Jump to content

Talk:Coming out/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Transgender

The wording for the following phrase from the transgender section is inappropriate: "their intention of changing their gender role if they wish to transition." When transgender people choose to transition, they don't change their gender role, they change their sex. Gender roles are simply the performed aspects of social expectations regarding gender identities. One can change one's gender role without transitioning, simply by dressing, behaving, and identifying with the gender one chooses to become (in particular, it is not uncommon, for example, for transmen -- by which I mean, biological females who are gendered male -- to both identify and pass as men without transitioning). But to transition - read, take steps to modify one's body to more closely match one's gender identity (by taking hormones and/or having cosmetic or reconstructive surgery) is to change one's sex, which is the physical aspect of gender. I tried to make this change but it was reverted as unproductive before I could explain it. Unless there are further objections I'm going to make it again. 68.72.59.225 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. 68.72.59.225 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I augmented the content to remove the transphobic stuff ("wish to hide their birth sex once they have transitioned") with something that explains the "two stage" issues without totally dissing trans people. Also I moved the entire trans sections lower, because it was silly to explain what the basic process was after explaining a kind of obscure variant of it. Introduce terms, then elaborate on them :-) (SemiAnonymous 09:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.176 (talk)

Previous Discussion

Coming out should be described as a process rather than an event. For example one might find themselves coming out in the following stages (see Richard Niolon, Ph.D., Associate Professor at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/gay/comeout.html):

Self-Recognition as Gay or Lesbian - may include stages of confusion, denial, repression, anxiety, attempts to overcome, acknowledgment and finally, acceptance
Disclosure to others - can be anything from an individual such as a close friend or family member who keeps the "secret" to a very public announcement
Socialization - degrees of "outness" may depend on social conditions for example, a person may be completely out at a gay club yet not out at all at the workplace
Positive Self-Identification - a feeling of self comfort with being gay or lesbian which often leads to seeking fulfilling and complementary relationships with other gays and lesbians
Integration and Total Acceptance - a mature, pragmatic, and non-defensive attitude toward one's sexual orientation that can potentially be used to promote social and political change with great affect

In the definition of “outing” or “being outed” it should also be pointed out that young teenagers are often outed by their peers who are the first to recognize their homosexual or cross gender behaviors. It isn't always from a position of attempted concealment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monraffe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


The phrase "coming out" is increasingly being used for all "non-vanilla" forms of sexual expression (GLBT, BDSM, Poly). Dlloyd 23:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hate to mention it, but I think this needs to be disambiguated with the older meaning of 'coming out', as in 'coming out ball'. DJ Clayworth 14:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it merits more than an "I hate to mention". This article itself starts out on the first line that it is properly "Coming out of the closet" often abbreviated "coming out".
Here's what should happen (I'd do it but I don't know how, especially how to fix the "back pointers or pointees"):
  • "coming out" should be one of those disambiguation pages
  • this page should be "coming out of the closet"
  • the other meaning can happily live at "debutante" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.28.166 (talk • contribs), revision as of 03:09, 22 January 2005
I fixed this page to be in line with its title, "coming out of the closet," and the redirects. Did not make a disambig page, as it seems coming out should still redirect here. Fredsmith2 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I can't do this myself, but I did request it here. Fredsmith2 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Changing the name makes sense, and I support it. We need, however, an article on the meaning for debutantes at least as much as this one; and they should not have ambiguous titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There's both a link to debutantes in this article and in coming out (disambiguation). That seems to adequately cover it. And none of the top 50 google search results even come back with a reference to debutantes, see here. I had to go to result #76 before I even found one reference. I don't think the need is all that great, because this seems to be a less-used usage of coming out. Fredsmith2 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
After going through the google results, I changed my mine about this, and removed my request for a page name change. If someone still feels strongly about this, please resubmit. I did change this article to read, "Coming out or coming out of the closet describes..." which seems to make the most sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredsmith2 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Material from Homophobia

Sometimes homosexuals who are opposed to homosexual behaviour or who choose to hide their orientations, particularly public or political figures, are forcibly outed by campaign groups or newspapers who claim that opposing homosexual behaviour while being homosexual is hypocritical and should be exposed. Even prominent closeted homosexuals who do not oppose homosexuality, but rather wish to remain silent, are often forcibly "outed," as has been the case with several film actors and professional athletes, such as Hayden Christensen and Mike Piazza. This is a controversial tactic.

