Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

WikiProject LGBT studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

Pre-transition photo of Gabbi Tuft discussion

Hello, members of this WikiProject are invited to join in this discussion: Talk:Gabbi_Tuft#Should_we_use_a_pre-transition_photo_of_Tuft_in_the_infobox_until_we_acquire_a_post-transition_photo? Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Could somebody please tell me what is needed to get a current photo of me in my info box area? This has been going rounds for years now and I’d be incredibly grateful for anyone willing to help. Gabbituft (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You'll need to have a photo that is released under terms compatible with those detailed at c:Commons:Licensing. The easiest way would be to take a selfie and upload it here agreeing to release it, or to have someone else take a picture and upload it there. If there's an existing photo by someone else who you could persuade to release it, you can follow these instructions: c:Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Uploaded:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gabbi_Tuft_March_2023.tif Gabbituft (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Gabbituft (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 21

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 21#Queer categories, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 21#Genderqueer categories. Both discussions concern category merges that fall within the scope of this WikiProject. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Just by way of update, the discussion for genderqueer categories has now closed, with the result that the (now empty) Category:Genderqueer be deleted and Category:Genderqueer people be manually merged to Category:People with non-binary gender identities. The discussion on merging Category:Queer, Category:Queer people, and related categories has been relisted for further discussion.--Trystan (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Gender-critical feminism

I've been trying to fill out this abandoned draft for a bit. It's got a lot of work done on it already and it seems a shame to let it go to waste. Would anyone else here like to help out? Loki (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this already an article at TERF? If there's useful content it can be merged in. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree. It would make sense to merge the content there rather than creating a new page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

TERF is currently on an article on the term "TERF", whereas Draft:Gender-critical feminism is about gender-critical/TERF theory/ideology/philosophy. Gender-critical feminism currently exists in mainspace as a redirect to Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. I'm inclined to think that having separate articles on "TERF" the term and the gender-critical ideology as a whole is a better idea than trying to cover the two in a single article, but I don't really have a strong opinion on which is correct. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this exactly. TERF is about the term specifically. Our main article on gender-critical/trans-exclusionary feminism is feminist views on transgender topics, which in my opinion is obviously insufficient. Loki (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for a compilation image of bisexual women and no-binary people

Hi, per this discussion, I am looking for someone to create an image of a compilation of 6 women and another of 6 non-binary people to use for the page Media portrayals of bisexuality, as the 6 used in the article's current main image are all men. I’m looking for it to be in a similar style to the compilation photo of the 6 men used on that page currently. I will be looking to hopefully post some potential photos we could use on the respective talk page soon. Using a variety of generations and nationalities would be good for global representation. Helper201 (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I have compiled a multiple image box of bisexual women for the page and I'm open to feedback for it here and/or on the linked talk page. If anyone wants to crop these photos together as is done for the photo of the men on Media portrayals of bisexuality I'm fine with that too. I could still use some help in doing something similar for bisexual non-binary people. Helper201 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Gender identity and Gender

Much of the content between Gender and Gender Identity is largely the same. I have proposed a merger at this link, notified the other wikiproject involved, and invite people knowledgable in the area to comment. Born25121642 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Henry Rollins

Henry Rollins has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

LGBT culture in Puerto Vallarta

I've created the new article LGBT culture in Puerto Vallarta.

Improvements welcome! Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated the entry for GA status. ¿Por qué no? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Recently proposed mergers

In light of some recent drive-by editing by a certain user, I decided to propose some mergers of various pages about LGBTQ animated characters:

• Animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s into History of LGBT characters in animation: 1990s, discussion here

• Animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s into History of LGBT characters in animation: 2000s, discussion here

• Animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s into History of LGBT characters in animation: 2010s, discussion here

Also, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to participate in this discussion about the proposed merger of Animated series with LGBT characters: 2020s and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present, which has been stale since Dec. 2022, and the discussion about possible name change/purpose of History of LGBT characters in animation.

Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Eddie Izzard

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eddie Izzard#Requested move 15 March 2023 , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The topic of the discussion is on moving the article due to Izzard's recent name change. Note, I'm making this notification manually as the RM doesn't seem to have been added to the alert list by the bot. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Blanchard's transsexualism typology

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology#Splitting off "Autogynephilia" into its own page, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. An editor has proposed recreating the autogynephilia article, by splitting the relevant content from Blanchard's typology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth#Expansion of LGBT figures in fiction and myth page, asking how to expand the "Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth" page so as to more fully encompass topics about LGBT characters and media within the scope of "fiction and myth", which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Social media source

A friend (non-editor) pointed me to White_Town#Personal_life where it says he identifies as genderqueer and polyamorous. The concern is that the source is his Mastodon page which has those labels as tags, but doesn't necessarily explicitly say he's identifying as such. Now typically, I would still call it a safe assumption that that's exactly what those tags are there for and that it should be safe to infer that from them, but my friend wasn't so sure. After further checking, I found no secondary coverage on the matter, but also nothing else primary. None of the other pages associated with him (social media, streaming sites, etc.) appear to make any mention of it. So if it's just one page essentially but not exactly saying such, is that enough to leave it or should it go? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere Since it's a WP:BLP article and you've raised a serious concern of lack of sourcing other than the Mastodon page, I've removed the content and categories. Also replied on the article's talk page — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like the right move. And thanks for tagging me in Talk:White Town#Genderqueer and Polyamorous. Silly me forgot to check the talk page to see if it had already been brought up. That discussion isn't exactly on the same question but it is related so it's valuable to have them together. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah true, I'll split it into a new section Talk:White Town#Genderqueer and Polyamorous sourcing — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Drag Isn't Dangerous

Project members are invited to improve the new stub: Drag Isn't Dangerous. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 23:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Miscategorization of people by time period

In the process of helping to diffuse Category:20th-century LGBT people and Category:21st-century LGBT people, by moving people to an appropriate "XX-century [Nationality] LGBT people" subcategory if one exists, I've come across a significant problem that will require the attention of the project: specifically, while XX-century categories are supposed to be applied on the basis of the time period in which the person was notable, I came across a considerable number of people who had been categorized solely on the basis of their birthdate — if they were born in the 1990s, then they were categorized as a "20th-century person", even if they had never even initiated any sort of notability-building public visibility until after the century changeover.

That is, a person is not a "20th-century X" just because they were born in 1995, if the first time they ever verifiably did anything that added bricks to the foundation of their notability claim wasn't until 2015. It's not a question of "was this person alive in the 20th century", it's a question of "was this person already a known public figure in the 20th century".

This has tended primarily to hit newly prominent millennials in pop culture domains like music, acting, YouTubing or Drag Race, and generally not politicians or scientists or artists or writers. And on a couple of occasions, it even hit people who were born in 2000, and would literally only have been infants (and thus clearly not already notable or semi-notable performers) in the 20th century regardless of where you stand on the debate about whether 2000 was the last year of the 20th century or the first year of the 21st.

I've already removed it from some people who jumped out at me as obvious misfiles just by eyeballing their names (like baby Drag Race queens and Lil Nas X) but since I obviously don't know everybody and there are thousands of articles that would need to be checked, this will need an active cleanup project rather than being a thing I can look after entirely on my own. So I just wanted to post a request for some assistance. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention @Bearcat. This is one hell of a work. Since these are [mostly] WP:BLPs, I think we'll have to prioritise. I can do what I can as the time permits — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding gender identity of mass shooting suspect

There are multiple discussions at Talk:2023 Covenant School shooting regarding how to list the name and gender identity of the suspect. Funcrunch (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Kris Jenner

Kris Jenner was married to Caitlyn Jenner. However, the current wiki page does not reflect this. Help is needed to clarify this. Talk:Kris Jenner Nonnormal87 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You received an appropriate answer based on what occurred to Kris's life. Please, refer to Wikipedia:Forum shopping for further information. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Including sexuality for people who are out but haven’t formally "come out"

I’m sure these questions have been raised before but I’m not having any luck searching through archived discussions, as all of my search terms are too commonly used. Please accept my apologies for rehashing.
To give some background: my work as an editor primarily centers on women's ice hockey, so all of my examples will be from that realm, but I am hoping for guidelines that will be much more broadly applicable. While I am queer, I don’t want to assume that my sexuality gives me any particular authority when discussing the sexuality of others.
A number of women's ice hockey players are dating or married to a women and it’s fairly common for such relationships to be documented by reputable secondary sources. However, it is often the case that the player has not formally "come out" or publicly stated their sexuality. In such intances, is it appropriate to specify that they are LGBTQ in the text? If yes, what is the best way to do so?
For example, Kerry Weiland and Christina Sorbara are married and their marriage is documented in references from the Toronto Star and WSJ. However, as far as I have found, Weiland has never spoken about being LGBTQ or publicly defined her sexuality. In Weiland’s article, I opted to included only the information which could be sourced, i.e. "Weiland is married to Christina Sorbara and they have three children" but I have two conflicting concerns:

1. As it is currently written, the reader is left to extrapolate that Weiland is LGBTQ, which seems counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Many Wikipedia articles that include "[Ice hockey player] is lesbian" have references that exclusively state she is in/has been in a relationship with a woman. Is there value in writing "Weiland is part of the LGBTQ community"? Or even "Weiland is queer/sapphic/[other general term]" or specifically "Weiland is lesbian" despite the fact that it may misrepresent her sexuality?
2. Weiland is very private about her life and, while she sometimes uses her married name (Weiland Sorbara), she does not mention her wife or children in interviews or professional bios and does not use public social media accounts. Though she was noted as an LGBTQ Olympian by Outsports, is it appropriate to include any information about her sexuality and marriage when one considers how private she keeps her personal life (per WP:NPF)?

Sorry for the extended post, I’ve been sitting on these questions for a long while and really appreciate any guidance. Spitzmauskc (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The current text of Weiland's article looks good to me. Yes, the reader can infer that Wriland is queer based on her marriage to a woman, but if the sources don't state it then neither should we – there's no entirely neutral umbrella term that every woman married to another woman groups themselves under, so we can't be sure that any term we chose would be accurate, and it doesn't tell the reader anything they can't trivially deduce from the text of the article, because that's how we have established it! We definitely should not describe a person as a lesbian based on a source saying they are in a relationship with another woman – they could easily be bisexual! If and when a person publicly comes out and reliable sources talk about their sexuality when discussing them, then we can include it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And of course, behaviour != sexuality. Tamsyn Muir identifies as a lesbian (and our article describes her as such) despite the fact that she is married to a man, for instance. It's unusual, but not impossible, for someone to consider themselves heterosexual but still be in a same-gender relationship. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"the reader is left to extrapolate that Weiland is LGBTQ, which seems counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia" I don't think this is the case. We need to report the information that is there, not extrapolate ourselves. I don't see any reason to label someone's sexuality if they don't care to do so themselves. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is LGBTQ; that's a huge gathering of separate categories that as a group more define what you are not than what you are. Even if we accept her marriage to a woman as an indicator of her sexuality, we don't know if she's L, or B, or perhaps privately T... and if you think you can make a good guess where she falls because she's married to a woman, well then, the reader likely feels that way as well. And certainly historically we cannot judge desire by marriage; many a lesbian, bisexual, or asexual woman wound up married to a man. I would suspect that the odds of a straight CIS woman being married to a woman are much smaller, but the world is filled with odd complexities, and it seems unlikely that it hasn't happened somewhere, if only perhaps for a green card. We have plenty of biographical articles that do not even suggest the person's sexuality -- folks who have not married and did not engage in public dating - and those articles are not insufficient for that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for But I'm a Cheerleader

I have nominated But I'm a Cheerleader for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Lia Thomas has an RFC

Lia Thomas, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The discussion is about removing the living qualifier from MOS:DEADNAME. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)