Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2020, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kanaivart (article contribs).

Untitled help request

Hello all, I was wondering if any wikipedians can provide me with any feedback to my contribution. Kanaivart (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

proposed or copied article text for which the user is asking for feedback

Intersectional Microaggressions Intersectionality plays a role in how people who identify with the LGBTQ community are treated in society. Intersectionality (1989) is a term coined by Black feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw is used to describe the overlapping identities we hold as humans. These identities consist, but are not limited to: race, social class, gender, religion, nationality etc. In a review of Canadian empirical research, Sadika et. al.(2019) concluded intersectionality must be included in research regarding lived experiences of Black LGBTQ communities and LGBTQ Communities of Color and most of the research to date is based on the White LGBTQ lived experience. The review found that Non-White LGBTQ communities experienced microaggressions from both their familial units as well as the society they reside in due to the intersections of their lives. Microaggressions are defined as “as the everyday, subtle, intentional — and oftentimes unintentional — interactions or behaviors that communicate some sort of bias toward historically marginalized groups” (NPR, 2020.) Microaggressions also transpire against Black LGBTQ and LGBTQ Communities of Color within White LGBTQ spaces (Sadika et. al.,2019.), hence the term intersectional microaggressions coined by K.L Nadal et al., (2015). Sadika et al., (2019) also reported Non-White LGBTQ communities had trouble finding social and medical support due to the same intersections. In the studies reviewed, researchers found that Black LGBTQ and LGBTQ Communities of Color experienced disconnection, lack of support, exclusion and/or prejudices from their ethnic and cultural communities due to religious beliefs (ideologies and beliefs with a heteronormative lens) and language barriers (usage of inclusive language, pronoun usage, etc.) Sadika et. al., (2019) evoked from a study conducted by Yan (2014) that “LGBTQ youth of color hid their sexual identity from members of their own racial and ethnic group, as they feared being exposed to negative reactions from family members and losing financial support from parents.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanaivart (talk • contribs) 21:30, August 7, 2020 (UTC) In order to combat this rhetoric, ethnic and cultural communities should practice inclusivity and not avoid conversations about this particular identity and lived experience. It must also be noted that silence could hurt more than help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanaivart (talk • contribs) 22:57, August 8, 2020 (UTC) Nadal, K. L., Davidoff, K. C., Davis, L. S., Wong, Y., Marshall, D., & McKenzie, V. (2015). A qualitative approach to intersectional microaggressions: Understanding influences of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 147-163. DOI 10.1037/qup0000026   Sadika, B., Wiebe, E., Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2019). Intersectional microaggressions and social support for LGBTQ persons of color: A systematic review of the canadian-based empirical literature. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 16(2), 111–147. DOI 10.1080/1550428x.2020.1724125 Yan, S. (2014). Through an intersectionality lens: Service provider views on the sexual needs of radicalized LGBTQ youth in toronto. [Master's thesis]. https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2732&context=etd References

Refactoring: collapsed long section of proposed article content. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kanaivart:, welcome to Wikipedia as a Wiki Ed student editor at your SDSU course. I'm sorry no one got back to you earlier; your feedback request was hard to see because it was unsigned and there was no section header, and it got lost in some sections that used to be here just above this one. I added the missing Wiki Ed course assignment banner for your course assignment to the Talk header above. I also added missing signatures for you, and collapsed the long section of your proposed added content above, to make it easier to read this Talk page. (It seems you went ahead and added that material to the article, when no one responded here.)

It looks like another editor (buidhe) found some of your added material too detailed or off-topic for this article (and I agree), and a portion of it has been removed. It appears that your course already ended a few days after you posted above; do you still need more detailed feeback? Before you answer, please have a look at WP:THREAD about how to reply and indent on Talk pages, and also, *very important*, don't forget to sign all your Talk page posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Adding course content advisors Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger

Propose merging the following articles to this one:

• LGBT ideology
• Homosexual recruitment
• Homosexual agenda
• Gay Mafia

The current article has 13kb readable prose, adding all these together would result in 13 + 6 + 3 + 6 + 14 = 42 kb, which is a good size for an article per WP:AT (although I suspect there is some overlap that would be trimmed). I would like to quote Mathglot's comment on Talk:LGBT ideology:

Notability is a minimum bar for having an article, but regardless whether something is notable or not, there are other considerations about whether it should be a standalone article or not.

Here's an analogy: is "Mexican rapists" (or, "Mexican rapists (campaign phrase)") a notable topic? And if it is, should it have its own article at Wikipedia?

