aminz has given a translation at User_talk:Aminz#Translation_request, which seems reasonable. I have given him a link to this discussion, as it seems the polite thing to do. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I really don't know what to say. I started that discussion to get a bit of aside from the usual cold wiki-conversation. I never thought it might turn into such a big discussion. I was rather trying to understand the issue for my own benefit. I certainly do not subscribe to the pure evolution, hence I do not myself agree with the evolution part, but I added it for the sake of completeness of my argument.

P.S. I have never interacted with any homosexual in my real life, and I do know of anybody I "hate".--Be happy!! (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aminz, two points:

• You wrote that "Being homosexual is bad also because the person uses human resources, a double negative point". The suggestion that the use of human resources becomes "bad" because a person is gay is prejudiced.
• Unless you know very few people, you have interacted with LGBT people in real life - you just don't know their sexual orientation. If you know only 100 people, and we use the lowest reasonable report of the prevalence of LGBT people in the community, the chance that none of them is LGBT is less than 5%. Using more realistic prevalence data, it's less than 0.1%. I am guessing that you have interacted with a lot more than 100 people in real life.

Jay*Jay (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aminz simply said in Persian that he wanted to talk to me about this later hopefully, and that I ought to be happy. Regardless, this discussion was more or less a philosophical one between me and him on my user talk; neither of us edits LGBT articles, and Aminz was trying to become better educated on the subject. Certainly nothing Aminz said was incorrect with respect to homosexuality being maladaptive from a genetic perspective. Genetically, an organism that refuses or is unable to procreate is useless - this is not Aminz's opinion, this is biological truth. I understand that could tap on one's sensitives, but he meant no harm by his comments, and I can vouch for him. He was trying to get a better understanding of homosexuality. This has certainly blown way out of proportion, and I don't think anyone has any right to tell Aminz to apologize for his views. Aminz has not made any threats or attacks against homosexuals, so I really don't see what the problem is here. Please note that I also disagree that homosexuality is an outright choice (I think hormonal or childhood factors play a role, which also would better explain concepts like bisexuality or sexual curiosity), and that I am an Iranian (albeit, one born and raised in America). This is probably why he felt more comfortable discussing this with me, since he knows I won't attack him or his views, simply because we may differ. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not true to say that refusal or inability to reproduce is maladaptive. Many species rely on non-reproductive individuals for survival. Bees spring most readily to mind. Non-reproductive members of a species may contribute to the transmission of genetic material in other ways than simply breeding, eg by providing food, shelter, nurturing etc. A highly socialized species such as homo sapiens requires an awful lot more than simple reproductive activity to thrive. Personally I think Aminz was acting in good faith, as he commented on his talk page there is a huge cultural difference in play here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well certainly there are other mechanisms in which homosexuals can contribute to society (which I don't deny); they can benefit society through jobs, charity, etc. and other mechanisms that heterosexuals also do. I was simply trying to articulate the position that Aminz had originally provided, although you do bring up interesting exceptions to the genetic rule. However, the point here is that Aminz was trying to learn, he wasn't trying to offend; I think you have understood this though. Cheers -Rosywounds (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, although the Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, Wikipedia is pretty lax when it comes to user talk and user pages, so long as its within reason. Userboxes, by their very nature, provide a simplistic medium through which one can express one's political views, for example. If we are going to tell Aminz that he can't have a critique of porn on his user page, then why don't we tell various other users not to express their politics on their user pages? How about User:GHcool's rant against all of those that criticize Israel? How about my 5-6 userboxes on politics? Should "I support Zionism" or "Palestinian right to Return" user boxes be abolished, too? WP:SOAP should not be used with the intent to bypass WP:CENSOR; this is simply WP:wikilawyering because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Certainly things like that should be treated equally? I don't mean to single any one user out, but