This material was in Homophobia, but I think that if it belongs anywhere, it belongs here. There's already a paragraph on outing. The Hayden Christensen article doesn't mention homosexuality at all. The Mike Piazza article says that there are allegations which have been denied. Given I don't have enough evidence at hand to support these hefty allegations, I won't include them in the article. And anyway, there's a long list of people who have been alleged to be gay and/or have publicly denied it. List of people who have publicly denied being gay, actually. Perhaps there are better examples. Even better would be someone who has admitted that they were successfully outed involuntarily. Perhaps the recently-resigned governor of New Jersey?

Having said that, I don't think there's much from the above that I can merge directly. So I'll just leave this here and perhaps it will inspire someone to expand the section on outing with more examples, or find a good list of outings or explain why people try to do it or something. -- Beland 09:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

COMING OUT Scientific

Please note that "COMING OUT" was not invented by gay community.

This is a psychological term found in all scientific encyclopedias and vocabularies as (simplified, can copy from encyclopedia if needed)

"expressing one`s subconsciousness through motion or act"

It can lead to discovery of homosexuality, but not necessarily and not at the 1st place.

This meaning should be at top. --Rastavox 00:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe you may have confused "coming out" with "acting out." The latter is a common term in psychology and means just what you say, but is quite different from coming out. Given that, and that "coming out" is now commonly used to indicate the end of hiding one sexuality (see National Coming Out Day under External Links below), I do think, based on experience, a review of the literature and a search of google, that this is the primary contemporary usage. Jliberty 01:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Personal choice"

"This practice may be becoming less common as acceptance of homosexuality as a personal choice increases." No LGBTQ person will tell you its a personal choice. You do not choose your sexuality, whether gay, straight, asexual or anything else. Even the Catholic Church will agree with that one.


That's a good point. Also this article says that the reason some GLBT people don't come out is because they are afraid of being rejected. That is not true. There can be other reasons, but the article doesn't state that. GLBT people may not come out because they don't want to deal with all this sh!t about being labelled, or they simply don't feel that they are GLBT, although they know that they fit the general definition. AlliedCutiePie 13:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity vs. sloganeering

From "viewpoints" section:

Today, more gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are out than ever before, and many believe that being in the closet is unhealthy for the individual.

I don't see how "more are out than before" is a point of view. It's not even a very useful fact. Are we talking percentanges or absolute numbers?

Perhaps the writer intended to convey a positive impression of coming out by glad-handing it.

  • More people are doing this than ever before.

Sounds like an advertisement. Or encouragement.

I recommend separating out the "fact" that coming out is more common from the "viewpoint" (held by many people) than being in the closet is unhealthy.

And by the way, I created a stub at closet gay which might need merging or redirection. --Uncle Ed 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Coming Out Process"

The bit about the "curious event" in Palo Alto is not only completely unnecessary but doesn't cite references. It seems like someone decided to write about a party they had, rather than make an actual contribution to the article, therefore, I'm deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.58.84 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Clayton Snyder is listed under 'See Also.' He doesn't seem to be listed as gay in his article, so either his page or this one should probably be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.238.181 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Merging with Closeted.