Mexican rapists is a slur, which then caught media attention, and had numerous articles written about it in news and other media. As far as that goes, it's somewhat analogous to what happened in Poland with President Duda and "LGBT ideology". The phrase "Mexican rapists" has significant MSM attention, and not just trivial mentions, but signficant treatment. It's easy to come up with articles about this as the main topic, such as The Guardian, WaPo, Politico, Vice, Rolling Stone, NY Post, Bloomberg, Nat Geo, CNN; and on and on. There are many, many more, where Mexican rapists has significant coverage in the article, such as a whole section or many paragraphs, without being the central point of the article.

All of these sources contribute to establishing notability for the topic "Mexican rapists". Yet there is no article. Perhaps no one has gotten around to it. Perhaps it was decided that this slur, although notable, wasn't significant enough for its own article and the content would be better at one of the other related articles. Or perhaps it doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED, and can be expected to wither away and disappear, and in retrospect it will appear to be more of a vogue word.

So given all that, how is "LGBT ideology" any different from "Mexican rapists", a derogatory phrase attached to a phobic attitude towards a minority group? And does WP:PAGEDECIDE argue for including "Mexican rapists" as a standalone article because it's so essential, or different from related articles, or so likely to expand, that it shouldn't be part of some larger article about anti-LGBT rhetoric? In my opinion, I don't see a lot of difference in the calculations about whether "Mexican rapists" should be a standalone article, and whether "LGBT ideology" should be a standalone article.

I think that combining these terms would have two other advantages: making it crystal clear that these are examples of anti-LGBT rhetoric, rather than observable phenomena, also the topic would be best dealt with on one page because these slurs speak to similar attitudes and accusations, just in different words. (t · c) buidhe 09:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Listed at WT:WikiProject LGBT Studies.
• Listed at WT:WikiProject Linguistics.
• Listed at WT:WikiProject Discrimination. -- Mathglot (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - if the sections are constructed on a national basis we can have relevant section links from specific articles, e.g., LGBT-free zones, and the merger proposal also provides a framework that could accommodate other Anti-LGBT rhetorical flourishes, such as in Russia, Ireland and Indonesia, without any motivation towards SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support – even better with the addition of the four articles. Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Hard no These are all notable conspiracies that have existed, rename the articles Gay Mafia conspiracy etc or someting instead.★Trekker (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  *Treker, The Gay mafia article actually discusses several related terms (gay mafia, gaystapo, homintern, homosexual mafia, lavender mafia)—which are not necessarily synonymous (for example, I cannot find any reliable source which states that "gay mafia" and "gaystapo" are the same thing, or discusses both in the same article). If we applied WP:OR more strictly and tried to split these into separate articles, some of them would be non-notable. Merging to this article allows them to be discussed in the proper context without WP:OR, also without removing any information. (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that that would be the case. To me a merger would only serve to make the appearence of less of a problem, but the truth is that these subjects were once widespread beliefs held by many which greatly impacted LGBT people. I do not see a merger as being beneficial.★Trekker (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I think the merger will result in increased clarity - both for the reader and future editors - on what exactly the topic is (i.e., it's a discussion of language use, rather than a POV fork of content discussed more neutrally elsewhere). These articles tend to collet laundry lists that are simply examples of the term being used, but the focus should be on sources that actually discuss the use of the term. Merging the content here will clarify that.--Trystan (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support There are far too many confluent but dissociated short articles around, some with duplicated resources, that should be conflated into one article that draws all the strands together. Best of luck to whoever takes on this gargantuan task - perhaps the mover. Whether this is the best target could be debated, but whatever else they may also have in common (e.g. LGBT Conspiracy Theory), they unquestionably do all have in common a quintessence of 'Anti-LGBT rhetoric'. The current brouhaha going on over in LGBT ideology, which changes unrecognisably by the hour, is a good example of why these need to be knitted into a comprehensive and coherent article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support For one, having separate articles for each homophobic concept of the season may be giving a lot of WP:UNDUE weightage to each. Then there is the WP:CONTENTFORK policy which recommends overlapping small articles to be collected into one. As for the gargantuan task Chrisdevelop foresees, I can volunteer to lend a hand. Just ping me whoever requires a hand to merge all these tiny anti-LGBT conceptual fads. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The only one of these articles that may warrant its own page is homosexual agenda, since it's a common conspiracy theory in the religious right.Dustytumble (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

It's early yet, but if the survey achieves consensus, we can use this subsection to discuss how a merger might take place. I appreciate and agree with Aditya's comment above, and like him, I can also volunteer to be part of the "merge team" for one portion of the work, as long as someone else can lead or coordinate the effort. Mathglot (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think a thematic division would be best. For example, we should merge "homosexual recruitment" into the section about conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia, and terms arguing for the existence of a "gay/LGBT conspiracy" that is seeking illegitimate political influence or to undermine society (gay mafia, LGBT ideology, homosexual agenda) (see also [1][2]) should be merged into a new section. I am also willing to help in the merger. (t · c) buidhe 00:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)