this really doesn't seem like as big of a deal as people here are making it. And evolutionarily, it would be a major exception for homosexuality to be genetically adaptive in mammals, since mammals have a relatively long period of sexual immaturity (and therefore, a population of mammals can take years to produce a new generation). That doesn't mean homosexuals are useless as humans, but it does mean that it is very difficult for anyone to justify homosexuality by saying that "it's genetic," which is what Aminz was trying to say. I also think Aminz wouldn't necessarily be in the wrong for reporting Jay*Jay to administration for WP:STALK, based on his constant analysis of all of Aminz's edits. Jay*Jay and I have never even crossed each other, so it's odd how he would pop up on my User page by accident. -Rosywounds (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Genetically, an organism that refuses or is unable to procreate is useless - this is not Aminz's opinion, this is biological truth. - Seriously? And you don't think that would offend a gay person? That's like when "Dr." Laura Schlessinger called us "biologoical errors". I know I am quite useful and I'll vouch for most other homosexuals as being useful. Granted, there are a few I can do without, but I'm sure even they are useful - and not just "through jobs, charity, etc." - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality, if we assume it is genetically inherited, is almost as genetically unfavorable as Klinefelter syndrome (which leads to sterility) or Tay-Sachs Disease (which leads to death before sexual maturity). Whether or not you like those comments, it is obvious that if it were a genetic trait, it would not be nearly as prevalent as it is, since any organism that exhibits homosexuality would theoretically never reproduce to pass those traits on. I'm not saying that to be offensive, but that's just the reality that Aminz was articulating. Rather than deconstructing my post, you could have seen that I still don't agree with the notion that homosexuality is a choice, but I also oppose the position that someone genetically inherits it (which makes very little sense; it would not be as prevalent as it is if it were genetic - Homozygote recessive for Tay-Sachs, for example, occurs in less than 0.5% of the world population, and around 1% in Ashkenazi Jews). Many homosexuals, on the other hand, claim that anywhere from 5-15% of the population is gay or bi. This is simply too great of a percentage for this to be genetically inherited. Most scientists today are beginning to look at hormones during pregnancy that could cause it, since fetuses are highly sensitive to hormonal balances. At this point, we are simply getting off topic; this discussion was intended to be between Aminz and I, not the whole wikicommunity. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If I cry "UNCLE", will y'll stop? we've totally strayed from not only the original question, but the purpose of this project and even the purpose of Wikipedia. Y'all are now firmly in the realm of "my opinion is..." -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be able to close this out: I accept the assurances from Aminz and Rosywounds as to the content of the comment made in Farsi. As a result, I will note my objections to the comment I see as prejudiced, reiterate that the argument advanced by Aminz (and some arguments presented here as well) reflect a poor comprehension of evolution, and move any further discussion back to talk space where it is now clear that it belongs. For the record, I believe that the WP:STALK accusation is misguided (to be extremely generous), and is problematic in light of WP:AGF and WP:AAGF. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why is Cosmetics included in the LGBT project? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think because of it's relevance to the Trans community. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kinda strange, given that the article itself has no LGB or T content whatsoever - Alison ^❤ 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It was added by User:AliceJMarkham - you could always try asking her. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW Duncan, I asked AJM about it...just waiting for some feedback. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If Mr. Herbert (Family Guy) shouldn't have the tag, Cosmetics sure shouldn't. lol - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really belongs in the project. The reasoning (and I'm not trying to be smart ass or sarcastic) is since a trans person uses cosmetics then it should be included. If that's the case, then anything a gay or lesbian person uses would have to be included. (ex: I use condoms, then condoms would be added to the LGBT project) See my point? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; if there were some significant discussion of cosmetics use by/ importance to the transgender community[ies], then that would be one thing. However, as Alison said, there's nothing. Aleta (Sing) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