I think this article should be merged with Closeted, as I think they both basically cover half of the same phrase. There's information about merging at Help:Merging and moving pages. Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Although related, they are two different concepts. Kolindigo (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Kolindigo. I don't have much more to say about this matter than that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clayton Snyder

What is the model of sexual identity formation that clayton snyder suggests? I believe that this may be vandalism. Please verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.15.13 (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're correct. -- Banjeboi 19:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of term, "come out"

What is the origin of the term "come out" used to describe this process? Local gay lore here in the SF Bay Area is that it started in 1939 with the film "Wizard of Oz" and the lyrics, "Come out, come out, wherever you are ...." Is there any truth to this? - Davodd 20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add to that question: when was the "of the closet" part of that term added on? Selesen (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In Charles Dickens's Martin Chuzzlewit (written 1844-1845), chapter 9, "Then the presentations took place...and they included a gentleman of a theatrical turn, who had once entertained serious thoughts of 'coming out',(Dickens's quotation marks), but had been kept in by the wickedness of human nature...". No further information is given about this gentleman. This may be one of the first uses of the term in print. Adbmd (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattachine Society

In the article is: "The decidedly clandestine Mattachine Society, founded by Harry Hay and other veterans of the Wallace for President campaign in Los Angeles in 1950, also moved into the public eye with many gays emerging from the closet after Hal Call took over the group in San Francisco in 1953" Can anyone confirm that the society was clandestine at the beginning and clarify how Harry Hay and the other could be "veterans of the Wallace for President campaign in Los Angeles in 1950" when Wallace candidate for president the first time in 1964, he was in 1950 still pro-segregation -he change mind later- (so I doubt he would have had anything to do with "comunists" and homosexual as Hay and the others) and he was in 1953 elected judge in the Third Judicial Circuit Court in Alabama? Thanks.--Dia^ 15:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer on Talk:Mattachine Society. ntennis 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Current Viewpoints

In my opinion this section raises some interesting points about what it is like to be a 'non-straight' (whatever that actually means...) person in contemporary 'western society and culture' quite well. It has been said that while many aspects of life engage dialectically with society sexuality cannot becuase it is an invisible topic which is often ignored or overlooked. On the one hand bringing ones sexuality into the realm of everyday life does deconstruct barriers and allows for the discussion of sexuality at the level of society as a whole, however it is not possible, I believe, to do so without being further categorized and stereotyped by others. This situation is not unique to sexuality (think of typical portrayals of 'race', 'ethnicity', 'locality' in movies, TV, books, etc.); however, it is still an important aspect of how we imagine our sexualities. People create society, yet society also creates us by instilling us with a set of values, beliefs and behaviours. A social discourse of sexuality is, in many ways, a catch 22. Ignoring sexuality does not lead anywhere, and expressing sexuality can fuel the fire for stereotypes and discrimination. I long for the day when sexual orientation will no longer be a defining point of 'the self'.

Okay, I'm just troubled that "current viewpoints" only features the viewpoint of one person.Rglong 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise?

Maybe a bit about Tom Cruise and South Park should be put in this.--Chops A Must 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


The 'Media' section

kinda pretty much only has gay male film/tv examples. some lesbian additions are needed ;p 24.60.66.216 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

More examples of coming out

I think this article needs more examples of people coming out, not just celebrities. I am going to add a reference to Jon-Marc McDonald, a campaign manager who, in 1998, resigned from a congressional campaign due to his candidates views on sexuality. In a press release about the resignation, McDonald outed himself in what became a national story.

I believe that stories like this are more relevant to a coming out story than is the headline grabbing occasional celebrity.

If any object to McDonald's inclusion, please respond here as to why. For now, I am going to edit the page to include his story. Thanks to all! LaughAlotDot (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Atheists

I know this article is for the GLBT community, but I was wondering what people thought of the idea of including a section about Atheists' who are/have "come out." I forget the exact person, but someone said 'Atheists are the last, great minority.' Prof. Dawkins has been pushing for an "out campaign" to encourage Atheists to imitate the concept used, with much success he believes, by the LGBT community in the 60-80's (time period may be off, I am only vaguely familiar with it). The basic idea of Prof. Dawkins campaign is the same as that of the GLBT community; raise awareness of/about Atheism and show we're not some evil, baby eating people lurking in the shadows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.56.36 (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Added to "Other uses" section —EqualRights (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph: essential notions

There's been too much removal of key info to distinguish coming out from outing, with errors replacing such important info. Let's leave the edits where the last one stands and discuss changes here before editing for "grammar" and "clean-ups" (read: content changes).

