Talk:Anti-LGBT 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)

Why is this article covering anti-homosexuality and anti-transgender viewpoints in one?

There should be two separate articles for anti-homosexuality viewpoints and anti-transgender viewpoints. I hold the belief that promoting transgender ideologies is bad for society and it is not "transphobic" to have opinions that don't conform with many "progressives", however I do believe strongly that being homosexual is perfectly acceptable. These two viewpoints are completely different and should not be included in the same article just because they happen to come under a stupid acronym that shouldn't be in use anymore. --NitroblastDigi (talk) 05:33, 8 September 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)

I have to agree with *Treker's reasoning here. Merging some of these articles under a vague title diminishes their significance. Most, if not all, of these are notable subjects. - MrX 🖋 10:32, 30 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 might 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)
• Support The four articles suggested to be merged here are all relatively short--short enough that they could be subsections here without concerns about balance. If any of them get too big for this page, they can be spun out, but I think we could write a better article if all of these topics are centralized. (brought from a note at WT:LING) — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the four listed articles do indeed warrant merge into one, because all speak about some sinister LGBT conspiracy, and it is indeed a coherent subject (and I did see sources which put these terms together). However there is plenty of other haphazard insulting anti_LGBT rhetoric, listed in the section "Themes", which is better kept separate, to keep focus of the "conspiracy" article. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. These articles are clumsy compilations of the details of an alleged LGBT conspiracy, and we need one good article about it, not several WP:COATRACKs. Wikisaurus (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

At least a couple of the articles are about subjects that have profound historical significance to the LGBT+ community. They are not WP:COATRACKS. - MrX 🖋 10:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merging Homosexual agenda in this article. They are different subjects. Homosexual agenda is a notable subject that warrants an independent article. I have no opinion on the other merge proposals. - MrX 🖋 10:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Gay Agenda is the subject of numerous scholarly[1] and popular[2] works spanning about a 35 year history. The article has significant opportunity for expansion and improvement over it's current state. If we were to merge it into an article covering multiple other subjects, that opportunity would be lost. - MrX 🖋 14:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think such an opportunity would be lost. If this article expanded such that it was too long (WP:Article size), sections could be split out again if warranted. Not all the search results actually provide something that would be useful in expanding the article. For example, the very first result in Google Scholar[3] only discusses "gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" in its title, the phrases are never used in the body. Other sources are obviously unreliable [4]

A further issue is that "gay agenda" by itself has overlaps with other themes in anti-LGBT rhetoric. For example, the so-called gay agenda is linked to pedophilia[5] and/or a supposed "gay lifestyle"[6]. Therefore, I think it's best to discuss in context with other themes in anti-LGBT rhetoric. (t · c) buidhe 16:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I don't think the opportunity would be lost, either. This is worth an extended discussion; I've responded in detail below. Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 31 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 [7][8]) 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)

• Well, the "recruitment" article does not speak of pedofilia. In any case this is a relatively minor issue, the major one being that it is basically an "LGBT agenda" subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Useful resource here. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO there should be two articles. One about the conspiracy theory about an alleged sinister LGBT movement to undermine "family values", its propaganda and expansion. Another is about various insults and fake facts, listed in section "Themes". In this way the first one will be more focused, and the two may be summarized in each other per Wikipedia:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with buidhe about the thematic division. To the extent that I understand Staszek Lem's concern, I believe it could accommodate that as well, although I have to admit to not fully understanding the distinction being drawn between conspiracy theories and other false narratives whether based on misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation wrt inclusion in this article. I'm not saying their definitions are identical: something doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory to be anti-LGBT rhetoric for example, but as a criterion for inclusion/merger here, what does it matter? Per WP:AT, if something is "anti-LGBT rhetoric", it's relevant for inclusion here, irrespective whether it's conspiratorial or not. This doesn't say anything one way or another about whether some subset of those items wouldn't *also* be relevant to an "Anti-LGBT conspiracies" article, but it does seem like there would be a lot of overlap. If this article got way too big, that would be a reasonable area to investigate for a WP:SIZESPLIT based on that distinction, but that seems far away based on where we are now, and could be revisited at the appropriate time. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