← Basically, a lot of women use cosmetics so why would trans women be any different? As LGBT people, all our lives touch so many areas, just as non-LGBT folks' do. We can't just tag everything! - Alison ^❤ 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Awww... why not? I like to eat chocolate. Can we tag that? (just kidding!) Aleta (Sing) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that request! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah, me three. Let's add Category:Bisexuality :-D - Alison ^❤ 02:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion that led to the tagging of that article is in archive 2 of this talk page. It should have more transgender content but it never quite got done. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion and since no action was ever taken, should the tag be removed? There are some good points made in that archive discussion btw. I just think that some of the articles that have been tagged for this project are a bit of a stretch and reducing the ones that aren't directly related to LGBT issues would be a good idea, IMO. Thanks for finding the discussion Alice. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess what needs to be weighed up is whether we're going to remove the tags from articles that have genuine potential for expansion in our realm even though they currently have little or no LGBT content, or leave the tags on those articles in the hope that it will spur members of our wikiproject to work on those articles. If we remove the tags now on the basis of lack of LGBT content, do we then add them again if such content is subsequently added? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And then, will we include drag queens and drag kings, both users of cosmetics? I just think this is a stretch.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. If I ever get around to doing something about TG makeup, I'll likely start a new separate article anyway. It's not likely to be soon though... I said that about cleavage enhancement, too. :) --AliceJMarkham (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone goes to Rio de Janeiro for Wikinews/Commons

Hi Mos. The Rio Convention and Visitors Bureau has invited me down to Rio to do some photos of Rio for Wikipedia articles, some Wikinews articles, and I have requested several interviews with some very well-known Rio-based Brazilians. If anyone has suggestions for what to photograph, or who to interview, I welcome them on my Talk page. I look forward to exploring Rio for Wikimedia. I willl be there March 5 through March 11. Dave--David Shankbone 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucky man. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There never has, and there never will, be one thing I have done for Wiki that any of you can't do, and that includes my trip to Rio, my interviews, my interview with the President of Israel in Jerusalem, and anything else I have done for this site. Everything I have done can be accomplished by anyone else, and I was only able to do it because of the help of thousands of volunteers who made this site (and Wikinews) what it is. --David Shankbone 03:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Some of us here believe in the project for what it is, others look to it for what it can do for them; some of us can give only of our free time because of lovers/partners, family, and jobs(!), others can give more of their time because they're single and idle; some of us seek to enrich Wiki with our work, others seek to enhance their own notoriety by splashing their names all over their work.--72.76.92.235 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews news: First Trans Reporter

Our first openly trans reporter was given resounding accreditation on Wikinews: http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Accreditation_requests&oldid=583355#NicholasTurnbull]. --David Shankbone 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome!! Is there an LGBT project on WN? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could use help. Although I don't know why I don't see my Augusten Burroughs interview. We need news! --David Shankbone 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

best lGbt video ever

I...just...wet...myself. I'm sorry to get off-topic, but I thought everyone in this project would get a kick out of this video. It's a response to this popular video. Ok, I promise no more off-topic posts. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom of Finland: linking to works

I'm posting this here, because I thought the members of this group might be the most sympathetic to the issue.

A person is furiously claiming that a website (a Yahoo! group for gay cartoons) to which there is a link to in the Tom of Finland article has the rights to distribute the works of Tom of Finland, and therefore I'm not allowed to remove the link. I know there was some talk of making some of Tom's works freely and legally available by the Tom of Finland Foundation, but I'm not quite certain this website has the rights. Besides, I haven't found any mention of licensing there. If some editors could please look into this issue as well? Also see Talk:Tom of Finland.--Wormsie (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering it's a link to an index of a site, I've removed it again. Not sure that will last of course. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Tom of Finland foundation would certainly disagree with their assessment. Benjiboi 21:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we either have to get the editor banned, or mail Tom of Finland Foundation (and hope they answer), as the link has once again resurfaced. It's strange how the person seems to be doing nothing to defend his position.--Wormsie (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Template

