Talk:LGBT

Archives
April 2004 - 2007 2008 - present

Question

What is it called when someone who is heterosexual but has homosexual and or bisexual feelings? For example, his mind may tell him that homosexuality and bisexuality is wrong but his heart says that homosexuality and bisexuality is right. He identifies with heterosexuality as he likes girls publicly but at the same time feels that he likes boys too but privately. What would that person be called? Thank you. 71.121.81.9 (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Repressed? El_C 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This can apply to some cases, but only to people who are actively repressing the feelings, it would be a subset. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You might try bi-curious and questioning. Banjeboi 13:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These are great. I'd also suggest heteroflexible. As above, these are subcategories though, because not all people with feelings are curious about them or questioning, just as they may also not be repressing them, or with my term, be flexible about their sexuality. There needs to be a more neutral and unifying term for all of these. Honestly it's all 'bisexual' to me, because if you have hetero+homo feelings you are a bisexual, but your sex life may not be. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Along those same lines, is there a term for someone who is attracted to members of the same sex, but holds a genuine belief that engaging in homosexual intercourse is immoral (or otherwise wrong), and as such refrains from doing so? Nonpracticing homosexual? Recovering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.229.30 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Same as above although immoral suggests a religious component as well. -- Banjeboi 00:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

'Immoral' does not suggest a religious component, morals come from things other than religion too. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Abstinent is the term that first comes to mind. Mdumas43073 (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This can certainly describe some people, but not all people who object to homosexuality object to sexuality in entirety. For example, a married man can consummate sex with his wife, thus making him not abstinent, yet refrain from homosexual sex as 74 has described, so the term is not inclusive enough. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these would describe the entirety of what you are referring to. 'Nonpractising' works, but being attracted to members of the same sex doesn't make someone a homosexual by necessity (they can be bisexual with a preference for the opposite sex, most probably are). Similarly 'recovering' is not NPOV because it implies that homosexuality is something you 'recover' from like a malady, which is not a supported belief in a non-religious context. Tyciol (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gay and bisexual tend to be social identities and many simply are sexual and have sexual desires beyond a heteronormative model yet will never labels themselves as anything but strait, heterosexual and normal. -- Banjeboi 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the "See Also" links...

Resolved

I find it a bit inappropriate to link BDSM from the LGBT page. Maybe its there because its also an acronym, but I still don't think it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andou Hayate (talk • contribs) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'll remove it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm assuming it was put there because both are oppressed sexual minorities. Kairos (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think it belongs, though. Do you? Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A link to a list of acronyms for people would be more appropriate, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 03:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

Wiktionary redirects LGBT to GLBT. Wikipedia redirects GLBT to LGBT. Which is better? jg (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Use LGBT on Wikipedia when it's open for choice; if someone puts GLBT, or LGBTI or other variation, it can be left as is as all roads tend to lead here. There isn't one group or person who speaks for all LGBT people but the broad consensus is that LGBT is the most widely used initialism at the moment. This could change but would likely happen over a long period of time. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, what is your lexicographic source for your claim tht “LGBT is the most-widely-used initialism at the moment”? – joeclark (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure on which authority either is used, should we just see what abbreviation shows up more in google? Assuming all things equal, why not just make it alphabetical and use BGLT? Having bisexuals come first is also more sexually neutral. Another thing, the term 'gay' can include lesbians too, so why not BGT? Or since we are using technical terms and gay/lesbian are both slang, why not BHT using 'homosexual'? Tyciol (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First off homosexual to describe gay and lesbian people is deprecated and generally seen as pejorative when not used as a clinical/scientific setting, which this is not. Alphabetical may make sense but LGBT is politically motivated which also likely accounts for its more widespread usage as is evident on the Ghits measure. -- Banjeboi 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Resource Centers on Campus