It's very important to know "who's Xing whom" in this article AND the ones on outing and on (being) closeted. For example, people are the object of outing, not information, i.e. you don't "out info" or someone's info, as was previously inserted. Also, "outing yourself" is never intentional, unless used with sarcasm or a multiple personality disorder, hence the reflexivity, for example: "He outed himself by forgeting to play the pronoun game."

I've re-worked the order of the most basic elements so that the first paragraph reads better. Again, let's not confuse people by leaving out the minimum of what needs to be there. Besides, there have been, and still are, poor sections of the article that need deleting or major re-writing. Time can also be spent fleshing the whole article out. --CJ Withers (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually a nuance we could address is that people sometimes have to re-out themselves in new social, employment, etc. situations. These are among the ways one intentionally outs themselves. IMHO, by bundling a bunch of terms that are quickly defined we're adding confusion. It may make sense to separate these a bit and move all the outing stuff to a new paragraph or otherwise more smoothly presenting each successive term. As many/most? folks only read the lede that is teh highest priority for any article. -- Banjeboi 03:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree about too many terms being in the first paragraph, but I think that's largely due to how many social science LGBT articles here go off on tangents or are simply off target. Here's what I suggest. Since I've also started working on an overhaul of outing and closeted, I will move important, related info not directly explaining coming out into a new section that will appear in each of the three articles. Each article will then focus on how its topic is connected to and different from the other two topics. What's more, you are absolutely right about the lede: again, with many social science LGBT articles, there's just too much info (and tangents) up there!

As for having to come out in new situations (what I assume you mean as re-outing) or a never-ending coming out process, let's not forget that having to coming out repeatedly occurs in the context of a heterosexist society. Also, I think they're essential notions and ought to be included. A good way to start would be to focus on this context. It seems that these ideas should go under the process heading (or never-ending journey) for now, this heading being too focused on the Cass identity model, which has its own clear article anyway.

Overall, I'm overhauling in stages and when I get a few moments here and there to write out a section or paragraph. Too bad that Wikipedia doesn't have a sort of drafting or editing room for group discussion like this before saving, i.e. publishing, articles. --CJ Withers (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How does this lede read?

Coming out of the closet, or simply coming out, is a figure of speech for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people disclosing their sexual orientation and gender identity. Framed and debated as a privacy issue, coming out is described and experienced variously as: a psychological process or journey; decision-making or risk-taking; a strategy or plan; a mass or public event; a speech act and a matter of personal identity; a rite of passage; liberation or emancipation from oppression; a means toward feeling gay pride and not shame or social stigma.

In the context of LGBT people being historically marginalized sexual minorities, coming out remains a challenge for the majority of the world's LGBT population and can lead to a backlash of heterosexist discrimination and homophobic violence. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've done a few tweaks. -- Banjeboi 20:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I've improved concision and made style edits. I'm going to copy it to the actual article page. --CJ Withers (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey CJ and Benj, could you two explain something? The reason I ask the two of you is that it appears that you two have done the major cleanup of this page. Why was the story of Jon-Marc McDonald removed. His story is unique because, unlike today, in 1998 at the age of 21, he came out at the helm of a US congressional campaign, two things that were of unheard of at the time 1)his age and 2) coming out while managing a campaign for a conservative Republican cnadidate. I am just curious why his reference in this article was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaughAlotDot (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I am going to reinsert the paragraph concerning McDonald until an answer can be determined as for his deletion. Feel free to clean up grammar, etc. but let's not delete the story until we determine why, in fact it was deleted. "Non-notability" is not an argument in this instance and does not even make sense.