Should we put the {{LGBT-footer}} template on every LGBT related page? It does allow for easy navigation. Ctjf83^talk 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No? Overkill? I think only on the "core" articles, and probably not all of those. BTW, where's that core article list? And how many of them are FA? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I wouldn't put it on the pages about people (core or not). It's not really suitable for biography articles, IMNSHO. Aleta (Sing) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

News source

I'm not sure of how many of you ladies & gentlemen read the Washington Blade, but the 'Blade Wire' and other news stories on the website can be very helpful in finding sources for LGBT-related articles. In the past few minutes, I've found sources for articles related to Ex-gay, Transsexuality in Iran, Freeheld, Radical Faeries, and more. Just a friendly tip. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote help requested

Leah posted this on my talk page, and I said I'd repost it over here to see if anyone could help, particularly with the quote-finding. Aleta (Sing) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, almost forgot! Both the Martie Maguire (which I'm working on), and the Emily Robison page (which is still a stub, in truth), and the Dixie Chicks Band page (that one needs streamlining, etc) CAN USE SOME HELP! And I know that all three women in the band have made public statements of solidarity with GLBT people and issues. As usual, though, Natalie Maines tends to "speak for the group". Thus, if anybody can find direct quotes from Maguire or Robison, I'd really be appreciative, since I KNOW I have seen them somewhere!!--leahtwosaints (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What quote are you looking for? Benjiboi 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter?

I've jumpstarted the new issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Newsletter. If anyone has any stories they'd like to see in the newsletter, feel free to let me know on my talk page. For those of you who haven't really seen the newsletter before, I recommend taking a look at the most recent ones: here's a directory of the archives. Whatever our goals, accomplishments, or shortcomings as a WikiProject, we have (IMO) the best newsletter of any group! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom to Marry Day

Is there enough out there to do an article? --David Shankbone 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

National Freedom to Marry Day. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to an article for WNews or WP? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Danke - WP. --David Shankbone 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bitte. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Oh, good God, I hate to see it in a title too, but with all the fun and games of this month aside, does anyone else find "porn star" to be unencyclopedic? Michael Lucas (adult film actor)? Simply raising it...don't plan to do anything with it. Porn star sounds a little glamorizing, like calling Drew Barrymore (movie star) or Jaleel White (TV star). --David Shankbone 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Actor" is a stretch for some porn stars - in some cases a very large stretch. Perhaps something with 'performer'? Jay*Jay (talk) 11:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. But how do we address the fact that he is mostly behind camera now? I have to admit, I'm a bit lost on the pornography biz, but a friend of mine who is familiar with Lucas said he only makes "cameos" now. --David Shankbone 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion would be Michael Lucas (APK's top) Michael Lucas (adult film director) since he is now, for the most part, behind the camera. The opening sentence and other areas of the article mention he was at one time known mostly for being a porn actor, but since he is now known for directing/producing, I think it would seem more appropriate to label him as that. Just my $0.02. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should make the page move, APK. I think you should WP:BOLD it! --David Shankbone 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I don't know how to do that. :-/ AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the fifth tab of every page, right after history. --David Shankbone 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm skurred. It's giving me a warning. Do I link to this conversation as the reason? If I screw this up, I'm afraid 10 guys will jump me. (on second thought, that sounds delightful) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. If the 10 guys would please e-mail me for directions to my crib, I would appreciate it. Bring supplies. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

London meeting

Jeff and I are meeting up tomorrow in London for lunch. WP:LGBT members are also welcome to come, email me for directions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No fair...what about us! ;-) That reminds me...does anyone live close to D.C.? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

His page says he's left the building which seems final(?!), could you say hi and ask him what's up? Benjiboi 01:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, Dev! Y'all have a great time!! Aleta (Sing) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Heart-ache

I'm sure most of you have read the story about the recent shooting of a 15yo gay student. Ellen had this to say about it today. Very touching. Please watch over that article as it seems to have attracted some attention from vandals. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted it. Aleta (Sing) 01:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks, APK. — Becksguy (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Flowers

People keep adding unsourced comments speculating about his sexual orientation. I suppose that sources could theoretically be provided saying that he "acts like", "looks like", and "sings like" someone who's non-straight... or that his song lyrics give the apperance of that. But David Byrne is not a serial killer. Nor is David Bowie an astronaut. Nor is Mike Muir an escaped mental patient. With WP:BLP in mind, mere speculation isn't enough and I think that the article shouldn't mention any of that. Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• (P.S.) If anyone considers my username to be offensive, let me know here and I will by all means change it.

