Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gay flag.svg WikiProject LGBT studies:
Ambox important.svg New articles with LGBT keywords (click "show" to view)
This list, produced by a bot, identified the following articles as possibly being within the scope of this project. Please add {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} to appropriate articles. The raw list is here and articles are removed after a week whether tagged or not.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2017-10-23 19:40 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject
LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Recognized content
Portals we help maintain
Portal LGBT.svg LGBT portal
Portal Transgender.svg Transgender portal
edit · changes

Shooting of Scout Schultz (major issue with he/they)[edit]

Hi. Could someone please expand Shooting of Scout Schultz? I created a stub and Shooting of Trayvon Martin could be a good example. I have to go to work, so I'd appreciate any expansion while I'm offline. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded it but an editor keeps reverting it to "he" instead of "they." I left a note on the talkpage and don't want to edit-war over this. Can someone else please take care of this?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The disruptive editor has been blocked. That was not mere edit warring, that editor was making blatant transphobic remarks and personal attacks both against the deceased subject and other editors. I nearly always leave a warning template, including a discretionary sanctions notice, in such cases. The editors' inflammatory remarks on the article talk page should probably be hatted or removed. Funcrunch (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I believe I was insulted on the talkpage. So instead of arguing with him, I decided to create completely different articles about historic buildings...This is my strategy to deal with hostile editors. But I'm glad he won't harass us any more.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments like that editors' create a hostile environment for trans and non-binary editors and readers in my opinion, hence I template and report. Funcrunch (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right. I ignore them because I try to avoid boomerangs as much as possible. But I'd like to see that insult levelled at me in a foreign language deleted from the talkpage. Anyway, feel free to expand the article if you can find the time! Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that they were intersex and the president of an LGBT organization on campus was removed from the lede. I left a note on the talkpage--can someone please chip in?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

John Campbell[edit]

It seems like two or more editors have seen fit to decide John Campbell's gender for her at and continue to use non-binary pronouns for her despite her stated wishes. Given the risk of harm to trans individuals who are misgendered, I really think it would be better to err on the side of caution and use her more recent stated pronouns. At the current rate, the only way to have this fixed would be for her to appear in the limelight again, which she has stated she doesn't want to do.

Is there any chance we could get some trans people involved in this, because so far I have just been talked over by editors who don't seem to see why it would be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What you have failed to do thus far is provide a reliable source that unequivocally indicates Campbell's pronoun preference. At the moment, the singular "they" is used in the article. That shouldn't misgender anyone because it is genderless. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The other thing you're missing, for the record, is that singular they is not used only to denote people who specifically identify as non-binary — it is also quite regularly used to denote people who have a conventional binary gender identity which is merely undetermined or unknown. So "they" pronouns are not exactly out of bounds in this case. And at any rate, as Rivertorch has already noted, there has yet to be a reliable source presented for Campbell's gender identity or pronoun preferences at all — if you've got one, then by all means bring it on, but nobody's shown one yet as of today. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Marriage equality[edit]

More eyes may be helpful at Same-sex marriage regarding use of the phrase "marriage equality" in the lede. See Talk:Same-sex_marriage#Marriage_equality. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda[edit]

More eyes may be helpful at Homosexual agenda to determine the suitability of certain content. Please see Talk:Homosexual_agenda#Alleged_planning_documents_and_meeting. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I looked. The discussion does not seem productive, so would rather not make comments there. In terms of process, I would simply start listing sources and evidence, then try to get agreement that they are reliable sources and if that can be done, then suggest some words for the article. Once upon a time I did investigate sources for Gay agenda, but I'm not going back down that old rabbit hole, sorry. -- (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of LGBT content[edit]

In the last few days I noticed an unreasonable removal of LGBT content from articles I have on my watch list. Both by ip addresses. In the first case [1] Katharine Lee Bates the removal of the refefence to Katharine Coman was explained witb "this is inappropriate, unproven, and unnecessary information. Please stop pushing your agenda on our children. Thank you." ; the second [2] on Dorothy Caruso removed reference to Margaret Anderson was not explained. Unfortunately Im watchlisting only article Im touching Im wondering if this is happening on a frequent basis? ETA: I forgot to add that both sentences were sourced. Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You might consider warning the IP that used no edit summary. At the moment, there's nothing else to be done about the other one: they gave a bogus reason for removing content which you've restored. If your question is, "Do homophobic people often edit Wikipedia", the answer is clear enough. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Ally Steinfeld[edit]

Should Murder of Ally Steinfeld be created?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably, eventually. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Logical Family: A Memoir[edit]

Feel free to expand Logical Family: A Memoir.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Category names for trans people[edit]

Hope this is the right place.

You can see, here, the problematic terms under which "transgender and transsexual people" came about as the major category back in 2004.

No more than "Gay writers" should be "Gay, homosexual and homophilic writers", "Transgender and transsexual artists" should not be the name of a category for artists who are trans. Understanding that some people do still use the identifier "transsexual", it nevertheless falls under the main trans umbrella of identities. Indeed, "Transgender and transsexual artists" is under a category called "Transgender".

I would suggest "trans people" as a second possibility, but Wikipedia:Category names#Categorization of people advises against abbreviations. The category seems to have been given this name as it started out from "Transsexuals" (literally) in 2004; it should simply be moved to, "Transgender people".

