Jump to content

Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.92.86.26 (talk) at 22:56, 2 February 2017 (→‎Love the sinner, but hate the sin?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconLGBT studies B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Article Title

This article does more than catalogue anti-LGBT slogans; it explores the rationale behind homophobia and other arguments against homosexual behavior. As such, I believe the article should be "Anti-LGBT Arguments" or "Anti-LGBT campaigns," or should be merged with an article relating to homophobia or something more general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VelaenOscuridad (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Not Discrimination

This shouldn't be part of discrimination. Would you say a child molestor is being discriminated against? The recent rejection of pro-gay agendas by Latinos and African Americans clearly show true minorities do not consider gays to be a minority but rather an illness. If you want to put it in a category it should be with other mentally ill diseases like Bi-polar depression 63.26.91.175 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Barack Obama[reply]

Except it clearly is discrimination. If I went to a synagogue and held up signs with things like "How do you bake cookies without being reminded of the ovens?" I'm obviously being a cunt. So are these people, and quite frankly, your POV is just as obvious as my own, and just as offensive.
And it is quite irrelevant what "true minorities" consider it. (Never mind that any such minorities include gays as well.) As the APA pointed out when delisting homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities". It simply isn't a matter of opinion.--DVD-junkie | talk | 02:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttals bad for NPOV

This article contains a rebuttal for several of the examples. In the interests of neutrality, this article should not state who is right so directly.

Should Wikipedia really catalog hate speech at all? Such listings are extremely difficult to make without inserting any bias, and they aren't particularly valuable. --66.185.71.156 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Irony in this image is clear. (A guy wearing sleeveless shirts and shorts as a gay-hater)" Clear to who? who says so? POV? POV. 65.127.223.98 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No citation

  • Recent work by biologists has shown same-sex sexuality to be widespread in nature (see: animal sexuality) as well as in human society, leading gay rights advocates to assert that opposition to same-sex desire would itself be against nature. [citation needed]
Animals being gay is not relevant. Animals have sexual practice like sex cannibalism, polygamy, pedophily, murder of babies to get the mother , necrophily (sex with dead animals). If homosexuality is considered as good or natural BECAUSE of animals, you can say that all the other things I mentioned are good and natural.

Animals may have gay behaviour, but they are not real gays, because when you let them choose between males and females, they always choose the females. If you find an animal who choose only males, show us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:45F4:F876:17BF:D701 (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love the sinner, but hate the sin?

How does the statement "I love the sinner, but hate the sin" - in other words, "I love homosexuals but hate homosexuality," differ from "I love Jews, but hate Judaism." "I love Liberals, but hate Liberalism." "I love Roman Catholics, but hate Roman Catholicism." This is a trite and disingenuous claim. What it really means is "I hate you because you're gay, but will love you when you convert to complete heterosexuality or at least kill the part of your nature or being that is homosexual." What a bunch of nonsense. Let's deal with reality. There are L/G/B/T people in this world. They are organized communities with their own institutions, clubs, groups, churches, resorts, businesses, etc. Worldwide they are seeking to reverse prejudice and discrimination. If you are against civil rights for gay folk, then just admit it and wear the badge of "Anti-Gay" with pride. At least Fred Phelps is honest. Don't say you love homosexuals when you want abridge their rights, refuse to recognize their relationships, ban books by them or about them, perpetuate stereotypes. Besides why must all these pro-gay and anti-gay arguments be framed either from a religious or psychiatric perspective? Where is all the knowledge and research from anthropological and ethnographic data? In my view, such data would abundantly shed light on the naturalness and universality of L/G/B/T people. Buddmar 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)buddmar[reply]