Thanks, LaughAlotDot (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting, but not a milestone of history. Also, it's not a Rep. or Sen.'s coming out, which are more notable. Also, I took it out because of the way it was presented and because we need more international examples, in addition to more famous coming outs by athletes, celebrities, etc. Plus I think a blurb on former NJ Govenor McGreevey should be there. --CJ Withers (talk) 19:10, 15

September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input CJ and the moving of the story to another section. I agree with your argument and the McGreevey mention LaughAlotDot (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Family?

Why isn't anything mentioned about family impact? Coming out to parents (which is usually the most prominent event in coming out), getting kicked out, disowned by parents, etc. There should be a whole section on this! Anyone want to help? :) --Dan LeveilleTALK 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Q" for "questioning" / "queer"

Just a note to say that the LGBT initialism has been restored because it is the standard, agreed upon, and commonly used term both on Wikipedia and outside.

Coming-out in an LGBT context denotes revealing a gender identity or sexual orientation, not questioning, doubting or contemplating it. When not considered a separate period that paves the way for coming out, questioning is subsumed under the so-called coming out process and is classified as an initial step or pre-stage. What's more, "queer" when it might appear as "Q" after LGBT, though the letter usually denotes "questioning", is an umbrella term for all the rest, and it therefore redundant. Besides, the LGBTQ link directed to LGBT anyway. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is redundant. Queer means lesbian and gay, so it's unnecessary to have Q at the end. Also, some people may find the word "queer" offensive as it's used derogatory in parts for the United States south (and probably other places). --Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Queer is broader than LGBT (includes people who would otherwise not be included in "LGBT" but would still be outside the traditional mainstream, without another group to stick up for them) and should be included in the interest of inclusivity. Coming out (this article) as queer is a very similar process to coming out as coming out as LGB or T but not included within it -- I'd say that straight women who get off on gay men is queer, lesbian women who get off on gay men is even queerer, and very kinky straight sex might be queer too. Admitting to queerness is not the same as admitting to a sexual or gender identity, and pose their own independent set of coming out issues -- Q isn't *only* an umbrella term. As to offensiveness, any of LGBTQ terms can be used in an offensive manner, but it is the context that matters -- the fact that there are groups of individuals who identify primarily as "queer" or "dyke" shouldn't be hidden simply because another group of people uses that word intending offense. Elatb (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
All those examples are original research, unless you can provide a source proving otherwise. "I'd say that straight women who get off on gay men is queer" Did you make that up, or is it really mainstream? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with Mike Allen here, particularly because although the figure of speech "coming out" is used by a few people as a mental and verbal metaphor-shorcut for revealing traditionally "deviant" sexual practices, all research on coming-out, particularly as a process, pertains solely to sexual orientation and gender identity, not just an umbrella term. What's more, while there is a label "queer" to take back the term, a discrete queer identity, i.e. not including any notions already essential to the LGBT movement and consciousness, does not exist. Besides, "queer" denotes different things to different people and different fields: queer studies, queer theory, and gender queer do not use "queer" to mean the same thing. Therefore, the term cannot be used here. I suggest the Wikipedia article section on euphemism treadmill for a deeper understanding of the term's dilemmas. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't make up those examples (they are more or less common in the literature, e.g. [1]), but it looks like a consensus minus one. I'm content as the article stands, no Q. My real concern here is with the larger context, which is now recorded here and has been at least considered -- "deleting that letter means positioning queerness as 'inappropriate'". I do recognize that everything in the way Wikipedia is set up bats against that being a legitimate argument (perfect example of institutional bias, really), but I don't want the Talk page to give the impression that this particular editorial decision is wholly uncontested and unproblematic (since that is misleading in its own way, now that the topic of terminology has been broached). Elatb (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
I think the issue was larger as the point was that an intervention of "Q" for whatever it might stand for is not appropriate in this article not only for all of what "queer" can mean, but also for this article being the wrong springboard to start such a debate. For example, why didn't you choose the LGBT article to start or the LGBT sidebars, or the LGBT projects? Wouldn't they have been the right starting point? If there were a true issue here, it should have been discussed within the framework of the articles that contain "queer". Anyway, the, ahem, queerness of "queer" becomes apparent when classifying groups of men who have homosexual sex according to how they identify: gay, MSM, etc. Clearly, "coming out as queer" [sic] fits nowhere, save for being a shortcut for non-heterosexual in restricted usage. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, people do come out as both questioning and queer. -- Banjeboi 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"FYI" is inappropriate tone/addressing. "Questioning" is not an identity; instead it is confusion over what/which identity one has. In fact, that's why we use the term "identity crisis". Moreover, just because "questioning" is lumped into other established identities does not mean this period/stage is an identity in itself. Besides, "questioning" is not even a sexual orientation. As for "queer", it is a an alternative label for LBG(T) or a current verbal shortcut for "non-heterosexual" or "non-gender-normative". Some caution is due here because casual speech and easy metaphors, no matter how widespread and attractive they may be, are not reliable. --CJ Withers (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to correct lede and sidebar

