Jump to content

Talk:Outline of LGBTQ topics

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

[edit]

I think we should remove sex, female, male, and maybe even hermaphrodite.

The links to articles those articles are mostly biological related articles not LGBT articles. Not entirely sure if this is a good idea or not to be honest so what do y’all think? CycoMa (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CycoMa, I just reverted your recent edits. I am not sure why you think "biological" and LGBT are mutually exclusive categories. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers I removed your mention of intersex under sex. I mean did you even read the articles that are linked?CycoMa (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously why do y’all keep trying to put intersex under sex. No one thinks intersex is a third sex category, hell not even intersex activists think that.CycoMa (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also intersex is already mentioned in a different section.CycoMa (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I definitely know intersex people who would consider that to be their sex, but "sex" doesn't really belong under "identity", so how about this: Turn "Bodies" (which is a strange section header) into "Sex and physiology" (still as a top-level section), consisting of Male, Female, Intersex, and Endosex. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 03:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin there are tons of sources that say male and female are defined by gamete type tho. This isn’t original research, this is literally what biology sources on articles like sex say.
Most individuals who claim it is aren’t biologists in the slightest. Plus even if there is no consensus I don’t want some person with a condition like that reading this and think they are a thir d category.CycoMa (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. I am also not a fan of "Bodies" as a section name. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this too - "Bodies" is confusing. BobEret (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers Also I never said biology and LGBT are exclusive and don’t align at times.CycoMa (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining! Part of why I asked was to get a better understanding of your position. All I had to go off of at the time was your edit summary, where you said "I’m not sure why articles related to biology are here". To me there is no reason biology articles shouldn't be included. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa If sex is kept in this page, then not including intersex makes no sense, since intersex issues are widely considered to be a part of broader LGBT+ issues. Not sure whether sex and male and female should be included - perhaps it would be better just to include Sex and gender distinction. BobEret (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret I never said intersex shouldn’t be mentioned, I’m saying intersex shouldn’t be under sex. Putting it under sex implies intersex is a third sex category. Claiming or implying it is, is scientific inaccurate and not even activists claim this.CycoMa (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you scroll through the article intersex is already listed.CycoMa (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers what I was trying to say is that the information presented in biology articles and articles related to LGBT don’t always align. Like the article sex says the gametes an produced by an organism define its sex. That’s not really the case for LGBT articles.CycoMa (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa. I'm not sure that "not even activists" claim that intersex isn't a third category - there isn't any consensus. For example, here an activist claims that intersex is a third category[1], but here an organisation claims it isn't: [2]. It makes sense for it to be under sex (and perhaps endosex should be there as well), since it is to do with biological sex specifically. BobEret (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret Did you read how sex defines male and female? Also the article on sex literally says this “ In some gonochoric animal species, a few individuals may have sex characteristics of both sexes, a condition called intersex.”CycoMa (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend y’all read this. It gives a simple definition.CycoMa (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa. The lede in sex says sex can be "typically male or female". But importantly, *I don't think it matters* whether we decide that intersex is a third category or not. The point of an outline (as far as I know) is to provide an overview of the topic. Intersex is obviously part of the theme of LGBT topics generally (it's even in the LGBT series template), and it is definitely to do with sex. Tamzin's suggestion to combine the "Sex" and "Bodies" categories would also solve this problem: including endosex and intersex will make it less likely that anyone thinks we are taking a stand either way. To be clear: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you - I'm saying that no matter whether intersex is a distinct category, it is a topic related to sex and LGBT issues, so it should be in the outline. BobEret (he/him) (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret read all the way down in sex, it states
” Approximately 95% of animal species are dioecious (also referred as gonochorism).[55] In gonochoric species, individuals are either male or female throughout their lives.[56][42]”
Just read the article on gonochorism it explains what gonochorism means.
You keep arguing that bodies is problematic yet y’all keep arguing to fix the issue is by combining it with sex. Doing that doesn’t fix the issue in the slightest, it brings more confusion and can cause people to be mislead.CycoMa (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly feel like I’m repeating myself here nonstop.CycoMa (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa. I don't want to get off track. The way I see it here, there are three distinct questions. 1: Should intersex be in the outline at all? 2: Should intesex be in the sex section? 3: Should we rename the Bodies section, or combine it? I think the consensus seems to be that intersex should be in here somewhere. For question 2, I want to stress that I am not taking a position on whether intersex is a sex. I'll admit that I'm a new user, so I don't have a full understanding of all the wiki policies, but I've had a look at WP:OUTLINE. It says: "Where the subtopics are placed in the taxonomy shows how they relate to the other topics and to the overall subject." So the question is, where in the taxonomy of LGBT issues does "intersex" go? I'm suggesting that intersex is a sub-category of **topics relating to the topic of sex**, which is the information an outline provides. By means of comparison, in Outline of the United States, "Crime in the United States" is placed within the "Law" category. Crime is obviously not a type of law, and the article talks about more than just the legal aspects of crime, because crime is a **topic** relating to the **topic** of law. In the same way, intersex is a topic relating to the overall topic of sex. BobEret (he/him) (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Absolutely yes to 1 and 2, for mainly the reasons you stated. I would be fine with keeping the category at Sex with Male, Female, Intersex, and Endosex included. The implication is not that all four are distinct sexes, but that all four are terms that are best understood in the context of a broader conversation about sex. I am honestly neutral on the inclusion of "...and physiology" in the section name. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret all I am saying is that putting it under sex doesn’t really help. I can understand the issue of being a new user, honest to god Wikipedia has many rules, at times I have a hard time understanding them all.
But, here on Wikipedia we present mainstream views from various scholars. And it is very clear by looking at articles like sex and gonochorism there is only two sexes in most animal species (including humans). That’s not original research, the article on sex cites a source written by four Japanese biologists from 2018, that source says all mammals are gonochoric. Gonochorism by its definition literally means a species has either males or females.CycoMa (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa. I think we're having slightly different conversations. I am not disagreeing with you on the biology (and by no means am I claiming to know better than the sex article). I am making a suggestion about the information structure in this outline. Intersex and endosex seem to me to be topics that are related to sex. Intersex, for example, is mentioned in the sex article: "In some gonochoric animal species, a few individuals may have sex characteristics of both sexes, a condition called intersex" Do you agree that they are topics that are related to sex? If you don't agree, it would really help me if you could explain why you don't think intersex and endosex are related to the topic of sex? BobEret (he/him) (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BobEret gonochorism literally means. “gonochorism is a sexual system where there are only two sexes and each individual organism is either male or female.[1][2]”. Also by the way I’m the one who written “In some gonochoric animal species, a few individuals may have sex characteristics of both sexes, a condition called intersex"

That’s what I am saying.CycoMa (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CycoMa. I am agreeing with you that this article is not the place for Wikipedia to take a decision either way. I am also not taking a position either way. I am saying that it doesn't matter whether intersex is a category of sex, or a health condition, or anything else. I am suggesting that because in an outline, related topics are grouped together, we should group the topic of intersex within the wider topic of sex, since it is undoubtedly related to sex. Even in the quote that you wrote, "a few individuals may have sex characteristics of both sexes, a condition called intersex", it is clear that intersex, as a theme, is within the wider theme of sex - including sexual categories, conditions relating to sex, and so on. Do you agree that intersex is related to the topic of sex? If you don't, why not? To be clear, this is not a question about the status of intersex, it is a question about the taxonomy of this issue within the wider structure of LGBT issues. BobEret (he/him) (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BobEret okay fine, but at least put Endosex, Intersex, male, and female all under sex to avoid people having confusion.CycoMa (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Anti‑LGBT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § Anti‑LGBT until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]