Additionally, why is the category Cross-dressers under "Transgender and transsexual people"? Drag queens and kings, nor cross-dressers, unless they are also trans, are not generally trans people. And it's really not okay to assert that those two things are at all the same thing.
× SOTO (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I know there are some transssexual folks, mostly older people, who vehemently object to being labeled as transgender. However they are likely a small minority. I don't have the time to dig up sources at the moment. Regardless, I have no serious objection to the category being renamed to Category:Transgender people. (A formal move discussion should take place at WP:Categories for discussion, however.) Funcrunch (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. If someone more familiar with WP reasoning, who understands why this needs changing, could write something up on that page, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I can certainly do it myself if this gets no attention.
If anyone from within the community could help/support with the right arguments, I would, again, be most grateful. :)
× SOTO (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
this is an extract from "what does queer means anyway" that i think is a very illuminating book:
Lesbian. A lesbian is a female (or someone who identifies as a female) who is only sexually attracted to other females.
Gay. A gay person is a male (or someone who identifies as male) who is only sexually attracted to other males. Gay can also refer to a female who is attracted to other females but who would prefer to be described this way rather than as a lesbian. This word can often be used interchangeably with the word Homosexual.
Bisexual. This refers to a person who has the potential to be sexually attracted to more than one gender.
Transgender. A transgender person is someone whose gender identity does not match their biological sex. It refers to someone who feels they are living in a body that does not match their inner gender identity, whether or not they plan to surgically transition. Some may assume that T in LGBTQA+ stands for Transsexual, but that term is used with decreasing frequency and is considered offensive. Still others may think that this T has something to do with Transvestitism, but that is not always true.
Queer. In the past this word was used derisively for people of a non-heterosexual or non-cisgendered identity. When the gay rights movement gained strength in the 1990s and early 2000’s the younger generation of activists popularized the word being used positively. It has now been largely appropriated by people who feel their sexual and/ or gender identify is fluid and either shifts from time to time or is simply inadequately described by other definitions.
Intersex. An intersex person has unique anatomical or chromosomal structures, which means they physically do not fit into either a “fully male” or “fully female” identity. Intersexuality can be very subtle, or very obvious, depending on the characteristics of the individual’s biology.
Asexual. An asexual person may be of any physical or gender identity but does not experience sexual attraction.
a “+” sign is included in the acronym to indicate that its current form is not necessarily all-inclusive. This sign’s inclusion in the acronym can be read as an encouragement for those who do not find themselves fitting into any of the other groups, yet also do not identify as heterosexual or cisgendered, to feel supported in their exploration." Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Elisa.rolle: Would you mind posting a link to this source? Some of this language, like "cisgendered" and "biological sex", is dated or inaccurate ("cisgender" and "sex assigned at birth" are now preferred). Also seems unnecessary to add "or someone who identifies as fe/male" to the definitions of lesbian and gay, which could imply that trans women and men are not actually who they say they are. It is true that many consider the term "transsexual" to be offensive though. Funcrunch (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The source is at the beginning is a 2016 book, "What Does Queer Mean Anyway?: The Quick and Dirty Guide to Lgbtqia+ Vocabulary" by Chris Bartlett. I think the "or someone who identifies as fe/male" is to be inclusive not exclusive... but as stated above, these are not my words, and I do not want at all to imply they are mine. I do not have the necessary expertize to dare to write something. I thought indeed it was interesting they were confirming that the term "transsexual" is slowly taking an offensive tone and should be avoided. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
From the blurb on the book page it appears that the author is a straight cisgender man who is explaining to other straight cis people how to refer to people in the LGBT+ community. This is not necessarily bad or wrong - the LGBT+ community needs allies - but I feel it is more respectful and accurate to prioritize resources produced by people from within the community, like the GLAAD list I posted below. (I know people will cry "advocacy" at me for saying this; so be it.) Funcrunch (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
For a reference on the use of "transsexual" and other terms, here is the glossary of transgender terms from the GLAAD Media Reference Guide. Funcrunch (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue isn't that "transsexual" was always considered a pejorative term; it's that just like terms for many other group of people, what's considered appropriate terminology has evolved in the intervening decade. In 2004, "best practice" — not just on Wikipedia, but in the world at large — was that "transsexual" was the standard and correct term for a person who had actually transitioned from their assigned-at-birth gender to their identifying gender, while "transgender" was a more general umbrella term for all forms of gender-variant behaviour inclusive of cis people cross-dressing for fun or profit. Even trans people themselves used the words that way at the time. Since then, the thinking on the terms has evolved — for much the same reason that the gay and lesbian communities started insisting on "gay" and "lesbian" instead of "homosexual", usage has since shifted toward "transgender" and away from "transsexual". (And for the record, WikiProject Canada has also been dealing with the fact that within the same time frame preferred usage on First Nations and Inuit topics has shifted away from "aboriginal" and toward "indigenous" — so WPCanada is also having to undertake a similar project of changing and reorganizing established content to accommodate a change in preferred terminology. Which, if nothing else, proves that these things happen sometimes.)
But again, it's not that Wikipedia deliberately used a term that was considered offensive in 2004; we used a term that was considered the norm in 2004 and then the preferred terminology evolved. I agree that we're now in a place where we should strongly reconsider the names of trans-related categories, and reorganize them in a manner that's more reflective of 2017 best practice. But I'm not on board with suggestions that any of this was improper at the time it was done — the issue is that nobody actually tackled reorganizing or renaming the affected categories to keep up with an evolution in preferred usage, not that any of it was in any way out of line with what the preferred usage was at the time they were created. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Feedback needed on project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Friends! Here is the current draft of my project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia. I value your input and would greatly appreciate your feedback. Please share it on the project proposal discussion page. Thank you in advance! Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Media portrayal of lesbianism[edit]

I came across Media portrayal of lesbianism on a cleanup category, and it definitely needs cleanup. I'm not sure what should be done with this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gay tortoise[edit]

Jonathan (tortoise).Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest
Robinson projection SW.jpg

Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest

Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)