This article is key to the LGBT series. This is why it absolutely must include the sidebar. Moreover, the LGBT-focus itself lede was fine before additions of extended meanings. There are connections to extended meanings of the metaphor both on the disambig page in addition to some text at the end of this article.

The amateur photo of the two people performing was removed because it cannot replace the sidebar. What's more, the photo shows exactly what this article does NOT mean, i.e. one's literal exiting from a closet. The photo in no way explains disclosure of one's homosexual or bisexual orientation or one's perceived gender identity and therefore does not belong in this article at all, especially at the beginning next to the lede.

I can suggest, however, the photo of a personal letter to a parent, a t-shirt with someone's declaration of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, etc. as a suitable photo topic that could be included in this article under a section on ways that people come out. P-FLAG should be a good resource for these types of images. --CJ Withers (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the big deal about including a one-sentence mention of non-LGBT contexts (which this article does cover--briefly) in the lede's overview of the topic. The article name does not specify that it is only about coming out in the sexual orientation context, and the article does briefly cover the non-LGBT uses at the end. As for the photo not being LGBT enough, it was made by the QueerEaster photo work group (see Commons:Category:QueerEaster) for the purpose of illustrating coming out of the closet, and is already in use on 2 other language Wikipedias for their "coming out" articles ;-). I thought it was a more interesting/engaging visual than the generic LGBT sidebar, and also allowed for a caption to explain/summarize what coming out meant as a figure of speech. (See Lesbian, which also has a lede photo (also by QueerEaster) which visually symbolizes the topic and then summarizes it in the caption.) I really don't care to edit-war or pursue the issue further, but since you brought it up on the talk page I figured I would explain my intentions. My 2 cents, for whatever they are worth. Happy editing, :) Wikignome0530 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I understand that you think it isn't a big deal having an image that illustrates what the article is actually about, the image, no matter how queer the group/troupe who createad it was, does not illustrate the act of someone disclosing their LGB orientation or perceived gender identity. That's why it was removed _twice_. As for "LGBT enough", which I never wrote so please re-read, you've misread or misinterpreted.

Also, the extended meanings are NOT what the article is about and therefore do not belong in the _lede_. It's obvious, don't you think? :-) You removed them yourself, right? That's why they were and are under extended meanings and on the disambig page.

I do want to thank you for the heads-up about the articles in other languages. I'll be cleaning them up from those areas as well.

