Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tenor12 (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 4 August 2015 (→Homophobia in ethnic minority communities link: Clarifying edit revert reason: Redundancy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleLGBTQ has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 26, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 9, 2014Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Pbneutral

Proper Acronym?

What is the appropriate acronym to be used? Is it GLBT or LGBT? This is an organization which promotes sexual equality among persons of varying sexual orientations or life-styles. The term “Gay Rights” is more pure to the notion of equal acceptance and tolerance of persons with differing sexual orientations than “Lesbianism.” The notion of “Lesbianism” encompasses a wide range of political beliefs ranging from equal acceptance of homosexuality in society (which most reasonable people support) to the promotion of lesbian over all other forms of sexual relationships. There is considerable conflict between many tenets of Lesbianism and other groups of the GLBT movement. For instance Lesbianism often adopts a radical feminist conception of gender. This view holds that gender is entirely socially constructed. The very existence of transsexuals conflicts with this holding. In 2000 the Vancouver Rape Relief Society, a pro-Lesbianism and feminist organization, successfully sought judicial review of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the society discriminated against a transsexual female (See Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society). On the other hand, gay men have not been known to be political active in areas of gender segregation, extreme misogyny or hostility toward transsexual individuals. Traditionally the acronym has been GLBT. The GLBT movement was focused on the acceptance of sexual diversity. Other political interests should not be subsumed by the GLBT movement, lest the hostilities toward those extrinsic political ideologies hinder the otherwise legitimate and widely supported movement toward sexual diversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses "LGBT" rather than "GLBT" because "LGBT" is the more common form, not for any ideological reason. With regard to the above, most people who identify as lesbians are not involved in any kind of "lesbianism movement". It's just the most common English term for homosexual women. --Alynna (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources suggesting LGBT is more common? While I've heard both, GLBT is more common where I live (and in Google results). --50.131.152.251 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the same thing on the Google Battle engine (not scientific, but an effective measure of commonality), with 14 million for GLBT versus under a million for LBGT. Should there be mention of the origin of the letter ordering perhaps and how it switched? http://www.googlebattle.com/?domain=glbt+&domain2=lbgt&submit=Go%21 161.7.94.136 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada most universities have a "GLBT" centre. The acronym seems uncontroversial. Perhaps a fair solution would be HBT (Homesexual, Bisexual and Transexual)? This acronym seems more pure to the movement. The movement is nothing more than the acceptance of sexual diversity in society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should your proposed acronym gain enough traction to be notable, it can be added to Wikipedia. --Alynna (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



If the proper historical reference is supposed to be included & used, historically, "GLBT" is the term referenced originally. LGBT is a somewhat recent change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.188.145 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


For reference, I'm including some URLs to pages which discuss the topic of GLBT vs. LGBT

GLBT is a mainstream term. It is used by organizations such as Carleton University, University of Victoria, University of Toronto, United Church of Canada, Ottawa Police Service, Public Service Alliance of Canada and many other organizations. One need only Google "GLBT"[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billturner1983 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSCA_enCA479CA479&q=glbt#q=glbt&hl=en&rlz=1T4TSCA_enCA479CA479&ei=NA9BUYjGKqqQyQGmqoDIDQ&start=20&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.aWc&fp=cda8e9028e2250e2&biw=857&bih=370

Little Wording Issue

Call me nit-picky, but I came across a phrase in the History section that is a bit POV: "..the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion." This sounds as though it is a quote that needs textual attribution, which is why I declined to make any corrections myself, but what I do know is that the article should not make such judgments on its own. Mrathel (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

"The broad spectrum of LGBT groups has been expanded further in many cases, recently a resident of Manchester, Joe Parrott, has started an LGBT online gaming network that has proven very popular since its creation in 2009. The group joins together players of Counter-Strike, World of Warcraft and primarily Dark Age of Camelot, and has monthly meetings at Gay venues across the north."

This would seem to belong more properly to LGBT organizations, if it is notable enough for inclusion. Eponymous (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology

"The acronym LGBT has become mainstream as a self-designation and has been adopted by the majority of LGBT community centers and LGBT media".

