Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ linguistics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:LGBT linguistics)

Removal of mention of J.L. Austin

[edit]

In the section on Language use as performance, there is a brief name-drop of J.L. Austin. But there is a misrepresentation of Austin here. Austin does not say language is performative. He describes a class of performative utterances: some language for Austin is performative, others is descriptive (or imperative or interrogative etc.). There's a sense in which all use of language to communicate is a kind of "performance" but this is not the sense Austin is getting at. Instead, he's describing performative utterances where the act of saying something makes it so. The classic examples are things like a person naming a ship: the delegated person smashing the bottle of champagne on the bow of the ship and saying "the USS [whatever]" names the ship. Or the priest or officiant in a wedding: by saying "I pronounce you husband and wife" (or husband and husband, or wife and wife now) and having the relevant permissions from church and/or state, the officiant makes the two people married by saying the relevant phrases. These are performative utterances because the act of saying them changes some fact about the world, unlike a descriptive utterance which simply describes the world around the speaker, or an imperative, which asks for someone to change the world ("Close the window!").

The article also says "shared identity can in some cases be strengthened through shared forms of language use and used for political organizing as Austin describes". I'm not familiar with Austin having ever described shared language use as a tool for political organizing. Though Austin's theory of performative utterances may have had an influence on queer studies, feminist theory and so on, I don't see how it is directly relevant to the use of language to bind together and provide distinctiveness for, say, the gay community. If one thinks about, say, a religious community, there are shared ways of speaking and using language (say, the reading of the Bible or Qu'ran). There are words used that people outside of that community are less likely to use and which are used to bind the community together (certain prayers or hymns or poems). In the broad sense of "performative", a priest reading out the Nicene Creed in Church is performative—it is said to bind the church together and to remind people what it is they (ought to) believe as members. The same is true in a community like the LGBT community: someone standing at an equal marriage rally listing reasons why same-sex marriage ought to be legal is engaging in a performance (trying to convince people, trying to fire people up, trying to give rhetorical ammunition to campaigners when they are discussing it with opponents) but they aren't engaging in a performative utterance in the sense Austin is describing.

I've removed the mentions of Austin. It seems to me that this diff introduced the idea without any extra sourcing from what went before, and then in an attempt at copyediting this diff assumed that the first author was correct. I'm sure there are some people who have built theories on top of Austin's that explain the kind of performance that is being referred to in this context: if we can find sources for those, great, but let's not suggest Austin is behind this use of the hyper-flexible term "performance" and "performative", because it isn't what he meant. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuals?

[edit]

I see mentions in this article about transvestites, transsexuals, gay men, lesbians and heterosexual women. This is all great. But in spite of the fact that bisexuals represent the third letter in the LGBTQ acronym -- a topic that this page claims to deal with -- I see no mention whatsoever of bisexual people. Sweet byrd (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be more information about bisexual people on this page. I added some information from a study which included bisexual women to the "Lesbian speech patterns" section, but I don't know of any studies which look at bisexual men's speech. (At least, not as a separate category from gay men.) Lccady (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn

[edit]

I like how Auburn's experiment results were added to the page. I think it's a great addition contributes to the page. However, I would like to just make a change in wording in the sentence "Auburn Barron-Lutzross performed an experiment in which listeners ranked female speakers on a scale from “least likely to be a lesbian” to “most likely to be a lesbian”. I would suggest that the word "performed" could be changed to something like "conducted" or "ran" because the page already mentions gender performance so I find the use of performed in this sentence a little confusing.

Officecat2013 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got you! Chanalexccha (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! Lccady (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language use as Performance

[edit]

For the new bit that was added, I think it is good, but maybe mention how Gay speech is associated with 'femininity' with the use of parodies. Also for minor grammar edits in the sentence "These particular speech traits maybe be spread," (take out the 'be'). Also for the sentence "why is speech associated that is associated with masculinity constrained?" ( take out "that is associated")

Officecat2013 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Chanalexccha (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

great thank you! Hmfergus90 (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Speech Patterns

[edit]

I am fond of this section, as speech patterns of transgender individuals are examined in studies that are within 10 years. I am also very impressed with discussion of the lexicon of non-binary individuals. Here are a few things that I would like to recommend per section:

  • For non-binary lexicon, I believe the principle of indexical disjuncture should be highlighted because given that non-binary identities have more access to linguistic resources, it is possible that the linguistics resources chosen in the construction of a non-binary identity can create juxtaposition (indexical disjuncture)