No, it's like having a brother who's snorting crack and robbing banks. I love you, but I hate what you're doing. Dissentor (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that homosexuals aren't harming others/themselves,so your example doesn't work unlike-no,nevermind, this really isn't the place to discuss this.Kairos (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(How do you indent?) I think that example is exactly the sort of situation that the phrase ("love the sinner, hate the sin") is meant to refer to. In the case where it is applied to homosexuality, the person who uses that phrase probably does believe that homosexuality is a sin, similar to the example where one's brother robs banks and uses drugs. The fact is that we are merely assuming that one is bad and the other isn't, or vice versa- one might not see anything ethically wrong with robbing banks any more than another would see with homosexuality, just as yet another person may see both as being morally wrong. As in the below discussion on the "Adam and Steve" phrase, a person who "loves the sinner and hates the sin" may simultaneously be opposed to homosexual acts as well as homophobic acts of violence (as in the case of Matthew Shepard). Geomike99 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Indent using colon(s)]And since we can prove that people can stop robbing banks, but there is no evidence of that people can stop being homosexual. So the comparison IS dishonest, at best.Kairos (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, Kairos.
I personally would not compare robbing a bank to having sexual relation with someone of the same sex, but I can understand that someone else might have that belief, while simultaneously bearing no ill will to the practitioner themself.
As for the dishonest comparison, I suppose you would first have to prove to these people that you can begin being homosexual in the first place. I know, I know, it sounds so completely foreign, but following that logic ("no one can feel naturally homosexual") it would make sense to say that the behavior should not continue.
I think this is just boiling down to the differences and relativity between the precepts held by different people.Geomike99 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, You wouldn't have to prove anything. The comparison only works if gays can stop being gay. However, I'm not sure if this topic has anything to do with the article at hand? If it doesn't then we should just drop it. The person who brought up this topic just sounds like they are ranting, rather than tring to improve th article.Kairos (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Kairos, you missed the point I was trying to make: say someone did say that "gays can stop being gay." How can you prove or disprove a feeling if you yourself are not feeling it? It seems sort of like saying "there is a god" or "there is no god" in that it is completely subjective either way.Geomike99 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By monitoring someones Brain Chemistry, and physiological reactions, genius. Feelings, unlike string theory, don't exist in a magically unprovable jar somewhere in unprovableville.Kairos (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're a moron. 71.83.198.208 (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!I agree with Kairos. All the objections seem to be unrelated to the topic at hand. I agree that homophobes will often hide behind the shield of saying 'I don't mind gays but gay behavior is immoral..." which makes their bigotry seem more palatable. Being gay is manifestly and obviously different from robbing banks; let me spell it out- consensual sex and a loving relationship between two qualified adults of the same gender and the rich culture that has grown up around such relationships is quite different from someone breaking the law. No one forces gay people into relationships while getting money at gunpoint is the very definition of co-ercion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.29.201.57 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people seem to think that the "love the sinner, hate the sin" slogan is aimed only at gays. This is completely untrue. Many religions hold "consensual sexual relationships" of any kind as a sin unless they meet certain requirements. Fornication and adultery are also considered sexual sin. Both tend to be consensual. Both are as equally rejected by church doctrine as homosexual activity. According to these faiths all of the above should be loved and treated well, regardless of whether it was a hetero- or homo- version of the sin. Also, most religions freely admit that ALL humans are sinners, and God does not like sin of any kind. That He loves all mankind and hopes that they will obey his commandments. There is no special treatment. Sin is sin no matter what type. All are sinners, but we should all love one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glougee (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Except that homosexuals aren't harming others/themselves" Is that why 50% of them have HIV/AIDS by the age of 50 according to the CDC? Suuuuure it is.....

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

This was used by "mainstream" evangelicals long before anybody outside of Kansas had ever heard of Westboro Baptist (since the late 1970's, at least), and is not mainly associated with Westboro Baptist. There are many conservative Christians who would accept "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", while simultaneously rejecting "God hates fags"... AnonMoos 07:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but didn't God make Adam & Steve too? Knitting them together in their mothers' wombs. -James comment added by 65.28.6.199 (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, if you can find something to verify that, then edit the article accordingly. Until then, Youmight at least edit the section to what you thin kit should say, then put a needs citation tag on it. Kairos (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gays may not perceive it that way, but from the Evangelical point of view "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is actually kind of a light-hearted and non-intentionally-hateful way of expressing their basic beliefs. It has no particular association with Westboro Baptist -- and it actually belongs in the "Declaration that same-sex desire is unnatural" section anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I'm a little confused as to this article's intent. Some people have speculated it is a homophobic article in disguise, claiming that there is no reason to include a list of anti-slogans anywhere.
Others have continually questioned the article's motive's when it comes to debunking the claims that it posits.
I think that the introduction is effectively nonpartisan, but starts to slip when it begins referring to unsupported counter-arguments as holding greater weight than the slogan it is reporting. This article should be absorbed into another article about homosexuality under a sub-heading. I don't see any articles on Anti-Asian slogans or Anti-African slogans or Anti-Muslim slogans so why is this an exception. It's disguised homophobia. Let that other loony religious encyclopedia have it, but not Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.35.144 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to Conservapedia, and I'd have to agree. Even if it does remind you how stupid some people are, the article really shouldn't be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both comments above. Wikipedia prides itself on being a balanced, even-handed work. This article is just a thinly disguised homophobic tract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.29.201.57 (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! This article is pro-LGBT if anything. Saying homosexual acts are sinful doesn't mean that people should hate gays (quite the opposite; see 1 John 3) so it's anti-sodomy and oral sex rather than anti-LGBT and straight people could do these things with each other in any case. Rare but it happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.226.161 (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plato?