I think you meant please stop adding? Anyway, from looking at the edit history it doesn't appear to be anyone here adding the information you're referring to and he's not even in the LGBT project. My suggestion would be to contact the editors that are adding it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone here will agree that unsourced additions about a person's sexual orientation should not be added. I've replied to someone at Talk:Brandon Flowers. Aleta (Sing) 13:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the articles on Homosexuality, Gay and Sexual Orientation

Here is the addition that I propose on the sections on Homosexuality, Gay and Sexual Orientation, in order to accomodate the non-western viewpoint. I hope it is generally appreciated here that there is a difference of opinion regarding how the issue of same-sex relations are seen in the west and non-western, traditional societies.

I have also provided a number of references. Once, we have discussed the additions reasonably well, I expect to be able to post the final outcome to these sections, even if some people are not personally happy with this viewpoint. Wikipedia, as we all appreciate is not only for one particular set of beliefs, to the exclusion of the rest.

Proposed Addition:

NON WESTERN CONCEPTS OF MALE SEXUALITY

In most non-western and non-westernised traditional societies, there exists a completely different concept of male sexuality than in the West. (1) It has been the same in pre-modern West. (2) Of course, it can also be argued that even in the modern, western, heterosexual, middle class industrial societies, even after several decades of the introduction of the concept of sexual orientation, a significant number of men in these societies still do not relate with sexual identities, whether or not they accept their same-sex desires and needs. (3) In fact it can also be said that the existence of the concept of 'homosexuality' -- not as it is formally defined, but because of the hidden baggages the concept has, has been responsible for several men not being comfortable with their sexuality. The western society has not really dealt with this indiscrepancy, and has not been able to explain it satisfactorily. Additionally, these men also suffer severe emotional, psychological and social trauma because of imposition of the concept of ‘sexual orienation’ on them, by the western society, and could actually be one of the reasons why many men do not come to terms with their same-sex feelings and fight with it all their lives. (2) (3)

The main differences in the non-western(ized) world are:

1. The men’s spaces are very strong. Men’s spaces refer to spaces which are exclusively for men, and where women are either not allowed or their entry is highly restricted. (4) (5)

2. Man’s sexual need for other men is considered to be a universal phenomenon, meaning that to like other men sexually is believed to be an integral part of manhood, which all men are born with. This belief may be limited in the privacy of men’s spaces, within which men acknowledge it openly, whereas denying the existence of such a need in formal and mixed gender spaces. Or they may be openly accepted even in the formal spaces. It all depends upon how accepting the formal spaces are to male-male sexuality. An example of the latter is Kandahaar in Afghanistan. (2) (6) (7)

3. There is no concept of sexual orientation at all, in all of these societies (the modern day non-western and non-westernised societies, the pre-modern west). There is no division of men or their isolation from the mainstream men’s group on the basis of ‘sexual orientation’. (1), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (16)

4. On the other hand, there is a strong division of the male population between masculine gendered males (called ‘men’), and feminine gendered males (known as the third-sex, and often clubbed along with the hermaphrodite), irrespective of their sexual orientation. The third-sex is considered a separate gender category, and its members are not considered either men or women but a neutral or intermediate gender. Thus, a man having sex with men is not the same as a third-sex male having sex with men. A man and a person of the third sex are not considered same-sex. It has been the same in the west before Christianity. Only the feminine male is considered different. Only the feminine male aspires for a separate identity, be it Catamite, Hijra, Kathoey, Gay, Homosexual or MSM. Only the feminine male fits into these identities and is comfortable with them. (11) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)

