Talk:LGBT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleLGBT was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 26, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 9, 2014Good article reassessmentKept
January 25, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Challenging the history of the term[edit]

The first sentence of section #History of the term currently says, "Before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, there was no common non-derogatory vocabulary for non-heterosexuality" but I don't believe this is accurate. The terms "sexual inversion" (for the state) and "invert" (for the person) were used in 19th century in medical references, and by the early 20th century, in popular literature, such as Well of Loneliness. The term uranian was also used, but it was never common, I believe.

Later in that section, there is the claim that the term homophile "replaced" homosexual in the 1950s and 1960s, but it never replaced it, they coexisted, with the latter being over a hundred times more common, and the former being relegated primarily to insider groups and entirely unknown to the public.

Something else that is not made clear by this section and perhaps should be, is that the term "heterosexuality" only came to be used as a counterpoint to the term "homosexuality" (both coined by translators of von Krafft Ebbing around 1892) and whose usage always lagged behind that of "homosexual". This is a standard type of development in language, where the unmarked term doesn't "need" to exist, until the variant is recognized and defined. The same thing happened with "transgender" (c. 1965) and "cisgender" (1990s).

Later in the section, it says that, "From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States," but U.S. usage precedes that. See for example, Nakayama (1980),[1] and usage in scholarly articles trails activist usage. Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the term did not originally have any negative connotations; it was a term used in medical, psychological, and legal circumstances. The first two paragraphs of this section seem all wrong, and should be removed or rewritten. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the section's lead sentence, which had been tagged {{dubious}} since July 2017. Two other issues still tagged "dubious" remain in this section, for now. Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Unarchived on 11:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC) as this section is still the target of {{dubious}} tags in the article. Mathglot (talk)
Unarchived on 07:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC) as this section is still the target of {{dubious}} tags in the article. (added DNAU.) Mathglot (talk)

References

  1. ^ Nakayama, T. (1980). "The impact of an LGBT safe zone project on campus climate". Journal of College Student Development. Nashville. 43 (4): 522–539.


Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2019[edit]

Background: The Gay Rights Movement, referencing post Stonewall, developed separately from the Radical Lesbian Feminism (2nd to 3rd wave) movement. While the article includes information on both movements, "Gay Rights" morphed to "Gay and Lesbian Rights" under a wider encompassing. The article is unfortunately silent on when/how Lesbian became the first word in the acronym of LGBT, namely: The AIDS Epidemic.

Request for changes: Previous to entry "From about 1988, activists began to use the initialism LGBT in the United States." Please include that the cause of the name change, and ordering had to do with the AIDS epidemic, as experienced by the then, Gay Community. Many lesbians stepped up during this time, caring for terminal AIDS patients, because "...no one else is going to do it".

"Although identical in meaning, LGBT may have a more feminist connotation than GLBT as it places the "L" (for "lesbian") first." The citation for this line dates from 2004. However, material from 5 years prior, 1999, indicates an alternative narrative for why the term is LGBT, not GLBT. GLBT? LGBT? LGBTQIA+? What's in a Name? citing John-Manuel Andriote, author of Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America (Chicago 1999).

The two terms are NOT identical in meaning, nor is LGBT of a more feminist inclination. Lesbian lists first in the acronym due to the solidarity expressed to Lesbians caring for dying Gays.--68.36.164.95 (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is news to me, and afaik the terms were, and to a lesser extent, still are, used interchangeably, and mean exactly the same thing. Your "andymatic" link is a personal, self-published blog, summarizing or copying information from a Reddit thread. The article on the Medium open publishing platform is also personal observation and opinion, nothing more, nothing less. This doesn't mean that the information in either of these two sources is false, but neither is it reliably sourced, and it cannot be used on Wikipedia.
I'll leave this request open for a bit, and message you on your User talk page. If you are able to list below several citations to reliable sources that attest to the truth of what you say (please read WP:RS to see what that means, in Wiki-speak), then we can talk about adding the material. But not before. If you haven't responded by, say, 4 September, then this request should be closed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

While I have a San Francisco-centric view, I trace the morphing of the collective term as follows Gay -> Gay and Lesbian -> Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual (LGB) -> LGBT.

Citation reference on LGB: Wikipedia, LGBT_culture_in_San_Francisco [1] Unsurprisingly listed under 1980s and 1990s - the AIDS crisis and response with first use of the term "mid to late 1980s".

Mathglot, go ahead and close the request for the present. I don't have an immediate reputable source. As well, San Francisco represents only one of the LGBT cultural centers, more research would be needed in documenting when the choice of listing changed, and its presence at a national or global level.

For a future researcher, the names Maggie Rubenstein, and Susan Stryker appear to be linked (among others) to the inclusion of "Bisexual" and "Transgender" [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.164.95 (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

As the development of the LGBTQ+ community, the are more terms have emerged. Do you think we should include and explain these terms as well? such as binary, pansexual, sapiosexual, and etc. For example, how they are related to LGBTQ+ community.WILL.I.AMMJ (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

WILL.I.AMMJ, Perhaps these terms should be linked to directly from the article itself, so as not to have to duplicate the work on those articles themselves? FULBERT (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Italics?[edit]

Why is LGBT in italics on this page?★Trekker (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)