So we are saying that "LGBT" is used in the "LGBT community" and by "LGBT media". Presumably, the "LGBT community", for lack of any other definition, amounts to "those people who self-identify as 'LGBT'". This is just meaningless.

Also, the term being "mainstream" within the "LGBT community" is not sufficient for using it in Wikipedia's voice without attribution, because Wikipedia isn't part of the "LGBT media" and is required to use the most common terminology in English as a whole.

Improper use of a 1990s neologism across Wikipedia leads to absurdities like "LGBT rights by country or territory". Please take a second to reflect on the introductory sentence, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) related laws vary greatly by country or territory".

This is nonsense. The article is not aware of any single law on bisexuality. There are laws on homosexuality, sometimes these laws distinguish between male and female homosexuality, and there are presumably some laws on "transgender", i.e. legal change of sex, a topic entirely separate from laws on homosexuality. Lumping this together isn't just absurd, it's also a violation of WP:SYNTH.

We need an article on Homosexuality laws. The proper encyclopedic term for male homosexuality is "male homosexuality", that for female homosexuality is "female homosexuality". Our articles should not be written in slang, even if it is the slang of the subculture under discussion.

I realize this will be difficult to fix, as I assume 90% of people interested in writing these articles are apparently members of this subculture, while another 9% are homophobic trolls. Nevertheless I hope that even involved editors can take a step back and appreciate this call for encyclopedicity. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous idea. Homosexuality laws it's absurd title and, definitely, is not encyclopedic term. No serious reasons to changes. Ron 1987 15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"homosexuality laws" is an "absurd title" and "not encyclopedic"? As opposed to "LGBT laws"? Any sort of rationale to back up this random claim? If you bother to peruse google books, you will find that "homosexuality laws" gives you 588 hits, while "LGBT laws" gives you 15, the earliest dating to 1998.
I would say this is a "serious reason" for a change under WP:UE, and you would seem to need to present excellent evidence to argue for a preference of the more obscure term. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "homosexuality laws" is perfectly appropriate. In fact throughout history, most laws aimed at curbing homesexual activity have almost always been exclusively applicable to gay men. The standard form prohibition on homosexual activity is a ban on sodomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wturn086 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" The article is not aware of any single law on bisexuality. There are laws on homosexuality" - I think you'll find that if a bisexual person is having a same-sex relationship, they'll be caught by the laws just the same as homosexual people. (And if you're going to say there isn't a law against being bisexual but not having same-sex acts, the same applies to homosexuality too - so that's an argument against your suggested title. The article refers to gay and bisexual "related laws" which is entirely correct - the laws relate to both gay and bisexual people.)
No one is claiming that laws have treated gay men and gay women the same, but they are close enough to cover in the same article. There is also a reasonable amount of cross-over with transgender issues. And since that article is basically a table, it seems destructive to just rip out one column for a separate article.
It is unclear if you object to the initialism, or the covering in the same article. Would you object if it was "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender rights by country or territory"? Mdwh (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point ("there isn't a law against being bisexual but [against] same-sex acts, the same applies to homosexuality") is equivocation. The laws only address behavior; homosexual-, bisexual-, heterosexual- and asexual-oriented people can all be directly affected by them. So if "gay and bisexual laws" makes sense because gay and bisexual people are both affected by them, then what is the justification for exluding non-homosexual and non-bisexual people who can also be affected by the laws? Nay, the laws on homosexuality regulate homosexual behavior, and that's all that can be said about them.
Laws concerning male and female homosexuality overlap in many areas, as same-sex marriage, military service, adoption, discrimination, etc. But in other areas they do not, as sodomy laws and legal ages of consent. So covering male and female homosexuality in a single article is tenable. But where do homosexuality and transgenderism overlap? Transgenderism overlaps with other things; homosexuality overlaps with other things. To what purpose does conflating homosexuality and transgenderism serve? In my view, it serves no usability or function. It's simply ignorant at best and slanderous at worst.
Another point is that it is naïve to think the gay or LGBT community represent all homosexuals. If they did, designations like "men who have sex with men" wouldn't be necessary. But I recognize "gay" as a neutral synonym for "homosexual" is also tenable. Nonetheless, I don't self-identify as "gay" personally for the reason I don't self-identify as "atheist": both terms have political and social overtones I don't want to associate myself with.
I've addressed this issue at Talk:LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#pov-pushing_by_article_title and at Talk:LGBT_themes_in_mythology#This_ought_to_be_split_into_two_articles. 75.132.142.26 (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Variant