I have looked up the passage in Laws and it seems to be correct... but I am not a Platonic scholar, and this seems a slightly strange passage. I think in Symposium there is a creation myth for homosexuality which is somewhat approving, and I have seen in various Platonic dialogues Socrates making genial remarks about his friends' boyfriends. Is it a change in policy for Plato to say such a thing? Matthew Platts (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrationale Source

From the article: Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine....The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.

The writer starts by arbitrarily segregating homosexual pedophiles into a separate group from other homosexuals, and putting all those pedophiles into the heterosexual category based on the idea that it "may be" that they are attracted to children because children allegedly have feminine characteristics. Then he draws draws the firm conclusion that heterosexuals are more likely to be a greater risk to children. I've seen some wacky logic by modern "thinkers", but this one is up there. 71.83.198.208 (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Over 80% of paedophiles are homosexuals"

Sorry if I've misinterpreted this addition when I reverted it, but it seemed to be intended as a statement of fact with a supporting reference, not as an example of anti-LGBT propaganda. If it's the latter, please feel free to re-add it, although an English-language supporting reference would be more helpful if one could be found. Karenjc 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have got a English language source, I just thought that we made use of original documents where possible. And at the moment, the sentence is rather isolated, perhaps it should be better incorporated into the article? Duckelf (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To AV3000, how is that citation "irrelevant"? It is a source for the link between homosexuality and paedophilia, which is what the sub-section is about. Duckelf (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citation link pointed to an article titled "Only one game, the beautiful game". But please, read WP:RS before posting anything more; editorial commentary is not a reliable source. (Please also note the WP:3RR policy.) AV3000 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix the citation. Duckelf (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the linked editorial comment contains a primary example of the "80% claim" about homosexuality and paedophilia being used in published anti-LGBT work, then it is relevant. The problem is a confusion of meaning. When I reverted I thought Duckelf was stating that 80% of paedophiles were homosexuals, and using an editorial comment to support this. I think that's what AV3000 thinks too. But I understand now that that wasn't the case - Duckelf was giving the 80% claim as an example of anti-LGBT rhetoric, and using the editorial as an example of the propaganda in use. To solve the ambiguity, the sentence needs expanding and clarifying a bit (say, "The claim that "over 80% of paedophiles are homosexuals" has been asserted as part of anti-LGBT propaganda", or something similar.) Then cite both the Italian and the English-language sources as examples of the propaganda in use. Karenjc 19:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, even that would be WP:OR. AV3000 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, over 80% of paedophiles are homosexual as the study that the article refers to shows. And an article critical of homosexuality is not automatically "propaganda", this whole article needs to be balanced as at the moment it is very much biased towards the homosexual agenda. Duckelf (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your citation is an editorial by an Italian sociologist written for a site with a non-neutral POV and is therefore not a reliable source. Please learn Wikipedia policies. AV3000 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth source used in this article "the Skeptic's dictionary" would also according to those requirements be an unsuitable source, and organisations like CNN are not exactly known for their neutrality. This article is extremely biased and needs to be corrected. Duckelf (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)
Mainstream news sources such as CNN are indeed generally considered reliable; again, consult WP:RS. You should not edit Wikipedia if you cannot agree with these policies.