Thanks for the comments! I have just tried to mention indexical disjuncture in this section! Chanalexccha (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add another study or two to the mtf/ftm speech patterns sections Rtzentmyer (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit from the Zimman reading about genital language and intersex experiences. Downsoc (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lavender linguistics. 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) 12:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 April 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Lavender linguistics → LGBT linguistics – This article's scope is huge, appearing to cover any linguistics/speechways of LGBT-identifying people, not simply one man's (William Leap's) 1990 perspective that he termed "lavender linguistics". Also LGBT linguistics seems to be a more neutral and quickly identifiable name than the more obscure/esoteric current title. Wolfdog (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Supermos127 grievances

[edit]

@Supermos127: Please list your exact grievances here. Wolfdog (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, I think anytime anything sourced is removed, it should be taken to the talk page. When you are deleting huge chunks of sections, that should be discussed with the community. I also think reconfiguring the page should be discussed by the community. The current configuration has been around for a long time, with a lot of Wikipedia contributors editing it with that configuration. I'm not 100 percent against these changes, but I think the community should discuss these things when it happens. Supermos127 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, I didn't delete any sourced material. I made DELIBERATELY sure that I didn't, unless it was blatantly superfluous (and I still don't think I did in that case anyway). Look at the recent move discussion on Talk:Gay male speech. There's plenty of talk about redoing the article. I decided to take on some of those changes being discussed, so actually your claim that I'm coming out of nowhere with these edits is unfounded. The page has long been a mess and needs a massive cleanup, so your arguments about time-lengths don't seem compelling. Also, I notice you're not listing any exact grievances, as specifically asked. Wolfdog (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed as LGBT linguistics in English

[edit]

Should be renamed to LGBT linguistics in English. Other languages are mentioned in passing. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 00:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, this is the English Wikipedia. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No they do have a point, there is no reason why this article should be 100% focused on English just because this is the English Wikipedia. Now the answer is obviously not to rename the whole article to avoid trying to improve it, but to find proper sources talking about other languages as well.--Megaman en m (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if the editor was stating that parts of the article should be in non-English. Discussing non-English aspects is fine, but the article shouldn't be moved to their proposed name. And as for globalizing? The editor should review what Template:Globalize -- the tag they added -- states. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that parts of the article shouldn't be in English. I just mean that other languages should be added to the article. I dont know the exact tag for that. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 04:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can leave the name of the page as is. As you say, Jeromi, other languages can be added to the article. You certainly can feel free to make such additions. Wolfdog (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources for it first. If none can be found, that tag you added should be removed. Template:Globalize is clear about this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I edited some information for Romance languages in the section about transgender linguistics. --Finelingu (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that the trans section about discursive language should include reference to the avoidance by trans people and trans allies to associate "male" and "female" with references to gender. MickRide808 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

**Original Lesbian Disclaimer**

[edit]

Section "Accents of English" subsection "Lesbians" include a poorly sourced assertion: "[...] lesbians may have more slang than gay males, with one article listing nearly eighty common lesbian slang words for sexual acts and organs." ([17] Ashley, Leonard R.N. (1982). "Dyke Diction: The Language of Lesbians". Maledicta.) —this essay is pure original research, with author making false references [citing popular culture mostly] to support the essay’s claims. and while some statements of the researcher are correct [most of which are well known facts about lesbian mentality, like: "[my partner] and i are 14 years together already"], other ones, and, the most importantly, main subject —lesbian speech —are a pile of spam. the essay is written in extremely poorly style, has constant jumpoffs off of the discussed topic and uses obscure literary and movie sources as references. that might be attributed to kinda speech impairment (dyslexia) or a mental condition (ADHD), and we might say that is totally fine to have another author interested in our [sub]culture ...BUT WHAT is the content? 65% —gays, 15% —obscure popular culture, 10% —psychiatry + sociology surveys ...10% (!!!) lesbian slang and lesbian mentality. i understand Wikipedia CANNOT accept original research made by a lesbian to source its article [WP:PS], but here is **Original Lesbian Disclaimer** —of EIGHT lesbians i ever knew [including myself] NO ONE EVER used slang words listed at aforementioned essay as "genuinely" lesbian! We Just Talk! (indeed the essay’s author acknowledes this fact, but it seemed to be a ray of Sun in a one‑seat gay‑WC, that the essay indeed is) *****not sorry***** best regards from a true [intersex] butch!!! Zoila 92.51.5.212 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lesbian speech

[edit]

Are there any examples of this in film and television? In other words, has it been written into roles? Most recently, I'm thinking of Mindhunter (TV series), which has at least three, maybe more, on-screen lesbians. I didn't notice anything different about their speech, but it's possible I missed it. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_linguistics&oldid=1250210546"