5. When the western concepts of ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are implanted – often aggressively by western educated ‘gay’ activists/ chauvinists -- in these traditional societies where men’s spaces are strong, they are automatically converted into gender identity– the third gender identity, by the popular culture. Thus, in these societies, only the effeminate, feminine gendered male is considered ‘gay’ or ‘queer' or ‘homosexual’, no matter how it is defined in English. (16) As a direct contradiction to the western concepts, often, even the heterosexual transgender is defined as a ‘homosexual’ by the vernacular population, as the term is seen to denote their femininity, not their ‘sexual orientation’. (20) (23)

6. The English educated section, and the westernized populations of these traditional societies (like in India) however, at least in formal spaces, adhere to the western concepts, although in practice they may follow both western as well as traditional concepts of sexuality. (10)

7. Whereas the westernized feminine gendered male population in these societies lap up the concepts of ‘gay’ and homosexuality, the men resent the imposition of this western concept and fight it as long as men’s spaces are strong. But when these spaces are broken through the process of heterosexualisation, men in these societies are eventually forced to adopt these concepts. (23)

References:

(1) GAY AMERICAN “DEVIANCE”: Using International Comparative Analysis to Argue for a Free Speech and Establishment Clause Approach to Furthering Gay Marriage in the United States. Bijal Shah, Yale Law School; http://lsr.nellco.org/yale/student/papers/52/

Quote from the research paper:

“Sexual identity is not universally understood as solely located in the individual in the same fashion as lesbian and gay identity in middle-class Western societies.”

(2) The Changing social construction of western male homosexuality: Association with worsening youth suicide problems: chapter: Male homosexuality: from commonality to rarity; http://youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/construction/3-gay-youth-suicide-homosexuality-rare.htm

(3) Sexual Identity Development and Synthesis among LGB-Identified and LGB Dis-Identified Persons.; Journal article by Mark A. Yarhouse, Erica S.N. Tan, Lisa M. Pawlowski; Journal of Psychology and Theology, Vol. 33, 2005 http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=H9hL2Qb2lV2kQnpGtXTrZzXGkMPhJ0TVXRzfT8hSw316CbPsWW8S!-1788132937?docId=5009356549

Quotes from the research paper:

“Despite recent theories of sexual identity development and synthesis, very little is actually known about why some people who experience same-sex attraction integrate their experiences into a lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) identity by identifying with LGB-affirming ideologies, while others dis-identify with LGB-affirming ideologies. It is unclear whether specific milestone events lead to one outcome, or whether multiple outcomes are possible with respect to sexual identity synthesis.”

(4) Negotiating Gender: Calalai' in Bugis Society: Sharyn Graham; also, Bissu are gender transcendent, pre-Islamic priests. See Leonard Andaya, 'The Bissu: Study of a Third Gender in Indonesia', in Other Pasts: Women, Gender, and History in Early Modern Southeast Asia, ed. Barbara Andaya, Hawai'i: Hawai'i University Press, 2000:27-46.

Quote:

“Today Mariani, Rani, and I went to a wedding. The three of us are so free to move. Mariani (bissu)[50] and Rani (calalai' ) can move in women's spaces and into men's places because they are neither and yet both. Similarly, I have the position of foreign researcher that allows access to the men's arena, and I am a woman which allows access to the women's arena. Rani sat with the women in the kitchen for a while and cooked talibo (B) [a type of seafood]. Afterwards s/he moved to the front of the house and socialised with the men. Women and men are not able to do this travelling between spaces so easily.[51]”

(5) Masculinity for boys; A guide for peer-educators: published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

There are several references in the book to men’s spaces (all-male spaces) and how they are beneficial for men, and how heterosexual spaces (mixed gender spaces) harm men, and it also establishes the relationship between heterosexualisation of men’s spaces and the emergence of the concept of ‘homosexuality’.