There is now a new variant, "LGBTQI2-S", translating as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered/queer/intersexed/2-spirited. gsearch gives only 27 uses, but a main use is at the Homelessness Resource Center, and is used at a site run by "A program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services" [1]. I think this should be mentioned. (but this is getting somewhat ridiculous)(Mercurywoodrose)76.245.45.179 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous homosexuality is put in the same category as transgenderism and intersexuality. This is extremely bigoted and anti-homosexual. It's saying if you're homosexual, you're necessarily gender-atypical. What could be more bigoted than that? The Right says homosexual men are not moral men; the Left says homosexual men are not real men. What's the point of giving me my dignity as a person only to deny me my dignity as a man? Why can't people understand that "it's your choice of lifestyle" is an infinitely more tolerant statement than "you're a congenital mental hermaphrodite who can't help being a non-normal (i.e., non-heterosexual) man and so shouldn't be legally and socially thwarted from pursuing your compulsion"? 75.132.142.26 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the Left says homosexual men are not real men." I stopped here. You mad? Most of left is feminist and most of branches of Feminism says that gender roles are a social construction i.e. there is not "real men" and "real women" and there is not something that is more "masculine" and something that is more "feminine" in all cultures across History and world, every human being is what they really are. You seem to have a heterosexist point of view towards our transgender brothers/sisters/what-they-are-and-want-to-be-called. Lguipontes (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're in 99% of probability an anonymous troll but anyway... >Why can't people understand that "it's your choice of lifestyle" is an infinitely more tolerant statement than "you're a congenital mental hermaphrodite who can't help being a non-normal (i.e., non-heterosexual) man and so shouldn't be legally and socially thwarted from pursuing your compulsion"?< Do you want my opinion as a bisexual who fell in love with another boy at his first time when he was 7 years old (IQ says I'm almost genius)? Fuck what people think (actually, this one have to be the maximum in the heart and in the mind of every sane and self-loving non-heterosexual in a blatantly and violently heterosexist culture). In Brazil, where I live, if everybody had knowledge about sexual orientations as science demonstrates it in your society (biologically motivated), millions of homophobes would shut up. From religious to far right. Millions of homophobes could never have existed, from bullies who make little boys kill themselves to white power skinheads. In the hearts of all confuse parents, truth, hope and deep love could persevere instead of really sad hate and denial feelings that leads some to honor killings and other to physical and psychological abuse. Yeah, Science can prove that we're here since Upper Paleolithic, 9000 years before Bible (and some parts of History too, Portuguese wrote about Indigenous Brazilian "profanely and alarmingly common sodomy"). But it has to become mainstream there, to get notice here and help 8-11% (we are that numerous, I suppose) of our 200 million inhabitants. No, more than that, because the entire Latin American reality is more or less the same. Stronger conservative christianity (and if you ask me, more hypocritical, the way that only some of you native Anglophones can see) is not very helpful, they deny everything by the "gay agenda" myth and other ridiculous stereotypes. There are Christian public figures who are used to compare non-heterosexual acceptance to ten steps toward bestiality and pedophilia acceptance. As you can see, "choice of lifestyle" leads to 387982738928920387290020092373209302378 more social and psychological damage than "congenital mental hermaphrodite who can't help being a non-normal (i.e., non-heterosexual) man and so shouldn't be legally and socially thwarted from pursuing your compulsion" as consensus. I dream everyday with the latter. Lguipontes (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
someday perhaps categories won't be needed for anyone AvocadosTheorem (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
put them in alpha order, to be fair, you get biglqt or "big loquat". is this significant?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT or GLBT is an initialism....

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Editor blocked

I put "or GLBT" in because that's what usually happened in articles with alternative names. The reason for the last removal was "fixing template on page" which I don't understand. Why shouldn't it say "or GLBT"? Short life (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 25 February 2013

This website should be removed from the external links - * GayLGBT.com

There is no real content.