distinction being drawn between conspiracy theories and other false narratives -- I mean there is one single conspiracy theory about LGBT agenda - this one is a "true" conspiracy, the rest I would not call "conspiracy theories", but rather "fake facts", "supersititions", "false stereotypes" etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've added section #Recruitment. Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Since there is clear support for a merger, I'm going to go ahead and start implementing it. (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  OK, I have done this mostly but some cleanup and reorganization may be necessary. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to post a sunflower, but couldn't find the template. So here's love instead. Thanks for merging the stuff. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to ask that this discussion remain open for the usual 30 days, or thereabout, and that an uninvolved editor or admin close it at the appropriate time. I have several of these pages and Wikiproject LGBT studies on my watchlist, and I'm active almost every day, yet I missed notification of the discussion. It would be beneficial to get considerably more participation in the discussion. - MrX 🖋 10:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this covered under WP:SNOW? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

How there is not one clear direction? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe snow applies with 3 out of 11 editors opposing. - MrX 🖋 14:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• 30 days is not the standard length for merge discussions. According to WP:MERGECLOSE, that is "normally one week or more". (t · c) buidhe 15:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking for the "more". With 903 editors watching WikiProject LGBT studies I would hope for significantly more participation so that we can arrive at a wide consensus. - MrX 🖋 14:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Why was the homosexual recruitment article merged? It was kind of important. Sxologist (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Topics with significant opportunity for expansion

MrX I added this subsection to address your comment here, rather than encumber the survey section with tmi. Speaking of "Gay agenda" above, you said,

The article has significant opportunity for expansion and improvement over it's current state. If we were to merge it into an article covering multiple other subjects, that opportunity would be lost.

User:buidhe responded (here) that they didn't think it would be lost, and I agree. Articles are constantly being split or merged, and if combining these articles here meant the opportunity would be lost for Gay agenda to have its own article, then there would be no point having a WP:SPLIT process because it would never happen, those opportunities having been forever lost. Clearly, that's not the case.

I wonder if there might be something else going on, for example, do you have an uneasy feeling that merging "Gay agenda" means that it is not as notable, or not as important as some other article? That it's dissing the topic or those who suffer from it? It doesn't mean that. Notability is one criterion, but not the only one for determining whether a topic should have a stand-alone article. Merging "Gay agenda" now doesn't mean it isn't appropriate as a topic for its own article, it's only means that at 7,210 bytes of readable prose, the Gay agenda article currently doesn't need to be stand-alone, and probably shouldn't be, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. In particular, I find bullets one and two applicable (excerpt):

• Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article
• Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page

I think both of these points apply to the Gay agenda topic, and argue for it to be included here.

The easiest way to resolve this issue in your favor, and still remain within Notability/PAGEDECIDE policy is very simply stated, but does take some work; it is this: just expand the Gay agenda article now to around 40k or 50k of readable prose that is well-sourced, and relevant to the topic. That will make it too large to merge; what would likely happen in that case, is that we would leave that article in its expanded state, and include a brief summary here, with this article playing the role of parent article to Gay agenda in summary style. You can make this happen yourself, if you're sufficiently interested in it to step up. But simply saying something like, "it's too important a topic, and even if the article is small it shouldn't be merged" isn't really a policy-based argument, it's more of a personal sentiment (which I am sympathetic to, but policy is policy). In short, I agree that Gay agenda could be significantly expanded. So, instead of arguing that it shouldn't be merged, just go expand it! Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the homosexual agenda article in its present state contains stuff that's

• of unclear relevance, e.g. "GLAAD describes the association of homosexuality with pedophilia or child abuse as an attempt to "insinuate that lesbians and gay men pose a threat to society, to families, and to children in particular.""
• WP:NOT content: for example, "Sportscaster L. Z. Grandersen argues in his TED talk that the "gay agenda" is simply the 14th Amendment", cited to his primary source TED talk.
• unreliable sources, those used to cite the part about "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s"

I removed these when merging, but tried to keep all encyclopedic content. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I think reducing the subject to "Rhetoric" and combining it with other loosely associated topics is a disservice to our readers. If I want to learn about this aspect of the rise of the Moral Majority, I'm not going to be expecting to find it in an article titled 'Anti-LGBT rhetoric'. It doesn't really matter that there was is bad content in the homosexual agenda article. The point is, this is a historically important subject that merits being covered independently. I have no objection to summarizing it in this article also, but I do object to using this article as a vehicle for deleting another important article. As to the argument that homosexual agenda could be covered better in this article, I don't see it. The organization of this article is less than intuitive. It's sort of a hodgepodge that (unintentionally) trivializes some aspect of the LGBT struggle but putting disparate subjects at the same level of importance. For example, I believe Anti-transgender themes are important enough to justify an independent article, and different in many ways from the rhetoric and themes involving sexual orientation. - MrX 🖋 17:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:MrX said,

The point is, [the homosexual agenda topic] is a historically important subject that merits being covered independently.

and also this:

For example, I believe Anti-transgender themes are important enough to justify an independent article,...

MrX, that's twice you've quoted the "important enough to justify an article" idea in this discussion, as well as above, in the Survey section, where you said that merging "Homosexual agenda" or other articles, would "diminish their significance. I opened this discussion in the first place to try to address that point. I'm assuming that by "significance" or "importance", you mean "notability" but perhaps you have something else in mind. There is no policy-based reason that I'm aware of, that deals with "significance" or "importance" as far as determining which topics merit a stand-alone article. Even Notability is not sufficient. I linked WP:PAGEDECIDE above, and unless I missed another guideline somewhere, that's how we decide it. If you could couch your argument in terms of policy, that would help in attempting to find a solution here, but simply saying it's "significant enough" to justify an article, seems like a personal opinion, and that's just not how we decide things around here.

Regarding your point about a separate article for anti-transgender rhetoric: It could be that anti-transgender rhetoric might deserve its own article, but that would have to come from some valid criterion, such as WP:SIZESPLIT (we're not there yet, but we might be at some point) or something else. Although the style of the rhetoric that is employed against transgender individuals differs from the rhetoric against LGB individuals, that, imho, is merely the phobic opponents adapting their rhetoric to the target; they'll use whatever ammunition they think works, and so because transgender is an identity issue not an orientation issue, the rhetoric will be different. But I find the rhetoric-using, phobic opponents in each case are the same, whether anti-T, or anti-LGB, and the rhetoric isn't different in its essentials. Once again, I don't know what you mean by "Anti-transgender themes are important enough to justify an independent article", and I don't think that should play any part in the decision, either pro, or con.

Finally, if you want to learn as much as possible about the Moral Majority, you go to Moral Majority, right? Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, no, I mean significance or importance. I know the subject passes Wikipedia's definition of notability. Homosexual agenda is largely about a manufactured political wedge issue. It doesn't really fit under the umbrella definition given in this article. It's not a phrase based strictly on religious, medical, or moral grounds. It's not really hate speech either. This article is attempting to be a catch all, and in that effort, oversimplifies some complex subjects by redefining them as rhetoric. For example, the Catholic church section completely misses the substantive fact that the Catholic church has opposed homosexuality for a long time as a matter of doctrine. Putting these at the same level as "Gatystapo" diminishes the seriousness of the former. The same goes for "Homosexual agenda" and "Causing disasters". The focus on the most recent pope is WP:RECENTISM. Same with The Onion story.

And I'm sorry to say this, but the article structure is a bit of a mess. The article name is "Anti-LGBT rhetoric". Then there's a section called "Anti-gay rhetoric" and another called "Anti-transgender themes". Shouldn't these both be themes or rhetoric? The level 2 section "Effects" cannot possibly cover the effects of all of these diverse topics like Homosexual agenda, Catholic church, Religion and homosexuality, and AIDS. The article is ambitious, but it misses the mark by disproportionately covering trivial subjects next to subjects that have a multi-century or a multi-decade history. - MrX 🖋 14:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sections "Homosexuality as..." are now adjacent

I've moved a couple of subsections of section "Anti-gay rhetoric" down, in order to keep the three subsections entitled "Homosexuality as... " adjacent, namely: "Homosexuality as a lifestyle", "Homosexuality as unnatural", and "Homosexual acts as sin". To these I've added added a new subsection, Homosexual agenda", and seeded it with content on the Ugandan Kill the Gays bill. Depending on the bulk of other "homosexual agenda" material moved in from other articles, it may need to be trimmed for proper balance. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Blanked section "Intersectionality"

I blanked the "Intersectionality" section, as having little to do with the title topic. There was a sentence on microaggressions, which could possibly be resurrected and expanded into a section on LGBT microaggressions. Here are the two references that were removed:

Copy of references from rev. 975184509‎
Refs: References

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Cite error – list defined reference

There is a CS1 "no key" error in the Notes section, which stems from the first {{efn}} explanatory note in the #Homintern section. I don't know what's causing it yet, but I raised this discussion at the CS1 Help talk page, so hopefully we'll get some feedback there that we can apply to fix it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: - I've seen this issue as well several times, I finally asked at the help desk, and now I see another editor has asked the same question at the help desk - see here in this discussion, and they got the same answer I did → The only solution I know of at the moment is that the notes have to be placed inline instead of in the |refs= parameter. Of course I was already doing that as a workaround, but apparently it's a known bug with list-defined notes. I'd suggest that you just put the notes back inline like they were before, while someone tries to figure it out. The issue has also been raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) seen here in this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead

At some point, we'll have to revisit the lead, and expand it to accommodate a summary of the new, larger version of the article. In addition, the WP:LEADSENTENCE has a couple of issues: currently, it's:

Anti-LGBT rhetoric and anti-gay slogans are themes, catchphrases, and slogans that have been used against homosexuality or other non-heterosexual sexual orientations in order to demean lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

It's more than just catchphrases and slogans; perhaps "themes" is enough to encompass concepts like discriminatory false theories and political or cultural theories. The other thing in the lead sentence, is that "non-heterosexual" covers LGB but not T. Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

We have to be careful that in changing the scope of this article, it does not overlap too much with homophobia or transphobia. (t · c) buidhe 12:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I support Mathglot.

Rhetoric = arguments. Much more.

Zezen (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What you are proposing would then duplicate LGBT rights opposition, which focuses on substantive arguments. (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I could not find these there. It is a list of religions and regions: Religion X thinks Y because of their book Z. Country X was Y and now is a tad more Z.

This is what the title hereof suggests:

Rhetoric (/ˈrɛtərɪk/)[note 1] is the art of persuasion, which along with grammar and logic (or dialectic – see Martianus Capella), is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. Rhetoric aims to study the capacities of writers or speakers needed to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations....

Let us other list how the opponents persuade, what their discourse is. Much more than POV "catchphrase and slogans".

Or rename thus article. Zezen (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar point in different words. Article title policy says, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." I feel like I know what this one is about, and how it's different from LGBT rights opposition, but words matter, and the title may, in fact, not be adequate to match "what it's about". I'm not overly concerned about this right now as we expand the article in a way that seems to have at least a hand-wavy consensus, but I think you are both right: User:Zezen in that it's more than "catchphrases and slogans", and also to consider a rename, and USer:buidhe in worrying about duplication or overlap with "LGBT rights opposition". At some point, the distinction between the two articles needs to be drawn in such a way that it's either obvious, or explained in the lead, so that editors know where the dividing line is, whether through a change in the WP:LEADSENTENCE to specify it with more WP:PRECISION, or perhaps in the title itself. For the moment, I'm content to just carry on, but if anyone thinks it's urgent to deal with it now, I'm not opposed. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I have thus changed it, Mathglot .

See also here:

There are some credible-though ultimately unpersuasive-arguments against gay marriage, dealing mostly with respect for long-standing traditions,empirical uncertainty about the effect of gay couples on their children, and the possibility of unintended cultural consequences. These types of arguments have to be addressed carefully by advocates of gay marriage.� ...

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=faculty_articles

A quote from a self avowed partisan of gay marriage (! check it), hence as allowed as can be, who concedes "credible but bad" arguments exist. Let us add some of this, too. Zezen (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that opposition to same-sex marriage is necessarily included in "anti-LGBT rhetoric". That seems exactly like the sort of content which belongs in LGBT rights opposition. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:buidhe here. If we can't figure out what belongs in the article and what doesn't, then maybe we do need to move up the discussion about the title, or at the very least, the definition. Speaking of the that: how does everyone feel about the clause, "...in order to demean..." as part of the definition in the lead sentence? We've been worrying about the WP:PRECISION issue wrt the ability to distinguish between this article, and LGBT rights opposition; if the "in order to demean" is an integral part of the definition of this topic, then we might have to also worry about how to clearly distinguish this topic from List of LGBT-related slurs. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You convinced me. This quote and article referred to specifically

gay marriage. I will try to find a +rhetoric +arguments +RS in spare time. 

I agree with other Mathglot 's remarks and motions hereinabove. Let us proceed.

Zezen (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Zimbabwe a good early example

1995: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/safrica/safriglhrc0303-02.htm

https://www.democraticbacklash.com/the-perfect-enemy-from-migrants-to-sexual-minorities Zezen (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: should I add it or smb will take it up? Also Zambia etc. are mentioned there. Interesting arguments, too (their veracity notwithstanding): cultural imperialism, other sex acts, etc. Plus globalization of this article. Zezen (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes those are good finds, and should be added. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

My attempt at using them was reverted with an argument that they are too old, see History. Here, a quick newer one then, less detailed but more nuanced:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43904852 Zezen (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That article is hardly more "nuanced", it is a commentary (ie. editorial), not a peer reviewed paper, and is only reliable for author's opinion (t · c) buidhe 07:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, v. crackpot or fringe

It’s all pretty much wrong, but do we want to include stuff that’s on the crackpot fringe, possibly labeling it differently? I’m thinking of the major religious figure with an audience of millions who claimed that the World Trade Center attack was due to LGBT activity, and said so openly. Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That's already in the article. He may be a crackpot but not a fringe figure. Overall, however, I think the article should focus less on the lunatic fringe (such as Westboro Baptist Church) and more on mainsteam figures, even those who are less extreme. (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, must have missed that one. You've raised an interesting contrast between crackpot and fringe, and on reflection, I agree one can be one but not the other (either way) or both. In this case, I would consider him fringe; but I admit to not being up on how many others have said something similar; I assumed nobody, but am I wrong about that? Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think if you have a huge audience and mainstream appeal, it's hard to call that "fringe", no matter how "crackpot" (i.e. wrong, outside of the median person's opinion/mainstream discourse) the viewpoint is. (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree with you there, based on WP:DUE. No matter how many millions of people subscribe to it, it's fringe if only a tiny minority of published, reliable sources adhere to that view. "Huge audience and mainstream appeal" does not equal "significant viewpoint" published by more than "a tiny minority" of reliable sources. All the Tumblrs in the world, and a paying tv audience in the millions, counts for nada in that evaluation. Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: let's not get confused here, between the presence of significant coverage by reliable sources about some wacko quotation, and the importance of WP:DUE relative to minority views on a subject. Falwell's statement about gays causing the WTC attacks got *plenty* of coverage on RS's. That makes *the fact that Falwell said that* newsworthy, and possibly worth including. But Falwell's view on what caused 9/11 is an extreme minority view, afaict. His claim was notable for its widely-covered crackpottery; not because it's a view shared by anybody. Mathglot (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Let us use "Main article" template for Homosexual agenda section. Am on mobile, so cannot. Btw see there the bestseller After the Ball (Kirk and Madsen book) (read it on Archive) for a non-crackpot, non-fringe argument used by opponents of homosexuality. Caveat: I do not claim for its veracity. I claim it exists as a nonfringe argument and at least should be wikified here, as examples now are cherrypicked fringey bordering on loony bin; cf. the ones therein. Zezen (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Good source for T deception rhetoric

Found this great source with full text online for the transgender deception narrative section: "Passing" and the Politics of Deception: Transgender Bodies, Cisgender Aesthetics, and the Policing of Inconspicuous Marginal Identities. I don't have time for it right now, so if you want to use it to expand the section, be my guest. Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)