(6) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators: Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Quote from the book: Page 96: "In the ancient world, love and sexual intimacy between men was not supposed to be limited to a ‘sexual minority’, as is made out today. Most men developed such bonds which were institutionalized and blessed by society…"

"Most evidences of these universal love bonds between masculine men in the ancient world have been destroyed through the ages …"

Page 98: "Men have always secretly known and understood the universal male need for intimacy with men, but have also known that the society strongly discourages open acknowledgement of such desire."

(7) Kandahar's lightly veiled homosexual habits http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44067,00.html

http://www.nfi.net/NFI%20Publications/ Pukaar/2007/Pukaar%20-%20Apr%2007%20.pdf

(8) Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book: Desiring Arabs from the site: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1679743

Quote:

“Massad's point, though, is this: In the Arab world, men who have sex with men are, for the most part, not "gay", and need no liberation from prosecution. They are not "gay" because "gay" is a Western identity that The Gay International has attempted to thrust upon them.”

(9) Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book Desiring Arabs; http://www.al-bab.com/arab/articles/text/massad.htm

Quote:

“The central thesis of his 25-page polemic was that promotion of gay rights in the Middle East is a conspiracy led by western orientalists and colonialists which “produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist”.

(10) Homosexual behaviour without homosexual identity: The case of Chinese men having sex with men (MSM); Winkelmann C.; Int Conf AIDS. 2004 Jul 11-16; 15: abstract no. WePeD6407; http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102284322.html

Quote:

"Historically homosexual behaviour was wide-spread in China and tolerated by society as long as the men were married and had children. "Homosexual behaviour - as distinct from a gay" identity, which is a Western import that didn't hit China until the late 20th century - was an ordinary part of Chinese life." Lessons: As a result the majority of MSM do not consider themselves as either homo- or bisexual."

(11) GAY CULTURES IN MANAGUA, NICARAGUA; http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/gl/mana.html

Quote:

"There is no strong feeling of identity or community for men involved in homo-sexual behavior, except for the maricones who have a strong sense of identity and for the western style gays who have a sense both of identity and community."

(13) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Page 102 "Terms like "sexual orientation", 'heterosexual', and 'homosexual' distort and misrepresent the truth about male gender and sexuality. Sexual Orientation is not a valid concept. The basic assumptions behind it are wrong."

“But the basic drawback (of the scientific discourse on male-male sexuality) is that they conveniently assume that the modern socio-political ‘gay’ identity constitutes a distinct biological group, which is an absurd and unscientific assumption.Men of different genders came together on a common platform ‘homosexual’ in the west only because of their oppression under heterosexualisation and not because of any biological affinity.”

(14) Transgender people in non-Western cultures; Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Transgender_people_in_non-Western_cultures

(15) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Quote:

Page: 102 "When these heterosexual terms (gay, homosexual) are forced upon a traditional society like India, their meaning and connotation changes. E.g., the sexual identity ‘homosexual’ becomes a gender identity (transgender)."

Page 103 "Homosexuality refers to the sexual desire of a feminine gendered male for another male."

"A homosexual is thus a feminine gendered male who desires another male."

"The sexual desire of a masculine gendered male for another male does not need a separate terminology. No separate identity or description is required to describe a masculine gendered man who desires another man, as it is a near universal male quality."

"Most homosexuals describe feeling different from other boys, even before they discover their sexuality. This difference is primarily because of their feminine gender but is wrongly associated with a sexual desire for men. Homosexual men look for a separate identity from masculine men."

"Masculine gendered men who are in touch with their same-sex feelings do not feel ‘different’ from other men, and they do not like to be segregated into a separate social category."