Instead a good growing UK resource would be * LGBT.co.uk

87.114.234.161 (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I have removed the excessive links per WP:ELNO. Most of the links did not add information that couldn't be covered in the article. Others were broad, unfocused collections of non-encyclopedic information; DMOZ directory is very 1995; a single student organization; a non-authoritative Power Point presentation, etc. Wikipedia is not a link farm. I've also declined to add the link that you recommended—it seems to be a news aggregator/blog, of which there are many, many on the web. If we are going to add such a site, there should be a discussion and we should choose the one with the best editorial oversight and meaningful content. - MrX 13:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GSRM

I don't edit wikipedia enough to be allowed to add an edit directly to the page. I think that GSRM should be included with GSM as an initialism that additionally includes people with diverse relationship structures. There are descriptions of the term at Queer@UofM and FTM transcribed Therunaround (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"er.g."

This unusual abbreviation (not one I have come across before, and certainly not one in common usage) appears in the 'Variants' section of the article: "MSM" (er.g. [sic] "men who have sex with men"). Could the editors please review its use, and amend as appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeybear (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GSD is not common

The GSD initialism is not common so I feel it shouldn't be in the lead or bolded. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is a POV term that not only is not recognized, even amongst actual Transgender groups, but excludes other groups already included in LGBT. Assume all attempts to include it are vandalism and remove immediately. 106.69.40.146 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

Solosexuality

Currently, solosexuality automatically redirects to autoeroticism. I could be wrong, but I've always imagined that there is a difference between the two, since the latter appears to refer specifically to physical acts, whereas "solosexuality" sounds somewhat similar to asexuality, i.e. as a way of life including feelings, self-sufficiency, etc, and should perhaps therefore be included in the scope of LGBT topics, as well a in the LGBT symbols, etc. (Leading on from this, then, a new solosexuality article should perhaps be created...?) BigSteve (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A for Allies"

Under the controversy section, it definitely should be brought up that the inclusion of "A for Allies" is pretty frowned upon, especially because it ends up erasing the A being for Asexual and also because while allies are allies of the community, they are not outright members. It is something that some groups do use in their abbreviations but it's definitely garnered some criticism. That said, there are a fair few people who are in favor of keeping it I just think it should be mentioned. Just google the topic and plenty of stuff comes up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.187.142 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>> I believe "ally" should not be included in the definition of the acronym, since, as the user above stated, its inclusion is commonly frowned upon and it is not a sexual or gender identity. The A stands for "asexual." A separate comment on the controversy of including "ally" in the acronym can be added. -mmmmomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmmomo (talk • contribs)

We need to go by what reliable sources say. According to sources, A can stand for either ally or asexual. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Although I totally understand the criticism of allies being under the "a" (and agree with it, personally), there seems to be no reliable sources discussing the issue, therefore including it would be WP:ADVOCACY. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new at editing and was hoping for some help from someone more advanced. I found a dead link for ref #43:
Smith, S. E. (17 September 2010). "Separate But Equal Is Still Unequal". Retrieved 2010-11-27.
Could someone help provide a new reference here? Thanks. JLand13 (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request (the very 1st sentence of the article)

In the very first sentence of the article there is a punctuation error. There should be no comma between bisexual and transgender. That's how it is now. A screenshot with the error. 178.94.102.44 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Unlikely - Serial commas are allowed (see MOS:SERIAL), as long as they are used consistently in the article.- MrX 00:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no Q?