Regarding issues with other citations, work to improve them. AV3000 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AV3000, I disagree profoundly that linking to an example of a claim being published somewhere, in order to reference an assertion that it has been published, would be WP:OR. However, that's moot now. Duckelf, since you do indeed wish to add the 80% statement as fact to the article, you need to provide a reference. That would ideally be the original study as published, not a synthesis of what the original study said on another website, particularly one which clearly has a religious agenda and probably doesn't have a neutral point of view on the issue. Even then it would be more accurate to say that "80% of paedophiles in so-and-so's study targeted victims of the same sex as themselves", which tells us some interesting things about paedophilia but doesn't (from a scientific viewpoint) have much to do with consensual adult homosexuality, which is what the "LGBT" in the article's title refers to. To address your concerns about "propaganda", "balancing" the article and "the homosexual agenda", I would point out that the subject of the article is anti-LGBT slogans. Slogans are catchy, emotive phrases and factoids used as part of marketing or awareness-raising campaigns in order to influence opinion, and may vary considerably from very accurate to highly dubious; i.e., they are propaganda. I agree with you 100% that an article critical of homosexuality is not in itself propaganda. However, an opinion piece that takes genuine impartial scientific research and distorts, exaggerates or over-simplifies its conclusions, or strips it of its caveats and turns it into a handy soundbite in order to bolster its own campaigning agenda, is indeed indulging in propaganda. Someone who wants to use the "80% of paedophiles" soundbite to balance an article against a "homosexual agenda" needs to look at WP:NPOV. I believe my initial revert was correct. Karenjc 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About citation #9, the one about pædophiles, I would say that it would be wrong not to lump man-man and man-boy individuals. Either way, the case is male-male, and if the man really liked feminine characteristics, would you not see better ones in girls or even women? I am not, in any way, suggesting that all pædophiles should start running to houses with girls/women, but really, how is having gross indecency with a male not homosexuality? And if you pro-LGBT rebels decide that people should stay out of the bedroom, how exactly do you receive information on the fact that M-m pædophiles are really M-F and not M-f? Please clarify this point, because WP should be more informational by leaving out information for other sites and articles.
Any grammatical/mechanical/usage errors?
71.177.0.120 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How much of this is a dispute over the implications of the word "homosexual"? In some circles, homosexual is used to describe behavior: sex with someone of the same gender. In other contexts, the term homosexual refers primarily to one's sexual orientation; in such contexts, sex with someone of the same gender (as in prison or on a military ship) might be considered an "outlet" rather than an expression of one's orientation or identity, and on those grounds a person might object to calling such behavior "homosexual". I've seen the term MSM (men having sex with men) used to bypass this issue.
So are we saying that 80% is an expression of sex with someone of the same gender, or that the person who "molests" (seduces?) a minor is himself/herself a homosexual?
(If we ever get this far, then I'd like to ask what they're implying by this. It sounds like the sloganizing over "Most terrorists are Muslims" vs. "Most Muslims are terrorists".) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, even if reliable sources find that 80% of pedophiles (or even 80% of people who seduce young children) are gay, those of us who know basic statistics know that is is utterly unrelated to the percentage of homosexuals who are pedophiles or child seducers. The problem for Wikipedia articles is that we can't be sure how many of our readers can do the math correctly: i.e., realize there is no "converse conclusion" to be drawn.
  • Maybe we need to quote a statistic that clarifies this. So, what percent of gay people, and what percent of straight people, are pedophiles?
  • This is like asking, what percent of Catholic priests vs. what percent of (non-Catholic?) schoolteachers are child molesters. I daresay the teachers are 10 to 50 times more likely to commit the offense, while public opinion is probably leaning the other way. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on Abel’s statistics, if approximately 33 percent of all molestations are male-on-male, and 21 percent of these cases are committed by homosexuals, the actual percentage of molesters who are homosexual is 21% x 33% = 6.9%. [1] --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that AIDS as a gay disease

I'm confused by the latter 2 paragraphs in this section. Are we trying to explain why AIDS as a gay disease is an anti-LGBT slogan? Or are we describing "fairly" the debate over whether it is (was) an accurate medical statement? If it's the latter, then we're going to need an article called something like gay disease or Gay disease controversy where both sides can be presented. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was some degree of observed correlation among middle class people in the United States in the 1980s, but there is no such correlation in most of Africa, etc. It's one of those things which seemed plausible to some in the early days, but became much less of a real issue as we learned more about AIDS... AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"God Hates Fags"