I have a question for the community. My younger sister, a freshman at Syracuse University, recently tried to add some material to the wikipedia article about the school. She is a novice, and admittedly some of her edits were questionable, but I think her wanting to add something on the LGBT student center there I think is valid. She said it was to honor me, which I really appreciated. The problem is, there is an editor there who apparently feels he has an ownership stake in that page who has reversed essentially everything she wanted to add. Is this a precedence we want to establish, disallowing LGBT student activities to be mentioned on a University's Wikipedia entry? Please provide some feedback. And I'm sorry to put this as an anonymous edit, but I am (sheepishly) not fully out...yet. I don't think using my usual Username would advance my cause on other pages I have a stake in. (I know, I know...) Thanks alot. 170.170.59.139 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have a long-ish response about this content at User talk:Benjiboi#Request for your input, FWIW. -- Banjeboi 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Category: LGBT Mexicans/hispanics/etc?

Why isn't there a category for GLBT (the way I spell it) hispanics or GLBT hispanic americans? Am I just not finding it? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See if Category:LGBT people by nationality helps; I'm not sure if we seperate by ethnicity as well but that should be addressed at WT:LGBT. -- Banjeboi 21:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no category for LGBT Mexican Americans/hispanics. What gives? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does the last line of the criticism specifically mention Asian parents as being intolerant? I feel like its singling them out unfairly. Hjason887 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)jh

I think it's an attempt to present the content as the sourcing reports it, any suggestions how it could be worded better? -- Banjeboi 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Include the Q for LBGTQ

Is there any reason why this article doesn't include the Q by default and simply mentions it in the description? DPic (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I and ? and a few others, Q is still gaining usage and isn't widespread or widely agreed upon definition. We do however include LBGTQ in our redirects here so feel free to use that in articles. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia was actually the first place i had heard LGBTQ without the Q. It seems pretty standard to include it since it stands for queer/questioning and queer is the umbrella term for anything not already included in LGBT. Shadowmage13 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's standard in some places but certainly not universal. Personally it seems most often used in context with younger focussed groups and indeed all the terms have morphed with each generation. LGBTQ groups that cater to students, in particular, are naturally dealing with general sexuality issues and similar to P-FLAG need to embrace anyone who wants to be involved as sometimes peope remain closeted so don't want to identify as anything but "a friend of". On Wikipedia, however, feel free to use it in the context of what sources state. Like if a group is a LGBTQ-focussed group then go ahead and state that. -- Banjeboi 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LGBT/homosexualist slant

This article, like many Wikipedia articles, puts an extreme pro-homosexual slant on the presentation of the material. In mainstream American society, homosexuality is considered a deviant and immoral behavior, and these articles do not reflect the largely negative understanding of homosexual behavior held by the overwhelming majority of Americans and the overwhelming majority of the international community. The article positions people who engage in such behaviors as morally entitled to engage in such behaviors, and meanwhile that entitlement, or that "right," assumed as fact in this article, is in fact at the center of the debate over homosexuality. Simply, the article presupposes that people who disagree with homosexual behavior OR the homosexual lifestyle are wrong for disagreeing with that behavior/lifestyle.

Changes should be made that reflect the growing recognition of homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle, both now and in the past. The article mentions that derogatory terms were used for homosexuality and does not describe what those terms are. A balanced article would include both good and bad terms for behavior that is, on the whole, considered deviant.

Until such changes are made so that the tone of the article is not that of a press release from a homosexualist group, this article will remain imbalanced and not neutral. 75.67.81.144 (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Response - This is an article about the abbreviation, or initialism. It is not about the acceptability or otherwise of a "behaviour" or "lifestyle". The article is covering the development of non-derogatory terms. The derogatory terms are in other articles that can be found at Category:LGBT terms.

I take issue with your words "growing recognition of homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle". This indicates a poor understanding of the origins of homosexuality within the genetic makeup of all animals including humans. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle nor is it a learned behaviour. Because there is a genetic basis for LGBT, there is no reasonable justification in a modern scientific world to call it deviant. Can you also give sources for your words "growing recognition"? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)