Let's invite some folks to find an image that illustrates what coming out is, not a performance thereof. ;-) --CJ Withers (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just did some follow up and found that there's a great image at this address: http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%B0:Time-1997-cover.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

I'm not well-versed in creating a file for images, so if there's anyone who want to contribute to this article by including the image under a section about famous or media coming-outs, please do! --CJ Withers (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

R. Kelly

I find the lack of any mention of R. Kelly's epic hip hopera Trapped in the Closet to be rather unfortunate, as it features themes that include coming out. I suggest an addition to the Other Uses section, or perhaps a Usage in Popular Media section.Brakoholic (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewording the opening sentence to be more inclusive....

The opening of "...is a figure of speech for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people's disclosure of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)" is problematic. It excludes asexual, pan-sexual, gender queer or anything other sexuality or gender identity that challenge heteronormativity. People even have to come out of polygamous.

I think it should be reworded to something along the lines of, "...is a figure of speech for when lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals or any individuals with gender or sexuality identities outside of cultural constructed standards disclosure their sexual orientation and/or gender identity to others." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.87.110 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

National Coming Out Day

While National Coming Out Day (NCOD) is important, the edit including it in the lede of Coming out is both deficient and misguided because of the following reasons:

  1. Copying and pasting information readily available in more than one location is nothing more than a poor edit based on redundancy. In fact, the edit is a verbatim cut and paste of text from not only the NCOD article, but also from the NCOD section of the Coming out. It is a triplication of text.
  2. While NCOD is significant, importance can never support such a poor edit.
  3. As I stated in my first removal of the redundant text, this triplication is overkill unless there is an effort to merge the NCOD article into Coming out. While the merger would be simple to carry out, the obstacles to merging would be the fact that it is a holiday/commemoration and that its importance is highlighted by already standing apart.

I volunteer to merge the National Coming Out Day article into Coming out and, for the lede, write an original one-sentence summary for the (improved) NCOD section. If that cannot be agreed on, I can instead do some précis writing for the NCOD article and move the details and focus to, naturally, Coming out also with a reworked one-sentence summary in the lede. I will continue to remove redundant, overkill copy-and-paste edits until one of these options, or better, are chosen. As for my choice, I much prefer the last one involving the précis writing. --CJ Withers (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

National Coming Out Day is perfectly notable on its own and I think you know that. I think it needs to be in the lead, I'm less concerned how it is phrased. The lead should be a summary anyway and this is one of the more notable aspects of this phenomena - its own holiday. Insomesia (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Any cut-and-paste overkill is unjustifiable irrespective of importance or notability. What's more, no one doubts the importance of NCOD. In fact, I personally was a major contributor to the NCOD article and tailored its info into Coming out. Hell, twenty years ago I had a NCOD t-shirt with a ginormous NCOD logo on the back. NCOD, in my opinion, has not lost a single bit of importance since its inception. If, I repeat, a one-sentence summary, not copy, that truly fit in with the lede instead of just being tossed in there were made, I'd probably have difficulty objecting. Lastly, it's clear that your intentions are good ones, otherwise I'd see no point in taking the time to make the need for good-quality editing clear. :-) --CJ Withers (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I did so on the basis that studies have shown that most readers only read the leads of articles. If you're willing, could you add the content? Insomesia (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Editors coming from site with goal to "change definition of 'coming out' on Wikipedia"

Just a heads-up that this site exists, which wants to change this page to define "coming out" as owning up to anything that previously caused shame, not specific to the LGBT community. There's been at least two editors thus far that have added links or altered the lead to reflect this, against current consensus. As always, reasonable discussion on the topic is encouraged, but please don't change the page just because someone somewhere told you to. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Obvious Vandalism in the history section

" right at the top is a broken image and some random hitler Vandalism, since i wont be able to edit it for a little bit, felt like pointing it out. Theres likely more I didnt notice--Ectomikalogist (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Coming out. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coming out. 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) 15:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coming out. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coming out. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Coming out. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coming_out/Archive_1&oldid=1136629760"