(16) Non-normative Sex/Gender Categories in the Theravada Buddhist Scriptures; Compiled by Peter A. Jackson http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-April-1996/Jacksonref.html

Quotes:

“The Pali canon contains numerous references to homoerotic behaviour and to individuals who today would be variously identified as hermaphrodites, transvestites, transsexuals and homosexuals. However, none of the sex/gender categories named in the c anon precisely matches any of these contemporary notions, but combines instead elements of these diverse physiological, gender and sexual conditions in distinctive formulations. “

“The Vinaya identifies four main sex/gender types: male and female, and two additional categories, called ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka in Pali.”

“it appears that among the early Buddhist communities men who engaged in receptive anal sex were seen as feminized and thought to be hermaphrodites. In contrast, men who engaged in oral sex were not seen as crossing sex/gender boundaries, but rather as engaging in abnormal sexual practices without threatening their masculine gendered existence.“

(17) Kathoey; Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey

The term kathoey or katoey (Thai: กะเทย, IPA: [kaʔtʰɤːj]) generally refers to a male-to-female transgender person or aneffeminate gay male in Thailand.

(18) Hijras; Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia%29#_note-11

Quote:

“In the culture of the Indian subcontinent a hijra (also known by a number of different names and romanized spellings) is usually considered a member of "the third sex" — neither man nor woman. Most are physically male or intersex, but some are female. Hijras usually refer to themselves as female at the language level, and usually dress as women.”

“Kothis are regarded as feminine men or boys who take a feminine role in sex with men, but do not live in the kind of intentional communities that hijras usually live in. Local equivalents include durani (Kolkata),menaka (Cochin),[3] meti (Nepal), and zenana (Pakistan).”

“These identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation.”

(19) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Quote:

Page 63 "Case Study: In a series of workshops on masculinity conducted by an NGO with men of all ages in several cities of North India, the men described a famous TV character Dilruba as a ‘homo’. Dilruba is a limp-wristed, extremely feminine person, but his sexual interest is only in women. On the other hand, two masculine men who have sex exclusively with each other (and not with women) were not identified as ‘homo’."

(20) Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book: Desiring Arabs; http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1679743

Quotes:

“Western gay-rights groups are causing great harm to those they purport to assist by forcing them to either choose the Western "gay" label, or choose not to realize their true sexuality.”

“Like the Byzantines who viewed unveiled women as prostitues or lower class women and thus succeeded in creating the veiled Arab woman simply by implying they are a lower class if unveiled, Western literature of the last 1000 years referring to the Arabs as sodomites and pederasts and now, incredibly as homophobes, has imposed its mores and culture on their fluid concepts of Arab sexuality.”

(21) Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World, Review of Joseph Massad’s book: Desiring Arabs; http://www.al-bab.com/arab/articles/text/massad.htm

"It is among members of these richer segments of society that the Gay International has found native informants. Although members of these classes who engage in same-sex relations have more recently adopted a western identity (as part of the package of the adoption of everything western by the classes to which they belong), they remain a minuscule minority among those men who engage in same-sex relations and who do not identify as “gay” nor express a need for gay politics."

(22) Masculinity for boys: A guide for peer educators; Published by UNESCO, New Delhi http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146514e.pdf

Page 100 “Case Study: The HIV/ AIDS intervention programme being implemented in India, which is heavily funded by foreign donors, is being used by certain vested interest groups to divide the Indian male society along the lines of sexual orientation, and create a homosexual identity. Although, it has not worked and the only takers for the homosexual identity have ben the English speaking feminine gendered males, the entire social machinery — including the media and the government — has put its weight behind this endeavour.

After the failure of the homosexual identity amongst Indian men, some 'gay' activists introduced a clever term ‘MSM’, i.e., ‘men who have sex with men’ which, being a technical term, was difficult to avoid. However, this has become another third sex identity, and is used only by / for feminine males. Ironically, the indigenous feminine gendered males (e.g. the Hijras) too reject this identity, since they do not consider themselves ‘men’.”

(59.178.87.8 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC))