Wikipedia:No queerphobia: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:00, 22 April 2024

This is an essay on the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing policy.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: It is well within the scope of the disruptive editing policy to block editors for queerphobia per WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE and WP:NONAZIS. This essay expands them by laying out common queerphobic beliefs and how to handle users who consistently express and advance them.

Many are drawn to Wikipedia, mistakenly believing they are protected by the WP:NPOV policy, to promote queerphobic views. Whether it is homophobia, lesbophobia, biphobia, transphobia, acephobia, or all around queerphobia, expressions of these views damage the enclyopedia by propagating WP:FRINGE viewpoints and driving away LGBTQ+ editors.

While the essays WP:NONAZIS and WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE lay out clearly why the expressions and support of views denigrating minorities are not allowed on Wikipedia and result in blocking and banning, this essay expands on them by outlining common queerphobic beliefs and disruptive manifestations of them.

Context of this essay

On the English Wikipedia, there have been discussions for over a decade about how to handle LGBTQ+ topics and people, from healthcare to history and from style guides to BLP issues. Currently, articles and discussions surrounding them are considered to be a WP:Contentious topic called WP:GENSEX, with MOS:GIDINFO outlining writing/gendering/style issues.

There have been many editors who have been unable to set aside their beliefs about the LGBTQ community when editing and seek to promote WP:FRINGE viewpoints. Many, though not all, editors subjected to sanctions under GENSEX were found to be doing this.

Not only does this compromise Wikipedia by increasing the risk of promoting misinformation or FRINGE viewpoints (particularly dangerous in medical articles), it also poses a risk to LGBTQ editor retention by creating an unwelcoming environment.

The purpose of this essay is to outline common queerphobic beliefs, misinformation about the LGBT community, and groups known to spread and support it to help admins and editors recognize and address them and show queerphobes the door.

Arbitration remedy history

A non-essential but enlightening overview of the Arbitration Committee decisions on how to handle LGBTQ disputes.

In 2013 in the Sexology case (WP:ARBSEX) the arbitration committee authorized discretionary sanctions for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia). In 2014 this was updated to all pages
In 2013 ArbCom had the Manning naming dispute case (WP:ARBMND) which found The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology or (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender
In 2015, the Gamergate case (WP:ARBGG) authorized discretionary sanctions stating Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case. This superseded ARBSEX and WP:ARBMND was updated accordingly.
In 2021, arbcom created the Gender and sexuality case (WP:GENSEX) as a shell for authorizing discretionary sanctions for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people., including WP:GAMERGATE and WP:ARBMND. In 2022, WP:GENSEX was amended to Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people are designated as a contentious topic.

Queerphobic beliefs

The basic definition of queerphobia is belief that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer identities are deviant, amoral, inherently sexual, or should be denied rights and protections.

Common beliefs include:

That LGBTQ identities are a "choice", "sinful", "amoral", or a "result of mental illness".
That LGBTQ identities are inherently sexual (including proposals such as Blanchard's transsexualism typology).
That the LGBTQ community is grooming children or otherwise dangerous to children.
That LGBTQ children cannot know their identities and are LGBTQ due to "peer pressure" and "social contagion".
That there is an LGBTQ/Gay/Trans "agenda", "ideology" (also referred to as "gender ideology"), or "cult".
That efforts to change a person's gender or sexuality (commonly referred to as "conversion therapy") are effective and should be used on queer people.
That cisgender or heterosexual people are either "more oppressed than" or "actually oppressed unlike" LGBTQ people.
That government protections against free speech or the WP:NPOV policy means that it's okay to denigrate LGBTQ people on Wikipedia.
That LGBTQ people have a WP:COI or are unable to be neutral on LGBTQ-related topics entirely because they are LGBTQ.
That LGBTQ rights conflict with parental or religious rights. That transgender rights conflict with the rights of cisgender women and cisgender LGB people.

Common beliefs often include opposition to civil rights:

That marriage should only be available to heterosexual people.
That LGBTQ people should be unable to adopt.
That transgender people should be unable to change legal gender, be excluded from public spaces, or restricted/banned from accessing healthcare.
That LGBTQ people should be segregated from children.
That LGBTQ youth should not be accepted at home or public institutions.

Possible manifestations

These beliefs may manifest in various ways that damage the encyclopedia. Below is a non-exhaustive list of possible ones.

WP:TENDENTIOUS promotion of WP:FRINGE viewpoints about the LGBTQ community, commonly WP:SEALIONING and Civil POV-pushing.
Incivility to other editors, such as regarding LGBTQ editors as inherently biased or refusing to use their pronouns
Denigrating comments about the LGBTQ community in articles and talk space, particularly through the use of dog whistles
Userboxes or userpages expressing anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments

Aspersions

Casting aspersions of queerphobia (as well as -ist or -phobe aspersions) should not be used as a trump card in disputes over content or a coup de grâce on a noticeboard. They have the potential to permanently damage reputation, especially when the accused's account is publicly tied to a real-world identity. As such, unsubstantiated aspersions are a form of personal attack which may lead to the accuser being blocked.

Aspersions make the normal dispute resolution process difficult to go through and may create a chilling effect. Editors are encouraged to work through the normal dispute-resolution process when it comes to legitimate content disputes, such as disagreements on the interpretation or quality of sources.

What to do if you encounter queerphobia

WP:Assume good faith. But any sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice and WP:Our social policies are not a suicide pact.

If they're being very blunt about it, Wikipedia already has WP:zero tolerance for that.

If you encounter an editor expressing/promoting queerphobic opinions/viewpoints, even civilly, check their contributions and see if a pattern emerges. If it does, collect relevant diffs and report them to WP:ANI or WP:AE. The second is preferable as a more manageable format and deigned to deal with GENSEX. However, a contentious topic warning must be given prior to filing an AE case.

Groups known to target the LGBT community

Below is a non-exhaustive list^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] of groups known for spreading misinformation about and legislatively targeting the LGBTQ community. They, and affiliated groups, should be avoided as sources to keep articles up to code with WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:RS.

References

^ Wuest, Joanna; Last, Briana S. (2024). "Agents of scientific uncertainty: Conflicts over evidence and expertise in gender-affirming care bans for minors". Social Science & Medicine. 344: 116533. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533. ISSN 0277-9536.
^ Caraballo, Alejandra (2022). "The Anti-Transgender Medical Expert Industry". Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 50 (4): 687–692. doi:10.1017/jme.2023.9. ISSN 1073-1105.
^ ""Demons and Imps": Misinformation and Religious Pseudoscience in State Anti-Transgender Laws" (PDF). Yale Journal of Law and Feminism.
^ "Combating Anti-LGBTQ+ Pseudoscience". Southern Poverty Law Center.

[1] Wuest, Joanna; Last, Briana S. (2024). "Agents of scientific uncertainty: Conflicts over evidence and expertise in gender-affirming care bans for minors". Social Science & Medicine. 344: 116533. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533. ISSN 0277-9536.

[2] Caraballo, Alejandra (2022). "The Anti-Transgender Medical Expert Industry". Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 50 (4): 687–692. doi:10.1017/jme.2023.9. ISSN 1073-1105.

[3] ""Demons and Imps": Misinformation and Religious Pseudoscience in State Anti-Transgender Laws" (PDF). Yale Journal of Law and Feminism.

[4] "Combating Anti-LGBTQ+ Pseudoscience". Southern Poverty Law Center.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]