I'm curious as to why the "Q" in the acronym is left out, both in the title and in the article. I don't really see why it wouldn't be there. Maybe someone could explain to me the reasoning behind this? GoGatorMeds (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoGatorMeds, there is no Q, as in LGBTQ, because of the WP:Common name policy. "LGBT" is the WP:Common name for this topic, and so the article title should be at that title. Significant alternative titles should be mentioned in the WP:Lead (introduction), and/or in a section lower in the article, per the WP:Alternative title policy, and that is what the article does. The "Q" is in the lead, and lower in the article, along with other variants. What should also be in the lead (and bolded there) is "GLBT," since that is the second most common title for this topic (as noted lower in the article). It was removed twice from the lead in 2012 when an IP attempted to add it, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thank you for clearing that confusion up for me. GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GoGatorMeds, you're not new to editing Wikipedia, are you? Looking at your contributions, you are familiar to me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not, I think that I have heard the acronym with the Q more often than not, personally, which is why I was originally confused. But now that I know that is merely a personal experience, and it's more widely used among the general public without the Q, I understand why it is used this way on the page. Thank you again.GoGatorMeds (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT domestic violence

Nothing on LGBT domestic violence.--Penbat (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Penbat: Wouldn't seem to belong on this page as it's not about LGBT specifically. There is, however, a section at Domestic_violence#Same-sex_relationships. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this article is about the initialism/term LGBT. The LGBT community article is significantly more about the people and what they face. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22: About that – I know it's probably been brought up on the LGBT page before, but wouldn't a title change to "LGBT (term)" – or something along those lines – help clarify the issue? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because, per WP:Disambiguation, we do not disambiguate unless there is a need to do so.
Also, because this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym or abbreviation

Dear esteemed members of the Wikipedia community, acronyms are abbreviations you can pronounce like a word (NATO, UNESCO). LGBT certainly doesn't come into this category so "acronym" should be changed to "abbreviation" throughout. You wouldn't want the Encyclopaedia Britannica people coming in and laughing! Many thanks. 95.172.64.57 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct (m-w definition here). I'll fix it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't mind the changes made in this regard (concerning acronyms vs. initialisms), the Acronym article (which includes WP:Reliable sources) is clear that we don't have to be strict on this matter. It's also why initialism currently redirects to the Acronym article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM" acronym meaning: Thoughts?

As the article stands, the sources given say that the acronym stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexual, asexual, gender-fuck, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism", however, I'm just questioning the "flexual" label. Do they mean a "flexible" sexuality instead (i.e. heteroflexible/homoflexible)? And should the wording in this sentence of the article be changed to reflect that difference? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been almost a month and I've had no reply to this, I've stuck a {{clarify}} tag over "flexual", as the article does not clarify what "flexual" means, as it stands. Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but I haven't got a clue what "flexual" means... – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want an acronym referring to the LGBTQIAP+ community with "f," "a," and "g" right next to each other.Tenor12 (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GSM/GRSM and MOGAI

Hey! Reading through the article I find it worrisome that the terms GSM and GSRM are mentioned without informing on how it has generally been abandoned when it was discovered that it was claimed by a paedophile. Personally I would rather have more focus on the term MOGAI as it is way more inclusive than LGBT ever will be. It is also worth mentioning the controversy around whether paedophilia is a sexual orientation or a fetish, although again most people I've seen has agreed that it is nothing but a fetish, or even an illness, and therefore would not be included in the MOGAI acronym. 88.88.224.3 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@88.88.224.3: The discussion of paedophilia as a sexual orientation is mentioned here, on the "Pedophilia" (U.S. spelling) article – that seems the right place for it. Perhaps a mention on the homosexuality, paederasty or whatever articles, but not on the LGBT article: it seems irrelevant to the topic. And, as of yet, I can't find any reliable sources that claim GSM/GSRM have been coined by a paedophile (do correct me if I am wrong on that though), and I don't think either term gained enough popularity to be "abandoned".
That being said, I do think MOGAI needs to be clarified/discussed more, but WP:SOAPBOX needs to be kept in mind here (no advocacy), as well as to how notable the term is. I think other editors will probably be more qualified to add information on that than me. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article claims "the man who coined the term in the 1960s, Swedish psychiatrist and medical doctor Lars Ullerstam, wrote about sexual minorities in a manner that included pedophiles and other sex criminals". Lars Ullerstam appears to have coined the phrase "sexual minorities" ([2]) and this might have been in his book, The Erotic Minorities ([3]). However, using Google Books, I've searched for the terms "GSM", "GSRM", "sexual minorities", "gender minorities" and none seem to have been used in The Erotic Minorities. I can't find any other reliable sources which talk about Ullerstam or the etymology of the terms "GSM" or "GRSM". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add H for heterosexual

Why not? If heterosexuals (what a weird word) want to be part of everybody ... why not. I'd like to be included as an h. Benvhoff (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains no new ideas: everything in this article should be based on reliable sources to show the information is verifiable and true. If there are any reliable sources you can cite that use "h" for "heterosexual" somewhere in an acronym, please feel free to add the information to the article (with references). However, if there aren't any, we cannot include this in the article. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, heterosexuals are included in the acronym, as "a" can also stand for "(straight) allies". (Although this has been controversial in the asexual community as it is sometimes considered asexual erasure, but here isn't the place to discuss that...) This is mentioned in the article ("Variants" section), as it is used in reliable sources. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some edit warring over whether this category should receive a link in the See Also section. Given that this is a category rather than an article, I think it's clear that guidelines do not support its inclusion (see WP:SEEALSO and WP:EMBED). An actual list, if someone cares to create one, would be more appropriate given the guidelines. Additionally, the see also section on this page has quite a few links already, and I'm not in favor of adding more unless we can include some of the existing links in the article itself. If we included every LGBT-related article in the See Also section, it would take up more space than the article itself.

Pinging all those who have added this or reverted: @Tenor12, Bilorv, and Trankuility: ~ RobTalk 17:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussion; I don't really have much to add. Categories aren't included in the see also section and even if they were, I'd object to this particular category's inclusion. The see also section is already overcrowded (do we really need to include Racism in the LGBT community, for instance?); less is more.
For the record, the proper way to link that category is not with a URl, but with the code [[:Category:LGBT African Americans]] (which produces Category:LGBT African Americans). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the person adding the URL was doing so as a newbie and in good faith, but I removed the link, and another on a U.S. page, LGBT rights in the United States, while adding a replacement link on that U.S. focused page. There is a page that could be linked to on U.S. pages instead of the category: African-American culture and sexual orientation. It could do with some work and broader scope, but it's a start perhaps. Trankuility (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would be in favour of keeping Racism in the LGBT community in the See also section. A discussion on notable social issues within LGBT is also more than relevant here, so long as the scope is global. Trankuility (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very odd to have Category:LGBT African Americans, even actual article lists such as List of LGBT Jews aren't mentioned (and nor should they IMO).
I don't really think that a List of LGBT African Americans is really appropriate for Wikipedia as there are so many issues regarding sexuality of African Americans: are those "on the down-low" who are MSM considered gay or straight? I suppose this is the same with a "List of LGBT X" pages in general.
However, if anyone is to make that category, I'd suggest looking at Talk:List of LGBT Jews and the deletion discussions on that talk page to prevent any similar issues occurring again.
I do think that Racism in the LGBT community should be considered in the "See also", as that and the issue of homophobia in ethnic minority communities (which I would possibly replace "Racism in the LGBT community" with, as that seems to be talked about more) are controversial issues which really need to be addressed in a neutral manner on Wikipedia, and also to prevent visitors to the LGBT page adding information regarding these two topics. However, this could just be personal bias, but I thought I'd mention it. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initialisms "LGBTIH", "GS(R)M" and "GSD" in lead

Surely these less commonly used terms can be moved further down in the article? Zumoarirodoka (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to moving things down, be sure that you are not repeating things that are already covered lower. LGBTIH (used in India to encompass the hijra third gender identity and the related subculture), GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities") and GSD (Gender and Sexual Diversity) are already covered lower. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It still seems odd to have these terms in the lead section, anyhow. I have now removed them, if anyone has any objections to the changes I have made, please let me know. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenor12 (talk · contribs), hours ago, I saw your removal of this link from the WP:See also section, but I waited to see if anyone would revert you and/or object to the removal at this talk page. I don't understand your removal of that link. Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of "Homophobia in FOOBAR" articles... why only link that one? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the link to the See also section as Racism in the LGBT community was also linked. However, I have no objection to this removal, as the See also section does seem somewhat overcrowded. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 16:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I guess we already have a similar article in the LGBT Rights Opposition page that is also linked, so part of my reason was to avoid redundancy.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ&oldid=674447494"