Oh yes and please do not forget the simply laughable "God hates fags" saying. It is printed on t-shirts, signs, websites, children's clothing and simply everything against LGBT. I call it laughable because there is no proof that God hates fags.--Anarchistscookbook (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been on the article for years, but it's associated with the extreme fringe Westboro Baptist group -- whereas the more traditional mainstream Christian position was "hate the sin, but love the sinner" -- which is why it's not given great prominence in the article. The mainstream evangelicals find Westboro Baptist even more distasteful and repugnant than gay activists do (though not for the same reasons)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the page

I hope I wasn't too bold in moving the page from Anti-LGBT slogans. You won't hurt my feelings if you move it back without discussion, because I moved it without discussion.

But I felt that there was a lot more to the issue this page is describing, than just slogans. Of course the parody of the insecticide advertisement is especially vexing; if anything qualifies as hate speech, AKFD is definitely up near the zenith. But calling AIDS a "gay disease" might not necessarily be (quite so calculatedly) hateful. In fact, I came to the article planning on expanding on the origin and meaning of the GD term.

I wonder if even a merge with Opposition to homosexuality would be helpful, but maybe I'm going at this too fast and without enough input from other contributors. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with the rename, since, as you say, more than slogans is involved. AV3000 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the title "opposition to homosexuality". English is not my language, but I'm pretty sure "rhetoric" implies they have argument, but they are not true. Rhetoric vs argument.

It appears as a bias? I think it shold be neutral and balanced, neither pro-LGBT, neither anti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:45F4:F876:17BF:D701 (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration that same-sex desire is unnatural

The paragraph states: "Though the psychiatric establishment once medicalized same-sex desire, homosexuality was later removed in 1974 as a mental disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) because the diagnosis of homosexuality as mental illness stigmatized homosexuals." This is incorrect. Homosexuality was declassified because its former classification was based in bad science and prejudice.

The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

[3]

I will therefore change the sentence to: "Though the psychiatric establishment once medicalized same-sex desire, homosexuality was later removed in 1974 as a mental disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) because it wasn't supported by sound scientific evidence and didn't meet the criteria for a mental disorder."--DVD-junkie | talk | 16:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts

Is this a good place to mention the Boy Scouts (BSA), and their opposition to "gays in the ranks" or the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case? --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be, if there were significant rhetorical reasons given for such opposition. AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading these comments, I can't for the life of me figure out why so many people think this entry is so insanely biased. Significant rhetorical reasons? I suppose you are the arbiter of that, right? Give me a break. Your Boy Scout comment is almost as asinine as your claim that most evangelicals actually hate gay people but don't know it yet. Because clearly, you know. -- 16:14, 14 September 2012‎ 74.141.152.194
It's called "being on-topic with respect to the article subject area". And if I understand what you're trying to say, I said the opposite of what you think I said in my remarks of "10:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)" above... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that whole t thing

i just want to point out that there's no mention of anti-transgender or gender nonconforming folks here. if you're going to call it lgbt, maybe be inclusive? ... aa:talk 06:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Robertson is actually transgender-sympathetic.[2] I'm sure that many other Christian conservatives regard them as unnatural freaks (and there seems to be particular concern about biologically male children having access to girls' bathrooms), but it doesn't seem to have given rise to many memorable slogans so far... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trangender Section

In the interest of equality, I feel some type of anti-transgender section can be started from recent controversies bringing the subject into a more public light. Such as the pope's comments or Bruce Jenner getting threats and insults. I will start the section in a hidden format and invite anyone to come and add what they can until it is substantial enough to be shown.

Thanks for the help,
Panther5324 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apotemnophilia

Recently, people who suffer from apotemnophilia have started asking to have their members removed, because as LGBT ask doctor to fix their biological sex, they want doctors to fix their body, that is different from the ideal body they have in their mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:45F4:F876:17BF:D701 (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-LGBT rhetoric. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-LGBT rhetoric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ JAMA: Gay Is Okay With APA (American Psychiatric Association); available online: http://www.soulforce.org/article/642
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference amici was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-LGBTQ_rhetoric&oldid=763383790"